Calimesa City Council
August 19, 2024

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-7 Calimesa Housing Element Update
• Open Space Residential (0 - 1 dwelling units per ten acres) – Open Space Residential preserves open space while allowing for limited detached single-family development on parcels of 10 acres or greater. Public lands, flood control channels, groundwater percolation basins, agricultural uses, and recreational facilities such as parks, trails, riding schools, stables and facilities, wildlife preserves, archery ranges, golf courses, driving ranges, country clubs, and similar uses are permitted in this category. Strict controls on grading for roads and building pads are required to protect the visual and environmental resources in these areas.

These categories accommodate development of a wide range of housing types in Calimesa. Furthermore, maintaining the existing residential categories is important for ensuring compatibility between the new and existing housing.

Overlay Districts
An overlay district is a regulatory tool where the City creates and place a special zoning district over an existing or “base” zone. The overlay zone may identify special provisions in addition to or instead of the provisions of the underlying zone. The City uses overlay zones for a variety of purposes, including but not limited to increasing environmental resource protection, incentivizing particular development types in an area, or to implement additional safety related standards for development. The section below summarizes the overlay zones effective in the City of Calimesa.

Park Overlay
The Park Overlay (P) is established to allow for designated areas to be developed with a park or recreation facility. This designation does not call for the entire site/parcel to be dedicated as a park. Rather a portion shall be reserved for a park facility when the parcel is developed. The actual size and location of the park shall be determined during project planning and development review. Any zone may be subject to the Park Overlay.

Hillside Overlay
The Hillside Overlay (H) district is intended to be applied to development within Hillside Development District and shall be subject to the Hillside Development Ordinance of the City and the following standards:
• Field surveys and investigations must be made to identify significant natural resources that may be present on site. Developments should be designed to preserve these resources to the maximum extent feasible. Development should also be sensitive to significant natural resources located in nearby areas.
• Geologic studies shall be conducted in areas where landslide, erosion, liquefaction, or other geologic and seismic hazards may be present. Development shall be limited in areas with geologic and seismic hazards that cannot be eliminated by constructio n methods. • Developments shall be designed to reduce hazards associated with wildfire and brush fires through the provision of setbacks, access roadways, fire-resistant construction, etc. Brush control programs for fire prevention should be sensitive to natural vegetation and special-status animals.
• Responsible and trustee agencies and local environmental groups should be consulted to ensure the environmental review is thorough, prior to development approval. • Off-road vehicle use, which may destroy existing resources, shall be limited on the hillsides.

In general, the topography of hillsides creates a potential financial constraint to the development of housing at affordable levels. Hills, canyons, and sloped terrain increase the cost of housing, especially m oderate and low-income housing, due the additional measures required to safely develop housing in that environment.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-8 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Above moderate-income candidate sites have been allocated within the Hillside Overlay zones. Any development would be subject to the requirements above, but the City does not anticipate that the Hillside Overlay would prevent development of the sites allocated and the overlay zone would not pose a constraint to the development of housing at the above moderate-income level.

It is standard practice for the City to require geotechnical reports for any hillside developments regardless of the target income category. Geotechnical reports are required to protect Calimesa residents and property. Geotechnical reports are a small cost relative to overall development costs. It is estimated that geotechnical reports are less than one half (0.5) of a percent of overall development costs. Based on this cost, the City has determined that although the overlay requirements increase the cost of development, it is not a constraint to the development of housing at the above moderate-income level. Additionally, the City believes that overlay requirements are necessary to ensure the safety of residents and property.

Earthquake Fault Overlay
The Earthquake Fault Overlay (E) is intended to be applied to earthquake hazard zones along the Banning and Cherry Valley faults, as well as to areas within 150 feet of other local faults and photo lineament in Calimesa. The Earthquake Fault Overlay may be applied to any zone. The following apply in the Earthquake Fault Overlay:
• Proposed residential projects, critical facilities (fire and police stations, hospitals, emergency centers and shelters), schools, and other uses with dependent populations shall be required to submit a geologic report that evaluates the potential for surface rupture and o ther seismic hazards on site.
• Development shall be allowed only when the geologic report shows that no surface rupture or extreme seismic hazard exists, as approved by the county and state geologists.

If an active fault is determined on site, setbacks and other seismic design considerations shall be required based on the recommendations of the geologic report.

Lower income candidate sites have been allocated within existing Earthquake Fault Overlay zones. Any development would be subject to the requirements above, but the City does not anticipate that the Earthquake Fault Overlay would prevent development of the sites allocated and the overlay zone would not pose a constraint to the development of housing at any income level.

It is standard practice for the City to require geotechnical reports on large or dense developments regardless of the target income category. Geotechnical reports are required to protect Calimesa residents and property. Geotechnical reports are a small cost relative to overall development costs. It is estimated that geotechnical reports are less than one half (0.5) of a percent of overall development costs. Based on this cost, the City has determined that although the overlay requirements increase the cost of development, it is not a constraint to the development of housing at any income level. Additionally, the City believes that overlay requirements are necessary to ensure the safety of residents and property .

2. Residential Development Standards
The City of Calimesa Municipal Code establishes residential districts to provide a range of housing intensities for people of different income levels and appropriate standards. These standards are intended to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the City. The residential design guidelines and development standards are intended to:
• Ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-9 Calimesa Housing Element Update
• Protect residential uses from excessive noise, illumination, unsightliness, odor, smoke, and other objectionable influences.
• Facilitate the provision of utility services and other public facilities commensurate with the anticipated increase in population, dwelling unit densities, and service requirements. • Facilitate the establishment and operation of other small uses appropriate for placement in a residential setting.

The Municipal Code establishes the following seven residential districts:
• O-S-R (Open Space Residential) - The zone is intended to preserve open space while allowing for limited detached single-family development. The terrain in this zone is unsuitable for a higher density due to steep slopes limiting sound pad areas on which to build. The minimum lot size in this zone is 10 acres.
• R-E (Residential Estates) - The zone is intended to provide for the development of singlefamily detached homes, and buildings and structures related to agriculture, farm use, animal keeping, and equestrian uses. The minimum lot size in this zone is five acres. • R-R (Residential Rural) - The zone is intended to provide for the development of single-family detached dwellings and related agricultural uses on rural-sized lots and for such accessory uses as are related, incidental, and not detrimental to the rural residential environment. No more than two single-family dwellings per gross acre are permitted. The minimum lot size for this zone is 20,000 square feet.
• R-L (Residential Low) - The zone is intended to provide for and protect the atmosphere and lifestyle associated with detached, single-family residential neighborhoods. No more than four dwellings per gross acre are permitted. The minimum lot size for this zone is 7,200 square feet. • R-L-M (Residential Low Medium) - The zone is intended to provide for the development of small-lot single-family detached dwellings. No more than seven dwellings per gross acre are permitted. The minimum lot size for this zone is 6,000 square feet. • R-M (Residential Medium) - The zone is intended to provide for the development of higherdensity housing types. Included housing types are single-family detached, single-family attached, and multifamily homes such as duplexes, condominiums, townhouses, apartments, and senior citizen housing developments. This zone is situated in areas served adequately by infrastructure, allowing a maximum of 14 dwellings per gross acre. The minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet.
• R-H (Residential High) - The zone is intended to provide housing opportunities for people of low and moderate incomes in the form of attached or apartment-like living accommodations.

The minimum lot area is 6,000 square feet, with a maximum of 20 dwelling units per gross acre.

Typically, the City of Calimesa, does not receive requests to develop housing at densities less than permitted in each of the specified zones above, nor densities less than those assumed in the candidate sites inventory. The City has received requests to develop at densities less than those assumed in inventory in the 5th Cycle but none of the requests were realized. Below are a list of developments that were approved and permitted during the 5th Cycle.

The City established development standards to regulate development throughout the City through its Municipal Code. The development standards include minimum requirements for lot size, widths, depths, and setbacks as well as maximum construction standards for height, lot coverage, and density. Table 3-2 below provides the development standards applicable to each zoning district in Calimesa that permits residential development.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-10 Calimesa Housing Element Update
The typical timeframe for the development review and permit processing of one single-family infill unit on an existing lot takes one (1) to three (3) months and a single-family subdivision the development review and permit processing takes about nine (9) to 12 months. The typical timeframe for the development review and permit processing of a multi-family housing development takes closer to 12 months.

Table 3-2: Residential Development Standards in Calimesa District
Dimensions Min. Yard Setbacks (ft) Construction Standards Min. Lot
Size (sf)
Min. Lot
Width
(ft)a
Min. Lot
Depth (ft) Fronte Sidee Reare Max. Height
Max. Lot
Coverage
Maximum
density
(DUs per
gross
acre)
O-S-R 435,600 200 150 35 b 25 32’ – 2
stories N/R 0.1
R-E 217,800 100 120 35 b 25 32’ – 2
stories1 N/R 0.2
R-R 20,000 100 120 30 b 25 32’ – 2
stories N/R 2
R-L 7,200 70 100 20 b 10 32’ – 2
stories N/R 4
R-L-M 6,000 60 100 20 b 10 40’ – 3
stories N/R 7
R-M 6,000 60 100 20 c d
40’ – 3
stories 60% 14
R-H 6,000 60 100 20 c d
40’ – 3
stories 60% 20
(*) Feet or Stories whichever is less N/R = No Requirement Notes:
a. Flag lots (lots with less than the required lot width minimum) are prohibited. Cul-de-sac lots shall have a minimum width of 35 feet.
b. Side Yard Setbacks (O-S-R, R-E, R-R, R-L, and R-L-M Districts).

1. The minimum combined side yard setback shall be 17 feet with a minimum side yard setback of five feet except on the side of the lot closest to the driveway it shall be 12 feet. The 12-foot side yard shall be maintained exclusive of any structural or other physical encroachments (HVAC units, utility meters, etc.) other than eave overhangs or other improvements which do not project more than 24 inches into the side yard. The 12-foot side yard may be reduced behind the rear of the main building line to not less than five feet for open patios and other similar open structures, swimming pools, and pool equipment.

2. Corner lots shall maintain a minimum combined setback of 20 feet with a minimum setback of five feet except on the street side where a minimum of 15 feet shall be maintained from the property line (edge of right-of-way) for all structures.

3. Side Yard Exceptions. Each lot with an existing nonconforming dwelling unit which otherwise meets current building code and current zoning requirements may have additions placed at existing building setbacks with not less than five -foot side yards, except where the 12-foot side yard can be maintained for any additions, or where the lot has legal access onto a dedicated alley.
c. Side Yard Setbacks (R-M and R-H Districts).

1. One-story buildings: five feet.

2. Two-story buildings: five feet for the first story; 10 feet for the second story.

3. For buildings having more than two stories: five feet for the first story; 10 feet for the second story; and an additional five feet for each story thereafter.
d. Rear Yard Setbacks (RM and RH Districts).

1. One- and two-story buildings: 10 feet.

2. For buildings having more than two stories: 10 feet for the first and second stories; and an additional five feet for e ach story thereafter.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-11 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Yard Requirements
A yard is defined by the Municipal Code as an open space on a lot unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground above. Yard requirements are implemented through setbacks to provide for light, air, privacy and aesthetic improvements. The Municipal Code establishes minimum front, side, and rear setbacks for each of zoning district that allow residential development; setbacks are provided in Table 3-2 above.

Lot Coverage and FAR
The maximum lot coverage is 60 percent in R-M and R-H zones.

Floor area ratio (FAR) is defined by the City of Calimesa’s Municipal Code as the numerical value obtained by dividing the aboveground gross floor area of a building or buildings located on a lot or parcel of land by the total area of such lot or parcel of land. The City does not set FAR for standalone residential structures.

FAR only affect residential in mixed use zones in the City. Including the Downtown Village Commercial zone, which permits a maximum residential of 30 du/ac alongside an FAR of one (1).

Maximum Building Height
The maximum building height is 32 feet or 2 stories for OSR, RE, RR, and RL residential zones. Additionally, in the RLM, RM, and RH residential zones, maximum building height is increased to 40 feet or 3 stories.

Setting limits to the height of buildings avoids bulking and potential nuisances on neighboring properties – relating to privacy and/or sunlight and shade. This requirement also ensures a compatibility and similar aesthetic amongst uses, but in certain conditions may cause a constraint to the development of housing – particularly as it relates to multi-family housing developments.

Parking Standards
Adequate off-street parking must be provided to meet the parking need of uses located within the City. This is maintained through the establishment of parking requirements, which differ depending on the land use, housing type, and number of bedrooms. Table 3-3 provides the parking requirements specific to the City of Calimesa.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-12 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-3: Parking Requirements for Residential Uses
Residential Uses Number of Required Spaces
Single-family
Dwelling 2 covered spaces within an enclosed garage.

Apartments
Studio/1 Bedroom 1 covered space per unit plus 1 uncovered guest space for each 5 units.
2, 3, or more
bedrooms
2 covered spaces per unit plus 1 uncovered guest space for each 5 units.

Single-room
Occupancy Housing
1 covered space per unit plus 1 uncovered guest space for each 5 units.

Condominiums and
Townhomes
Studio/1 Bedroom 1 covered space within an enclosed garage plus 1 uncovered space for each 5 units.
2, 3, or more
bedrooms
2 covered spaces within an enclosed garage plus 1 uncovered space for each 5 units.

Bed and breakfast
inns
1 space for each guest room and each employee in addition to the required spaces serving the resident owner
Large Family Day
Care Facilities
All on-site parking shall comply with the provisions of the City of Calimesa’s Municipal Code Chapter 18.45, Off-Street Parking.

Accessory Dwelling
Units
In addition to the required parking for the primary unit, 1 off -street parking space shall be provided on the same lot that the accessory dwelling unit is located.1 Off-street parking shall be permitted in front, side, and rear yard setback areas or through tandem parking. The parking does not need to be covered or in an enclosed garage.

Senior
Citizen/Congregate
Care Housing
Parking facilities shall be provided with handicapped access pursuant to the City of Calimesa’s municipal code Chapter 18.45.070, Handicap parking requirements. Off -street parking shall be provided.2
Mobile home and
Manufactured
housing
Off street parking
NOTE: The Calimesa Municipal Code prohibits the establishment of new mobile home parks and mobile homes and manufactured housing is treated like a single-family dwelling unit making the parking standards for mobile homes and manufactured housing the same as the above single-family dwelling units requirements.

Notes:

1. An off-street parking space shall not be required if:
• The ADU is located within one-half mile, measured in walking distance, of public transit, including bus stops; • The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district; • The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure; • When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU; or • When there is a designated parking space for a care share vehicle located within 1 block of the ADU.

2. Off street parking shall be provided in the following manner:
• 1 covered parking space for each dwelling unit for the exclusive use of the senior citizen residents plus one space for every 5 units for guest parking.
• 3 parking spaces for every 4 dwelling units for employee and guest use for congregate care residences. • All off-street parking shall be located within 150 feet of the front door of the main entrance. • Adequate and suitably striped paved areas for shuttle parking. Shaded waiting areas shall be provided adjacent to shuttle stops.
• Design standards relating to handicapped parking, access, surfacing, stripping, lighting, landscaping, shading, dimensional requirements, etc., shall be consistent with the standards outline in the City of Calimesa’s Municipal Code Chapter 18.45, Off-Street Parking.
• Senior citizen/congregate care parking requirements may be adjusted on an individual project basis, subject to a parking study based on project location and proximity to services for senior citizens, including but not limited to medical offices, shopping areas, mass transit, etc.

Source: City of Calimesa, Municipal Code, accessed October 11, 2021.

The City’s parking requirements vary depending on land use and intensity. The minimum parking requirements for a 20-unit, one-acre projects consisting of 10 one-bedroom units and 10 two-bedroom units, in the R-H zoning district, is a total of 34 parking spaces. This includes 30 covered spaces and 4 guest

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-13 Calimesa Housing Element Update
parking spaces. Assuming Calimesa’s residential parking standard of 10-foot by 20-foot parking spaces, parking requirements total about 6,800square feet. Based on the market analysis done above, the average cost of land is about $5.40 per square foot. A parking lot for a one-acre development, at maximum density in the R-H zone, would cost around $36,720 for just the land. Construction costs for covered parking, as is required by the City’s Municipal Code, can run higher.

The cost of parking based in the City’s requirements for multifamily housing can be considered a constraint to the development of housing, however, the developers may receive concession or incentives in form of parking reduction for the development of housing affordable to low- and very low-income households as provided in the State Density Bonus Law section below (Section 3.B.9).

3. Variety of Housing Types Permitted
California Housing Element Law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adeq uate sites to be made through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels. Housing types include single-family homes, multi-family housing, accessory dwelling units, factory-built homes, mobile-homes, employee and agricultural work housing, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy (SROs), and housing for persons with disabilities. Table 3-4 below summarizes the City’s zoning provisions for various types of housing.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-14 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-4: Various Land Use Types Permitted in Residential Districts in Calimesa Land Use
Residential Districts Commercial Districts Mixed Use District Open
Space
District
Downtown
Business District
O-SRRE

R-R R-L
R-LM

R-M R-H C-N C-C C-R
OPRMUCMUOMU O-SDV
C
DN
C
DV
S
Accessory dwelling
unite P P P P P P P -- -- -- -- P P P -- -- -- --
Apartments/flats -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P X X -- P X X Bed and breakfast
inna C C C C C C C -- -- -- -- C C C -- -- -- --
Boarding house X X X X X X C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Community care
facility (6 or fewer
persons)

P P P P P P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Community care
facility (7 or more
persons)

X X X X X C C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Convalescent care
facility X X X X X C C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Day care facility (6
or fewer children) P P P P P P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Day care facility (7
or more children)b P P P P P P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Guest housec P P P P P P P -- -- -- -- P X X -- -- -- -- Junior accessory
dwelling unitn P P P P P P P -- -- -- -- P X X -- -- -- -- Live-work units -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P P P -- P X X Manufactured
housing P P P P P P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mobile home park X X X X X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-15 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-4: Various Land Use Types Permitted in Residential Districts in Calimesa Land Use
Residential Districts Commercial Districts Mixed Use District Open
Space
District
Downtown
Business District
O-SRRE

R-R R-L
R-LM

R-M R-H C-N C-C C-R
OPRMUCMUOMU O-SDV
C
DN
C
DV
S
Multifamily
dwellingsd X X X X X P P -- -- -- -- P P P -- -- -- --
Senior congregate
care housing X X X X X C C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Single-family
attachedd X X X X X P P -- -- -- -- P C C -- -- -- --
Single-family
detachedd P P P P P P P -- -- -- -- P C C P -- -- --
Townhomes
attached -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P C C -- P X X Emergency shelteri-- -- -- -- -- -- -- X P X X -- -- -- -- X X X Mixed usei-- -- -- -- -- -- -- X C X X -- -- -- -- C X X Single room
occupancy housing -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X P P X -- -- -- -- X X X Notes:

P = Permitted use.

C = Subject to a conditional use permit.

X = Prohibited.
(--) = Not listed.
a - Subject to the provisions of Calimesa’s Municipal Code Chapter 18.20.050(C), Bed and Breakfast Inns. b - Subject to the provisions of Calimesa’s Municipal Code Chapter 18.20.050(D), Large Family Day Care Facility Standards. c - Subject to the provisions of Calimesa’s Municipal Code Chapter 18.20.050(F), Guest House Standards. d - In all cases, supportive housing and transitional housing are and shall be treated as residential uses, subject only to the p ermitting requirements that apply to residential uses of the same housing type location in the same zone. e - Subject to the provisions of Calimesa’s Municipal Code Chapter 18.20.050(L), Accessory Dwelling Units in Residential Zones. i – Subject to the provisions of Calimesa’s Municipal Code Chapter 18.25.050(H), Emergency Shelters. n - Subject to the provisions of Calimesa’s Municipal Code Chapter 18.20.050(O), Junior Accessory Dwelling Units in Residential Zones.

Source: City of Calimesa, Municipal Code, accessed September 2021.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-16 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Single-family
A single-family dwelling is defined by the Calimesa Municipal Code as a detached building designed or used exclusively for the occupancy by one family and having a kitchen facility for only one family. Single family detached dwelling is defined as a building containing one dwelling unit. Single family dwelling units are permitted in all residential units.

Additionally, a single-family attached dwelling is defined by the Calimesa Municipal Code as a duplex, triplex, or fourplex. Single-family attached dwelling units are permitted in R-M and R-H zones.

Multifamily
Multifamily dwelling is defined by the Calimesa Municipal Code as a building containing two or more dwelling units. This designation may include duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes (individual structures containing three, and four housing units, respectively), apartments (five or more units under one ownership in a single structure), townhouse development (three or more attached single-family dwellings where no unit is located over another unit), senior citizen multi-family housing; single-and common ownership, attached unit projects (such as condominiums). Multifamily dwelling units are permitted in the R-M and RH zones.

Accessory Dwelling Unit
An accessory dwelling unit is defined by the City of Calimesa’s Municipal Code as an attached or detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one o r more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated. Accessory dwelling units are permitted in all residential zones.

An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
• An efficiency unit, as defined by the Health and Safety Code • A manufactured home, as defined by the Health and Safety Code A ministerial review is provided for all ADUs.

In December of 2018, Calimesa’s City Council adopted Resolution 2018-73 temporarily exempting all ADUs from payment of City established development impact fees unless and until a development impact fees nexus study is adopted that specifically addresses ADUs. The Calimesa Municipal Code does not includ e the adopted Resolution. A program is included in Section 4: Housing Plan to ensure the City’s Municipal Code is updated to incorporate the adoption of Resolution 2018-73.

The ADU should provide one off-street parking space in addition to that required for the main dwelling unit unless the ADU meets any of the six conditions below:
• The ADU is located within one-half mile, measured in walking distance, of public transit, including bus stops;
• The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district; • The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure;
• When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU; or • When there is a designated parking space for a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-17 Calimesa Housing Element Update
The design standards for attached and detached ADUs shall meet the setback and square footage provisions consistent with Government Code 65852.2. If the ADU is proposed within the parameters of an existing or proposed single-family dwelling or an existing accessory structure, any proposed expansion shall be consistent with Government Code 65852.2. All ADUs are required to meet fire and safety standards per Government Code 65852.2. Additionally, the architecture standards for ADUs at single-family and multifamily locations shall incorporate the same features as the main dwelling unit, existing building, or nearest building regarding their exterior roofing, trim, walls, windows, and color pallet. All restroom and kitchen facilities as well as access for ADUs shall be provided consistent Government Code 65852.2.

Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
The City of Calimesa’s Municipal Code defines a junior accessory dwelling unit as a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and entirely contained within a single-family residence. A junior accessory dwelling unit includes cooking and food storage areas and may include separate sanitation facilities or may share facilities with the existing structure. A junior accessory dwelling unit also includes efficiency units as defined by the California Health and Safety Code. Junior accessory dwelling units are permitted in all residential zones.

The design standards for JADUs shall meet the setback and square footage provision consistent with Government Code 65852.2 and 65852.22. If the JADU is proposed within the parameters of an existing or proposed single-family dwelling, any proposed expansion shall be consistent with Government Code 65852.2. All JADUs are required to meet fire and safety standards per Government Code 65852.2.

Additionally, the architecture standards for JADUs at single-family locations shall incorporate the same features as the main dwelling unit regarding its exterior roofing, trim, walls, windows, and color pallet. All restroom and kitchen facilities as well as access for JADUs shall be provided consistent Government Code 65852.2 and 65852.22.A ministerial review is provided for all Junior ADUs Condominium
A development consisting of an undivided interest in common for a portion of a parcel coupled with a separate interest in space in a residential or commercial building on the parcel. Condominiums are permitted in the R-M zone.

Mobile Homes/Manufactured Housing and Mobile Home Parks Manufactured home is defined as a home built or manufactured in a factory, including mobile homes, as permitted by California and federal laws. Additionally, mobile homes are defined as the same as manufactured home, but subject to the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. Manufactured and mobile homes are permitted in all residential zones.

Mobile home parks are defined as any area or tract of land where one or more mobile home spaces are rented or leased or held out for rent or lease to accommodate mobile homes used for human habitation.

Mobile home parks are not permitted in any residential zone within the City.

Community Care Facilities
Community care facilities are defined by the Calimesa Municipal Code as any facility, place, or building licensed by the State of California that is maintained and operated to provide nonmedical residential care, day treatment, adult day care, or foster family agency services for children, adults, or children and adults, including but not limited to the physical handicapped, mentally impaired, incompetent persons, or abused or neglected children. Community care facilities serving 6 or fewer people are permitted in all residential zones and community care facilities serving 7 or more people are permitted in the R-M and R-H zones with a conditional use permit.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-18 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Community Care Facilities serving 7 or more people must submit an application for a conditional use permit.

The Planning Commission with hold a public hearing and will determine if the conditional use permit will be approved based on the following findings:

1. The proposed use is conditionally permitted within the subject land use district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of this zoning code.

2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the land use district in which it is to be located.

3. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of land use being proposed.

4. The proposed use is compatible with the land uses presently on the subject property.

5. The proposed use would be compatible with existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located.

6. The proposed use is compatible in scale, mass, coverage, density, and intensity with all adjacent land uses.

7. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety.

8. There will be adequate provisions for public access to serve the subject proposal.

9. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan.

10. There will not be significant adverse effects upon environmental quality and natural resources.

11. The negative impacts of the proposed use are mitigated.

12. The proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interests, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.

The Planning Commission may hold a hearing to revoke or modify a conditional use permit granted if any one of the following findings can be made:

1. Circumstances have changed so that one or more of the findings above can no longer be made.

2. The conditional use permit was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.

3. The use for which the conditional use permit was granted had ceased or was suspended for six or more consecutive calendar months.

4. One or more of the conditions of the conditional use permit have not been met within the time periods set forth.

5. The use is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law, or regulation.

6. The use permitted by the conditional use permit is detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or constitutes a nuisance.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-19 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Community Care Facilities serving 7 or more people are allowed in two residential zones via a conditional use permit. Program Action H-3.19: Objective Development Standards has been added to Section 4:

Housing Plan to amend the municipal code in order to allow community care facilities serving 7 or more people without a conditional use permit.

Convalescent Care Facility
Convalescent care facility is defined by the Calimesa Municipal Code as a building or a group of buildings which provides nursing, dietary, and/or other personal services rendered to convalescents, invalids, or aged persons, but excludes cases of contagious, communicable diseases, and excluding surgery or primary treatment, such as are customarily provided in sanitariums, hospitals, and mental institutions.

Senior Congregate Care Housing
The City’s municipal does not define senior congregate care housing. However, a general definition for senior congregate care housing is assisted living facilities specifically for seniors. Senior congregate care housing is permitted with a condition use permit in the R-M and R-H zones.

Boarding/Rooming Houses
The City of Calimesa’s Municipal Code defines boarding or rooming houses as a building containing a single dwelling unit and not more than 10 guest rooms where lodging is provided with or without meals, for compensation. A boarding or rooming house shall not include rest homes, nursing homes, or homes for the aged. Boarding or rooming houses are permitted in the R-H zone with a conditional use permit.

Emergency Shelters
Emergency shelters are defined by the City of Calimesa’s Municipal Code as housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person, regardless of an ability to pay. Emergency shelters are permitted in community commercial, C-C, zone. Assembly Bill 2339 requires that zoning designations identified to allow emergency shelters as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit must allow residential uses. This could include zones that allow mixed uses that permit residential. The C-C zone allows residential uses such as SROs without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit which is compliant with AB 2339.

The C-C zone is appropriate to accommodate emergency shelters as they are typically located along major arterial roadways with access to employment centers and near stores and other services. There are currently 72 acres of vacant land zoned C-C, including sites between .5 and 15.5 acres in size. It is estimated that there are approximately 31 sites zoned C-C which are vacant and viable for the development of an emergency shelter. Approximately 15 of the sites are between 1 and 15.5 acres in size, that are appropriate and able to accommodate a shelter of approximately 10 beds if one is proposed. The average lot size of vacant parcels in the C-C zone is 3.1 acres which is more than sufficient to accommodate an emergency shelter.

Development Standards
The City lists the general development standards for the C-C zone in Chapter 18.25.040 of the Zoning Code. The C-C zone design standards are listed in Table 3-5 below. A capacity analysis based on required development standards found that 15 vacant sites zoned C-C had sufficient capacity to accommodate a shelter of approximately 10 beds if one is proposed. An additional 4 vacant sites zoned C-C, between .80 and .95 acres in size, had sufficient capacity to accommodate a shelter of approximately 10 beds if one is proposed, but would need to provide a ”public place or sitting or eating area” within the required setback area in order to reduce the front setback to zero feet. The remaining 12 vacant sites zoned C-C range from

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-20 Calimesa Housing Element Update
.23 to .79 in size and are located adjacent to other sites. Alone, some sites may not be large enough to feasible develop an emergency shelter, but these smaller sized lots can feasibly consolidate to encourage the development of an emergency shelter.

Table 3-5: C-C Zone General Development Standards
Development Feature Development Requirement
Minimum Parcel Size 10,000 square feet
Setback Requirements
Front1 20 feet
Side 10 feet
Side (Street) 20 feet
Rear 10 feet
Accessory Structures Same as main structure
From Residential Areas2 50-500 feet
Maximum Height Limit 35 feet

1. The front yard setback may be reduced to zero feet if a public place or sitting or eating area is provided within the required setback area.

2. Emergency shelters do not have setback requirements from residential areas. Emergency shelters must not be located within 300 feet of another emergency shelter.

Source: City of Calimesa, Zoning Code, Chapter 18.25.

Health Index for Emergency Shelters
Additionally, based on the California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment, there are two hazardous waste generators within two miles of the C-C zones, both in the northern portions of the City.

Hazardous waste is defined by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) as “Waste created by different commercial or industrial activity containing chemicals that may be dangerous or harmful to health. Only certain regulated facilities can treat, store, or dispose of this type of waste. These facilities are not the same as cleanup sites. Hazardous waste includes a range of different types of waste.

It can include used automotive oil as well as toxic waste materials produced by factories and businesses.” 2 Upon further review, the hazardous waste generators near the C-C zones include the following:
• The Soco Group - CAL000322867 (EPA ID)
o The Soco Group is a gasoline station and convenience store located at 33928 County Line Rd. The hazardous waste generated by the gasoline station does not pose a hazard to the community and was last cited in 2007 for a “universal waste,” violation which is a catch all term for various offenses ranging from inadequate storage or disposal of materials or supplies to inadequate trash enclosures.
• Walgreens #10366 – CAL000347789 (EPA ID)
2 Update To The California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, 2017.

Accessed online: December 16, 2021.
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/ces3report.pdf#page=90

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-21 Calimesa Housing Element Update
o Walgreens is a nationwide pharmacy and drug store located at 1186 Calimesa Blvd, and categorized as a “Very Small Quantity Generator,” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The hazardous waste generated by Walgreens does not pose a hazard to the community and comprises of inadequate storage or disposal of pharmaceutical waste and solutions in small quantities.

The hazardous waste generators are mainly businesses typically not associated with the generation of chemicals or heavy manufacturing processes. By nature, these businesses involve typical household chemicals such as used motor oils and lubricants, pharmaceutical waste and solutions in small quantities, or other materials. These businesses are required to register with the Department of Toxic Substances Control which maintains a database of permitted facilities and activities. Additionally, these facilities are required to handle and dispose of waste consistent with standards and requirements set by the Code of Federal Regulations § 262, as well as local regulations including the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health - Hazardous Materials Management Division. The Hazardous Materials Management Division is responsible for regulating hazardous materials business plans and chemical inventory, hazardous waste and tiered permitting, underground storage tanks, and risk management plans. Therefore, while these businesses create or are involved in waste generation, the waste streams are more consistent with use of materials associated with routine property maintenance, such as janitorial supplies for cleaning purposes and/or herbicides and pesticides for landscaping. Compliance with the regulatory requirements would reduce potential hazards to the public or the environment, including emergency shelters.

Transportation Access for Emergency Shelters
Figure 3-15 displays the City’s transit data. The maps shows that all of Calimesa is classified as poor to moderate in the transit connectivity category. Most of the City has poor transit accessibility, but the areas with vacant sites zoned C-C exhibit the highest transportation scores in the City. Individuals serviced by emergency shelters may exhibit a disproportionate need for reliable public transportation. Although public transit is not as accessible, it is generally affordable and makes up a small proportion of a households’ expenses as seen in Table 3-17. It is important to increase access to transportation in the rest of the City in order to improve access for all protected classes.

Additionally, a transit line runs north to south near the C-C area to the north, and there are two transit stops within a quarter-mile distance of the zone. The designated C-C zones are in resource rich and accessible areas of the City and are therefore, appropriate zones to accommodate emergency shelters.

Parking Standards for Emergency Shelters
The parking standards for emergency shelters are detailed in Chapter 18.45.060 of the Zoning Code. The City’s parking standards require that an emergency shelter facility shall provide off-street parking at the ratio of one parking space per 1.5 beds. These parking standards are not compliant with Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4) which requires:
• Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone
Newly added Program Action H-2.8: Emergency, Transitional and Supportive Housing provides for an amendment to the City’s Zoning Code to ensure parking standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter and more than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-22 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Transitional Housing
Transitional housing is defined by the City of Calimesa’s Municipal Code as rental housing operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point int time, which shall be no less than six months. Transitional housing is allowed in all residential zones and is treated as residential use, subject only to the permitting requirements that apply to residential uses of the same housing type location in the same zone.

Supportive Housing
Supportive housing is defined by the City of Calimesa’s Municipal Code as housing with no limit on length of stay that is occupied by the target population as defined by Government Code Section 65582 and that is linked to on- or off-site services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to love and, when possible, work in the community. Supportive housing is allowed in all residential zones and is treated as residential use, subject only to the permitting requirements that apply to residential uses o f the same housing type location in the same zone.

Single-Room Occupancy
Single-room occupancy is defined by the City of Calimesa’s Municipal Code as multiunit housing for very low-income persons that typically consist of a single room and shared bath and may include a common kitchen and common activity area. Single-room occupancy units are permitted in community commercial (C-C) and regional commercial (C-R) zones.

Farmworker Housing
California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 generally require agricultural employee housing to be permitted by-right, without a conditional use permit (CUP), in single-family zones for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds. The Calimesa Municipal Code does not address Farmworker Housing by definition. A program is included in Section 4: Housing Plan to ensure the City’s development standards allow Farmworker Housing by -right, without a CUP, in single-family zones for six or fewer persons.

Low Barrier Navigation Centers
AB 101 states that “The Legislature finds and declares that Low Barrier Navigation Centers are defined as a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Low Barrier Navigation Centers are required as a use by right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. The Calimesa Municipal Code does not address Low Barrier Navigations Centers by definition. A program is included in Section 4: Housing Plan to ensure the City’s development standards allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers by-right in all zones that permit mixeduses and non-residential uses.

4. Planned Residential Development
The Planned Residential Development (PRD) zone district is established to promote residential amenities beyond those expected in conventional residential developments, to achieve greater flexibility in design, to encourage well-planned neighborhoods through creative and imaginative planning as a unit, to provide for appropriate use of land which is sufficiently unique in its physical characteristics or other circumstances to warrant special methods of development, to create flexibility in street design as long as adequate off-street

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-23 Calimesa Housing Element Update
parking is provided, to reduce development problems in hillside areas, and to preserve areas of natural scenic beauty through the encouragement of integrated planning and design and unified control of development.

A PRD is defined as a development located on a site approved as a subdivision, to be constructed by a person or corporate body, involving a variety of residential structure types, planned as a total entity and therefore subject to approval, development, and regulation as one land use complex.

The City has not yet placed a PRD zone district on their official zoning map however a PRD may be permitted in the O-S-R, R-E, R-R, R-L, R-L-M, R-M, and O-S zone districts.

The permitted uses in a PRD zone include attached and detached single family homes, townhouses, patio houses, or a combination of those uses up to four units in any one group as well as the other uses permitted in the zone in which the PRD is to be located. Additionally, the PRD zone permitted open space uses including noncommercial parks, gardens, playgrounds, golf courses, natural open space, and other open space uses permitted in the zone in which the PRD is to be located, as well as various noncommercial facilities such as clubhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, and horticultural conservatories.

Development Standards
The City of Calimesa Municipal Code (Title 18 Chapter 18.40) establishes development standards for all PRDs.

Table 3-6: PRD, Development Standards
Type Standards/Requirements
Site Area
The minimum gross site area shall be 10 acres, except that sites with a lesser area may be permitted when contiguous to an existing planned development and when they constitute a logical extension in arrangement of buildings, facilities, and open space. All of the area of dedicated street right-of-way entirely within the boundaries of the site may be included in determining the gross area of the zone for minimum area purposes.

Density
The underlying residential land use district shall determine the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in PDR developments. Where a parcel or parcels have more than one land use district, the maximum number of dwelling units shall be determined by adding together the allowable density for each land use district area. Density transfer throughout the PRD project area is permitted for the promotion of clustering units in those areas suited to development, and thus preserving the open space and natural features of the site.

Lot Area
Individual lot areas may be reduced below the minimum standard requirement for the zone; provided, however, that the average overall lot size of the development is in conformance with the underlying zone; and provided, that the developer demonstrates that there is a direct relationship between the lot size and adjacent open space area within the development. Individual lots shall contain sufficient area to provide all required setbacks, yards, and private outdoor living areas.

Lot Dimensions
Lot widths and depths may be reduced below the standard of the district; however, to preserve and maintain the quality of the zone in an existing neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods, all lots abutting a dedicated public street shall have a lit width not less than the minimum required for the zone. Certain exceptions may be approved by the planning commission where it can be shown that a reduction in lot width will not adversely affect the character and quality of the surrounding neighborhood.

Site Coverage Buildings and structures, which shall not include patios open on three or more sides, shall not occupy more than 30 percent of the gross area of the PRD zone.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-24 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-6: PRD, Development Standards
Type Standards/Requirements
Building Height A building, structure, or portion thereof shall not exceed the following heights:

Building
Separation
Single
family
dwellings
Two stories or 32 feet, whichever is less.

Exceptions
On slopes, single-family dwellings may be three stories in height on the downhill side provided they do not exceed two stories on the uphill side.

If a cantilever foundation structure is used on a hillside, the height shall be measured from the lowest point at which the foundation beams enter the hill.

If the downhill sies of the structure are enclosed in a monolithic foundation, the height shall be measured from the midpoint of that portion of the finished slope which is covered by the structure.

Front Yard
Setback
The minimum front yard provisions of the zone in which that site is located shall apply to all lots, whether abutting a public or private street, pursuant to the lot dimensions above.

Side Yard
Setback
The side yard provisions of the zone in which the site is located shall apply to all properties in the planned development which abut property not a part of the development, pursuant to the lot dimensions above.

For the remainder of the development, the side yards(s) for a residence or group of residences may be modified as follows:

For a single-family detached residence on a separate lot, one side may be reduced to zero, provided the opposite side yards is not less than the total required for each side yard in the zone. No window or door openings are permitted on the zero -setback line.

For attached single family residences or patio houses and townhouses, both interior side yards between structures may be reduced to zero, provided the exterior side yards of the series or group are set back a distance not less than 10 feet for each story or height of each building series or group. No window or door openings are permitted on the zero-setback line.

Rear Yard
Setback The rear yard provisions of the zone in which the site is located shall apply.

Source: City of Calimesa, Municipal Code, accessed November 4, 2021.

Additional provisions and design standards can be found in Title 18 Chapter 18.40 Section 18.40.010 of the City’s Municipal Code.

5. Local Ordinances
An ordinance is a law passed by a municipal government. Local ordinances are enacted to maintain or improve public safety, health, and general welfare. Locally adopted ordinances such as inclusionary ordinances or short-term rental ordinances may directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. Impacts may create governmental constraints to the development of housing and may hinder the City from meeting its share of the regional housing need and the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Inclusionary Housing Ordinances are local zoning ordinances which either mandate or encourage housing developers to include a specified percentage of units affordable to lower and moderate-income households.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-25 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Inclusionary Housing Ordinances bring affordable housing to market and increases types of housing available to different income levels.

The City of Calimesa enforces an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The purpose of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is to:
• To encourage the development and availability of housing affordable within the City to a broad range of households with varying income levels;
• To promote the City’s goal of adding affordable housing units to the City’s housing stock; • To increase the availability of housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households within the City limits in order to protect the economic diversity of the City’s housing stock, and to ultimately reduce traffic, commuting and related air quality impacts within the region, and to encourage the quality of life unique to the City of Calimesa; • To implement policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan, including:
o Adopting an inclusionary housing program to meet the housing needs of those not c urrently served by other housing programs; and
o Encouraging the development of housing for first-time home buyers, including low-income households;
• To mitigate the fact that new housing developments increase the local demand for services and thereby expand the need for new low wage jobs, increasing the demand for low-income housing in the City; and
• To ensure that the imposition of the inclusionary housing requirements occurs at a time when the housing market has improved to a level that the requirements do not unduly hinder or impede housing development projects in the City.

The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance applies to all residential developments, as defined in the Calimesa Municipal Code (CMC) 18.130.020, at least five percent of the total lots or units created must be offered for sale as inclusionary units restricted for owner occupancy by low-income households for a minimum of 55 years. The CMC defines residential developments as:

1. A subdivision resulting in the creation of 20 or more residential lots or residential units;

2. The new construction of a project consisting of 20 or more for-sale dwelling units, whether in a multifamily development or a development of single-family homes; or

3. The conversion of 20 or more rental units to condominium ownership. a) The following projects are exempt from complying with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance:Residential dwelling units that are offered for lease rather than for sale; b) The reconstruction of any residential units or structures which have been destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of nature, which are being reconstructed in a manner consistent with the requirements of CMC;
c) Residential developments that comply with the density bonus ordinance pursuant to CMC; d) Applications deemed complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in Chapter

18.130.020; and
e) A residential project that is the subject of a development agreement or regulatory agreement that expressly provides for exemption from Chapter 18.130.020 or provides for a different inclusionary requirement from that specified by Chapter 18.130.020.

Developers of residential developments may construct low-income affordable units or comply with the ordinance by alterative means. Alternative means of compliance include:

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-26 Calimesa Housing Element Update
• Off-Site Construction. The required inclusionary units may be constructed off -site if the planning commission (or the city council on appeal) finds as follows:
o The unit size and number of bedrooms of the proposed off-site inclusionary units would be greater than that of the inclusionary units if they were built on site; o The off-site inclusionary units would allow for significantly reduced sales prices; o The off-site inclusionary units would be provided prior to the completion of the marketrate units; o The proposed location of the off-site inclusionary units would be accessible to public transit, commercial areas, or public services.
• Dedication of Land. In lieu of building inclusionary units on site or off site, an applicant may dedicate land to the City (or a city-designated nonprofit housing developer) if the planning commission (or the city council on appeal) finds as follows;
o The land to be dedicated is appropriately zoned and otherwise suitable for construction of the number and type of inclusionary units that would be required to be built on site; and o The value of the land to be dedicated is roughly equivalent to the value of the land and amount it would cost the applicant to construct the required number of inclusionary units on site; and
o The City, or the City-designated nonprofit housing developer, has adequate funding sources to construct the required inclusionary units on the dedicated land; and o The proposed location of the of f-site inclusionary units would be accessible to public transit, commercial areas, or public services; or
In the alternative, the dedication of land would accomplish specific housing goals set forth in the City’s General Plan.

In determining the number of inclusionary units required, any decimal fraction less than 0.5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction of 0.5 or more shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.

The City continues to receive applications for residential projects subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and has not experienced projects being abandoned due to the inclusionary requirements. This indicates that the ordinance does not pose a constraint to the development of housing and affordability in the surround housing market. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has not posed a constraint in the past and does not currently pose a constraint. The City will continue to monitor the requirements and effectiveness of the ordinance to make sure the ordinance is not a constraint in the future. If the City determines the ordinance poses a constraint to housing development in the future, the City may amend the ordinance to eliminate constraints.

Growth Management Measures
Growth management measures are techniques used by a jurisdiction to regulate the rate, amount and type of development. Growth management measures are typically adopted by cities through voter initiatives to regulate development and density throughout the City. Growth management measures allow cities to grow responsibility and orderly, however, if overly restricted can produce constraints to the development of housing, including accessible and affordable housing. The City of Calimesa does not have any growth management measures that would affect or hinder the development of housing in the City.

6. Specific Plans
The Specific Plan (SPA) Area is established to allow for designation of area of the City which are currently under the requirements of a specific plan and designation of other areas in the City where the flexibility of

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-27 Calimesa Housing Element Update
a specific plan will aid in the development or redevelopment of the area. The following apply to all specific plan areas:
• Specific plans are best utilized when prepared for land that is environmentally constrained , has unique land use concerns, or requires the flexibility of a specific plan to design a development which is mutually beneficial to the City and the property owner. • Specific plans are required to be consistent with all elements of the General Plan. • Each specific plan area shall be designated with SPA-#. • Intensities and densities of development shall be determined on a case-by-case basis.

The process for adopting and amending specific plans and for approving subsequent development under a specific plan are listed below. Any additional development agreements, conditions, or requirements may depend on each proposed plan.
• Review Authority and Process. The designated review authority for specific plans is the City Council. Review of an application for a specific plan or amendment thereto shall be in accordance with CMC 18.15.060, Zoning code amendments.
• Public Hearing and Notice. Public hearing and notice are required for a specific plan pursuant to CMC 18.15.080, Hearings and appeals.
• Approval Findings. Specific plans and any amendment thereto shall be approved only when the City Council makes all of the following findings:
o The proposed specific plan is consistent with the general plan goals, policies, and implementation programs.
o The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city.
• Adoption. Adoption of the specific plan shall be by ordinance of the City Council, which shall constitute final action and approval of the specific plan. Authorization for construction in accordance with the specific plan may only be granted after the effective date of the adoption.

Currently, three specific plans have been adopted, the Summerwind Ranch, Mesa Verde Estates, and the Heritage Oaks Equestrian Community Specific Plan.

Summerwind Ranch
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide for the development of up to 3,841 dwelling units, as well as commercial, business park, open space, recreation, and public facility uses. The Summerwind Ranch Specific Plan area covers 2,590.1 acres. The Specific Plan provides for a maximum of 3,841 dwelling units built in a variety of housing types ranging in density from 3.0 dwelling units per acre (single-family manors) to 15.0 dwelling units per acre (multi-family townhomes).

Mesa Verde Estates
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide for the development of up to 3,650 dwelling units, as well as mixed-use, open space, recreation, and public facility uses 3. 3 City of Calimesa, Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan Amendment, November 2017.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-28 Calimesa Housing Element Update
The Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan area covers 1,493 acres. The Specific Plan permits a maximum of 3,650 residential units built in a variety of housing types ranging in density from 4.0 dwelling units per acre (residential low housing) to 20 dwelling units per acre (mixed-use housing).

Heritage Oaks Equestrian Community Specific Plan
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide for the development of up to 45 single-family homes. The Heritage Oaks Equestrian Community Specific Plan area covers 54 acres. The Specific Plan is oriented around preserving the significant live oak woodland community found on the property, offering a distinctive neighborhood promoting a high-quality living environment and equestrian experience. The Specific Plan provides for a maximum of 45 single-family homes at 1.5 dwelling units per acre.

7. Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Both Federal Fair Housing Amendment Act (FHAA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct and require governments to make reasonable accommodations (that is, modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. State law also requires cities to analyze potential and actual constraints to the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities.

The Housing Element Update must also include programs that remove constraints or provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for persons with disabilities. The analysis of constraints must touch upon each of three general categories: 1) zoning/land use; 2) permit and processing procedures; and 3) building codes and other factors, including design, location, and discrimination, which could limit the availability of housing for disabled persons.

Land Use Controls
Under State law, small licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons shall be treated as regular residential uses and permitted by right in all residential districts.

Definition of Family
A restrictive definition of “family” that limits the number of unrelated persons and differentiates between related and unrelated individuals living together is inconsistent with the right of privacy established by the California Constitution. The Calimesa Municipal Code defines “family” as one or more individuals occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single household unit.

Reasonable Accommodation
Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations (that is, modifications or exceptions) to their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive a setback requirement or other standard of the Zoning Code to ensure that homes are accessible for the mobility impaired. Whether a particular modification is reasonable may depend on the circumstances. Chapter 18.15.160 – Reasonable Accommodation of the Calimesa Municipal Code provides an application process and review requirements for a Reasonable Accommodation request.

Purpose and Intent
Chapter 18.15.160 of Title 18 of the Calimesa Municipal Code states that the purpose of the chapter is to is to establish procedures to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-29 Calimesa Housing Element Update
access to housing under the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (together, the acts) in the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies, and procedures.

Applicability
A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability, their representative, or any entity, when the application of a requirement of the City’s zoning code or other City requirement, policy, or practice acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities. A person with a disability is any person who has a medical condition, physical disability, or mental disability that substantially limits one or more of the person’s major life activities, as those terms are defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code Section 12900 et seq.) and Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act. A request may include a modification or exception to the rules, standards, and practices for the sitting, development, and use of housing or housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to housing of their choice. A reasonable accommodation is granted to the household that needs the accommodation and does not apply to successors in interest to the site.

Additionally, a reasonable accommodation may be granted in compliance with the City of Calimesa’s Municipal Code Section 18.15.160 without the need for the approval of a variance.

Application Requirements
A request for reasonable accommodation shall be submitted on an application form provided by the planning department. If the project for which the request for reasonable accommodation is being made also requires some other discretionary approval, the applicant shall file the information required for application of the reasonable accommodation for concurrent review with the application for discretionary approval.

Approval Procedure
The community development director is hereby designated to make a written determination within 45 days of the application being deemed complete and either grant, grant with modification, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation. The written determination shall set forth applicable findings and any conditions of approval. A notice of the written determination and any conditions of approval shall be mailed to the applicant at the address shown on the application.

A request for reasonable accommodation submitted for concurrent review with another discretionary land use application shall be reviewed by the authority reviewing the discretionary land use application. The written determination on whether to grant, grant with modification, or deny the request for reasonable accommodation shall be made by the authority responsible for reviewing the concurrent disc retionary land use application in compliance with the applicable review procedure for the discretionary review. The written determination shall set forth applicable findings and any conditions of approval. A notice of the written determination and any conditions of approval shall be mailed to the applicant at the address shown on the application.

Findings
The written decision to grant, grant with modification, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation will be consistent with the acts and shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval:
• The accommodation is requested by or on behalf of one or more persons considered disabled under the acts.
• The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals considered disabled under the acts an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a residence.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-30 Calimesa Housing Element Update
• The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City.
• The requested accommodation will not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning.

Considerations
In determining whether the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a residence, the City may consider, but not be limited to, the following factors:
• Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals considered disabled under the acts;
• Whether the individual(s) with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation;
• Whether the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the relevant market and market participants;
• Whether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in the city; or • Whether other reasonable accommodations are available that may provide an equivalent level of benefit.

In determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program or law, the City may consider, but not be limited to, the following factors:
• Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood;
• Whether the requested accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking;
• Whether granting the requested accommodation would substantially undermine any express purpose of either the city’s general plan or an applicable specific plan or other similar regulatory document; or
• Whether the requested accommodation would create an institutionalized environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation.

Conditions of Approval
In granting a request for reasonable accommodation, the review authority may impose any conditions of approval deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the reasonable accommodation would comply with the findings.

A request for changes in the conditions of approval of a reasonable accommodation, or changes to plans that would affect a condition of approval, shall be treated as a new application. The planning director may waive the requirement for a new application if the changes are minor, do not involve substantial alterations or additions to the plan or the conditions of approval, and are consistent with the intent of the original approval.

If the disabled person(s) for whom the reasonable accommodation was originally granted vacates the residence, or if the planning director finds that the accommodation is no longer necessary for the use and enjoyment of the residence, the previously approved reasonable accommodation shall be discontinued.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-31 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Should the accommodation be necessary to give another disabled individual an equal opportunity to enjoy the residence, separate application shall be made in accordance with this section.

Appeal to Findings
Appeal of the written determination shall be made in accordance with Calimesa Municipal Code Section

18.15.080, Hearings and appeals.

Any determination or action taken by the planning director may only be appealed to the planning commission. Any determination or action taken by the planning commission to approve or disapprove an application may be appealed to the city council.

The applicant, or any interested person who is aggrieved by or dissatisfied with an appealable decision of the planning director or planning commission, for which an appeal is authorized may appeal from such determination or action by filing a written notice of appeal. The City Manager or any member of the City Council may file a written appeal of a decision of the planning commission on the basis that such action is of sufficient importance to the City that it should be reviewed by the entire City Council. In filing such appeal, the member of the City Council is not taking a position in favor of or against the action or any portion thereof and is not deciding or committing to a vote in favor of or against the action or any portion thereof.

All appeals shall be submitted to the planning department in writing on forms supplied by the planning director and shall specifically state the basis of the appeal. A written appeal of an action of the planning director or planning commission shall be filed with the planning department within 15 days following the final date of determination or action for which an appeal is made. Except where an app eal is filed by the City Manager of any member of the City Council, the written appeal shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council.

Unless otherwise required by law, notice of time, date, and place of the hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a general description, in text or by diagram, of the location of real property, which is the subject of the hearing, shall be given at least 10 days prior to the hearing by all of the following procedures:
• By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation within the city; • By mailing or delivering to the owner of the subject real property or the owner’s duly authorized agent, and to the project applicant;
• By mailing or delivering to each local agency expected to provide water, sewerage, streets, roads, schools, or other essential facilities or services to the project, whose ability to provide those facilities and services may be significantly affected;
• By mailing or delivering to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the real property that is the subject of the hearing. If the number of owners to whom notice would be mailed or delivered is greater than 1,000, a local agency, in lieu of mailed or delivered notice, may provide notice by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the city; • By mailing to any person who has filed a written request with the planning department and has provided that department with a self-addressed stamped envelope for that purpose; • By posting in at least three public places within the boundaries of the city, including one public place in the area directly affected by the proceeding; and • The planning director may require that additional notice of the hearing be given in any other manner he/she deems necessary or desirable.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-32 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Conclusion
The City’s consideration for denial and condition of approval may be considered a constraint to the development of housing for person with disabilities, as some conditions are subjective. Specifically, a consideration for denial which is related to the character of the neighborhood may not be universally applied to all projects or applied objectively. The City will review the conditions of approval for revision where appropriate.

8. Development Fees
Residential developers are subject to a variety of fees and exactions to process permits and provide necessary services and facilities as allowed by State Law. Development fees can be a constraint to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing because the added costs for developers may result in higher housing units costs. Development fees are, however, necessary to provide planning and public services.

The location of projects and housing type result in varying degrees of development fees. The presumed total cost of development is also contingent on the project meeting city policies and regulations and the circumstances involved in a particular development project application.

Table 3-7 and Table 3-8 summarize the most common planning and development impact fees for the City of Calimesa.

Table 3-7: Development Impact Fees
Land Use
Category
Law
Enforcement
Facilities
Fire
Protection
Facilities
Streets
and
Traffic
Facilities
Storm
Drain
Facilities
General
Government
Facilities
Library
Space
and
Collection
Items
Parkland and
Park
Improvements
City
Development
Impact Fee
Total Per
Unit
Detached
Dwelling
Units
(per Unit)
$224.00 $837.00 $3,852.00 $3,682.00 $3,024.00 $794.00 $6,456.00 $18,869.00 Per Unit
Attached
Dwelling
Units
(per Unit)
$213.00 $1,122.03 $2,353.00 $382.00 $2,870.00 $723.00 $5,882.00 $13,545.00 Per Unit
Mobile
Home $123.00 $1,700.00 $2,050.00 $878.00 $2,338.00 $478.00 $3,894.00 $11,461.00 Per Unit

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-33 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-8: Planning and Development Fees
Fee Type Cost
Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule1
Residential, density less than 8.0 dwelling
units per acre (fee per dwelling unit) $3,635
Residential, density between 8.0 and 14.0
dwelling units per acre (fee per dwelling unit) $1,515
Residential, density greater than 14.0
dwelling units per acre (fee per dwelling unit) $670
Building and Safety Fee Schedule
General Plan Maintenance Fee $1.42/$1000
Building Construction Valuation
Single-Family Lot Grading Plan Check $385
Hourly Plan Check Fee $308/hour
Minimum permit fee $77
Appeals Board Hearing $462
Building Permits – Residential:

Single Family, Apartments (Per Unit), Condominiums, Duplexes, and Other Living Units 1 – 1,000 square feet $1,830
1,001 – 1,200 square feet $1,907
1,201 – 1,400 square feet $1,984
1,401 – 1,600 square feet $2,061
1,601 – 1,800 square feet $2,138
1,801 – 2,000 square feet $2,215
2,001 – 2,200 square feet $2,292
2,201 – 2,400 square feet $2,369
2,401 – 2,600 square feet $2,446
2,601 – 2,800 square feet $2,523
2,801 – 3,000 square feet $2,600
3,001 – 3,200 square feet $2,677
3,201 – 3,400 square feet $2,754
3,401 – 3,600 square feet $2,831
3,601 + square feet – Additional Charge per
200 sq. ft. $97
Multiple Unit Plan Check $154
Re-inspection $154
Building Permits – Additions
1 - 100 square feet $580
101 – 400 square feet $733
401 – 600 square feet $1,042
601 – 800 square feet $1,349
801 – 1,000 square feet $1,775
1,001 - 1,200 square feet $2,083
1,201 - 1,400 square feet $2,160
1,401 - 1,600 square feet $2,237
1,601 - 1,800 square feet $2,314
1,801 - 2,000 square feet $2,391
2,001 - 2,200 square feet $2,468
2,201 - 2,400 square feet $2,545
2,401 - 2,600 square feet $2,622
2,601 - 2,800 square feet $2,699

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-34 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-8: Planning and Development Fees
Fee Type Cost
2,801 - 3,000 square feet $2,776
3,001 - 3,200 square feet $2,853
3,201 - 3,400 square feet $2,930
3,401 - 3,600 square feet $3,007
3,601 + square feet - Additional Charge per
200 sq. ft. $77
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Single-Family Residential $9,810
Multi-Family Residential $6,389
Planning Division Fees
Annexations $25,000 Deposit
Appeals to City Council or Planning
Commission (with exception of Single-Family
Homeowners and their respective home)
$3,500 Deposit
Appeals for All Matters Pertaining to SingleFamily Homeowners and Their Respective Home (Developers Excluded)
$1,130
Certificate of Zoning Compliance $245
Zoning Information Letter $245
Change of Zone or Zoning Text Amendment $17,000 Deposit Conditional Use Permit (New) $10,400 Deposit
Conditional Use Permit for ABC License
(New or Revised) $4,900 Deposit
Development & Disposition Agreement $14,500 Deposit
Minor Development Plan Review $830
Major Development Plan Review $18,900 Deposit
Environmental Assessment/Initial Study
w/Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration (No charge if prepared by
outside consultant; cost of special studies
not included)
$16,300 Deposit
Environmental Impact Report $43,000 Deposit
General Plan Amendment $16,900 Deposit
Lot Line Adjustment $2,000
Lot Merger $2,000
Master Sign Permit or Sign Requiring a
Hearing $4,000 Deposit
Specific Plan
<1000 dwelling units
>1000 dwelling units
$20,300 Deposit
$41,900 Deposit
Specific Plan Revision $12,300 Deposit
Tentative Parcel Map $11,300 Deposit
Tentative Tract Map $17,300 Deposit
Vesting Tentative Parcel Maps $11,500 Deposit
Vesting Tentative Tract Map $16,900 Deposit
Variance $8,200 Deposit
Notes:

1. Effective January 1, 2022 – June 30, 2022.

Source: City of Calimesa Fee Schedule, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Schedule

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-35 Calimesa Housing Element Update
The development fees associated with each project is dependent on the housing type, density, intensity of use, and location. In addition to these direct fees, the total cost of development is contingent on the project meeting the City’s policies and standards, as well as the project applicant submitting necessary documents and plans in a timely manner.

The estimated total development and impact fees for a typical single-family residential project, assuming it is not part of a subdivision and is consistent with existing city policies and regulations, can range from $54,276 to $70,576. Estimated total development and impact fees for a typical multi-family residential project with ten units, assuming it is consistent with existing city policies and regulations range from $212,658 to $228,958.

In addition to the fees above a developer may be required to pay a statutory school fee of $3.79 per square foot of single family detached or multifamily attached residential development as well as a water development impact fee of $12,339 per lot, a wastewater development impact fee o f $7,578 per lot, and a sewer buy-in fee of 1,059 per acre.4 Totaling an additional $31,506 in fees for a single family detached residential development and an additional $153,050 in fees for a multifamily attached residential development.

These estimates are illustrative in nature and that actual costs are contingent upon unique circumstance inherent in individual development project applications. Considering the cost of land in Calimesa, and the International Code Council (ICC) estimates for cost of labor and materials, the combined costs of permits and fees range from approximately 16.4% percent to 19.6% percent of the direct cost of development for a single-family residential project and 7.0% percent to 7.3% percent for a multi-family residential project.

Direct costs do not include, landscaping, connection fees, on/off -site improvements, shell construction or amenities, therefore the percentage of development and impact fees charged by the City may be smaller if all direct and indirect costs are included.

9. State Density Bonus Law
Density bonuses are another way to increase the number of dwelling units otherwise allowed in a residentially zoned area. The City’s Zoning, Land Use and Development Regulations Ordinance identifies the purpose of the Residential Density Bonus Provisions Ordinance is to provide incentives for the production of housing for very low-income, low-income, moderate-income, and senior households. Title 18 Chapter 18.125 of the City’s municipal code outlines all regulatory requirements and standards for projects eligible for Density Bonuses. Density bonuses are available to five categories of housing developments, all are detailed below.
• Very Low-Income Units: Designate at least five percent of the total units of a housing development, or such other percentage provided by law, as target units affordable to very low-income households; or
• Lower-Income Units: Designate at least 10 percent of the total units of a housing development, or such other percentage provided by law, as target units aff ordable to low-income households; or 4 The water and wastewater development impact fees and sewer buy-in fees are according to the Yucaipa Valley Water District’s Section 1 Introduction and Plan Approval Process - Exhibit I-2, Water and Sewer Unit Costs for Construction Costs Estimates, accessed December 16, 2021, https://cms9files1.revize.com/yucaipavwd/Services/Engineering/DESIGN%20MANUAL%20AND%20CONSTRUCTIO N%20GUIDELINES/081212section01.pdf.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-36 Calimesa Housing Element Update
• Moderate-Income Units for Common Interest Developments: Designate at least 10 percent of the total units of a common interest development (including a condominium project), as defined in Civil Code Section 1351(f), planned development, as defined in Civil Code Section 1351(k), or other common interest development as defined in the State Density Bonus Law, or such other percentage provided by law, as target units affordable to moderate-income households; or • Any senior housing development: The maximum allowable residential density for the site shall be increased by 20 percent.

Effective January 1, 2021, California State Assembly Bill 2345 amends the Density Bonus Law to expand and enhance development incentives for projects with affordable and senior housing components. AB 2345 amends the Density Bonus Law to increase the maximum density bonus from 30 percent to 50 percent. To be eligible for the maximum bonus, a project must set aside at least (i) 15 percent of total units for very lowincome households, (ii) 24 percent of total units for low-income households, or (iii) 44 percent of for-sale units for moderate income households. Levels of bonus density between 35 percent and 50 percent are granted on a sliding scale. The City’s currently adopted Density Bonus Ordinance is no longer consistent with State law and must be amended to comply with new statutory requirement. Per the City’s municipal code title 18 section 125.090, the City will default to the most recent version of Government Code Section 65915. Additionally, Section 4: Housing Plan outlines the City’s plan to maintain compliance with State legislation.

Implementation
For projects to be applicable to residential density bonuses they must be residential projects or residential components of mixed-use projects. Proposed projects must include a minimum of five dwelling units and have applicant agreement to provide housing units to very low-, low-, or moderate-income households or senior citizens at the State Density Bonus law rates detailed in Table 3-9. Additionally, the resulting density of the project must be greater than permitted by the applicable zoning district and the applicant must agree to retain the affordable status of housing units in accordance with the City’s municipal code.

Applicable projects must meet the following requirements for density bouses:
• A density bonus housing agreement must be paid for and acquired by the project applicant as part of the development’s discretionary planning permit or a ministerial building permit. • All of the very low- and low-income rental units must be offered at affordable rental rates for at least 55 year from issuance of the certificate of occupancy. • Initial occupants of all for-sale units shall be persons or families of very low, low, or moderate income and the units shall be offered at an affordable housing cost as defined by the Health and Safety Code. Subsequent occupants of such units shall meet the requirements of the density housing bonus agreement.
• Maximum affordable rent or affordable sales price of units will be determined using the following household and unit size assumptions, unless different assumptions are imposed by other governmental regulations:
o Single room occupancy units and studios are assumed to house one person. A onebedroom unit is assumed to house two persons. A two-bedroom unit will house three persons. Three- and four-bedroom units are assumed to house four and six persons respectively.
• Initial occupants of moderate-income units in condominium projects must be persons and families of moderate income as defined by the Health and Safety Code. • An equity sharing agreement is required between the applicant and the City detailing that:

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-37 Calimesa Housing Element Update
o Upon resale of a very low-, low-, or moderate-income unit the seller shall retain the value of any improvements, the down payment, and their share of appreciation. o The City shall recapture any initial subsidy and its proportionate share of appreciation.

These funds shall be used to promote homeownership with five years of recapture. o The City’s proportion of a unit’s appreciation shall be equal to the ratio of the City’s initial subsidy to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale. o The City’s initial subsidy shall be equal to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale minus the initial sale price to the moderate-income households, plus the amount of any down payment assistance or mortgage assistance. If upon resale the market value is lower than the initial market value, the value at the time of resale shall be used as the initial market value.
• All for-sale units shall be occupied by their purchasers; no renting or subleasing shall be permitted.
• The owner of a rental development shall submit a certificate of compliance including the name, address, and income of each tenant within 30 days of occupancy as well as annually. • The owner of a rental development shall maintain and keep on file annual sworn and notarized income statements and current tax returns for all tenants occupying the rental units. • The owner of a rental development shall provide any additional information required by the City to endure the long-term affordability of the units by eligible households. • The City shall have the right to inspect the owner’s project-related records at any reasonable time and shall be entitled to audit the owner’s records once a year. • The City may establish fees associated with the setting up and monitoring of units.

Requests for density bonuses are to be filed along with any formal request for approval of a housing development. The City has 30 days for the processing and review of a completed application for a density bonus and a housing development. The 30-day review window the City shall provide a letter to the applicant identifying project issues of concern and the procedures for compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. If additional incentives are requested, the planning director shall inform the applicant that the request for additional incentives shall or shall not be recommended for consideration with the proposed housing development, or that alternative or modified incentives shall be recommended for consideration in lieu of the requested incentives. If the planning director recommends alternative or modified incentives, the recommendation shall establish how the alternative or modified incentives can be expected to have an equivalent affordability effect as the requested incentives. If the applicant complies with the provisions of Calimesa’s Municipal Code, the City shall approve a density bonus and requested incentives in conjunction with a discretionary planning permit or ministerial building permit for a housing development. A request for concessions or incentives may be denied if the City makes written findings of any of the following, based on substantial evidence:
• The requested concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined by the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the units to be set as specified in Government Code 65915.
• The concessions of incentive would have a specific adverse impact as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. • The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law. • The applicants project is deemed ineligible for an incentive or concession by the Calimesa Municipal Code or state law.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-38 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Refer to Chapter 18.125 Section 8 of the City’s Municipal code for the details of the density bonus housing agreement.

Table 3-9: Density Bonus Calculations
Affordable Units or
Category
Minimum
% Units
Required
Density
Bonus
Granted
Additional Density
Bonus for each 1%
increase in Affordable
Units
Max Bonus Density
AB 2345 Amendment
for the % of units in
category required for
maximum 50% bonus
Very Low Income 5% 20% 1.5% 35% 15%
Lower Income 10% 20% 2.5% 35% 15%
Moderate Income
(ownership only) 10% 5% 1% 35% 15%
Senior Citizen
Housing
Development (no
affordable units
required)
Any Senior
Housing
Developm
ent
20% No sliding scale
provided 35% 15%
Land Donation for
Very-Low Income
Housing
100% 15% 1% 35% 15%
Source: City of Calimesa, Municipal Code
Incentives
Along with a density bonus the City’s Municipal Code also grants the following number of incentives or concessions:
• One incentive shall be provided to a developer who agrees to construct at least 10 percent of the total units for low-income households, five percent of the total units for very low-income households, or 10 percent of units in a condominium for moderate-income households. • Two incentives shall be provided to a developer who agrees to construct at least 20 percent of the total units for low-income households, 10 percent of the total units for very low-income households, or 20 percent of units in a condominium for moderate-income households. • Three incentives shall be provided to a developer who agrees to construct at least 30 percent of the total units for low-income households, 15 percent of the total units for very low-income households, or 30 percent of units in a condominium for moderate-income households. In cases where a density increase of more than the amount specified in the Municipal Code is requested, the density increase, if granted, shall be considered an additional incentive. • In cases where the developer agrees to construct a housing development that qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code, and that includes a child care facility as defined in Government Code Section 65915(h)(4), the developer shall be entitled to either an additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of residential space equal to or greater than the amount of square feet in the childcare facility, or an additional incentive described in the Municipal Code that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the childcare facility. Any such childcare facility shall comply with the following:
o The childcare facility shall remain in operation for a period of time that is as long as or longer than the period of time during which the density bonus units are required to remain affordable.
o Of the children who attend the childcare facilities, the children of very low-income households, low-income households, or families of moderate income shall equal a

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-39 Calimesa Housing Element Update
percentage that is equal to or greater than the percentage of dwelling units that are required for very low-income households, low-income households, or families of moderate income, pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code.
o Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall not be required to provide a density bonus or incentive for a childcare facility when it is found, based on substantial evidence, that the community has adequate childcare facilities.

The types of incentives allowed my include but are not limited to the following, if economically feasible:
• A reduction in site development standards or a modification of the requirements of the City’s zoning code which exceed the minimum building standards provided in the Health and Safety Code that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. These may include but are not limited to, one or more of the following:
o Reduced minimum lot size and/or dimensions, as originally specified in the Municipal Code; o Reduced minimum setbacks, as originally specified in the Municipal Code; o Reduced minimum outdoor and/or private outdoor space, as originally required by the Municipal Code;
o Increased maximum lot coverage, as originally required by the Municipal Code; o Increased maximum building height, as originally required by the Municipal Code; o Reduced on-site parking standards, as originally required by the Municipal Code, and consistent with Government Code section 65915(p)(1);
o Other site or construction conditions applicable to a residential development; o Reduction in storage requirements as specified in the Municipal Cod e; o Reduction in the amount of amenities that may be required per the Municipal Code. • Mixed use zoning to allow the housing development to include nonresidential uses and/or allow the housing development in a nonresidential zone. Approval of mixed -use activities in conjunction with the housing development if other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development, and the other land uses are compatible with the housing development and the existing or planned development in the area and are consistent with the general plan. • Another regulatory incentive or concession proposed by the applicant and agreed to by the City that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. Permissible incentives include but are not limited to direct financial aid in the form of a loan or a grant to subsidize or provide low interest financing for on- or off-site improvements, land, or construction costs. • A density Bonus of no more than 35 percent.
• A reduction or deferment of plan check, construction permit, and/or development impact fees.

Waivers or Modifications
In addition to any density bonus or incentives the City provides upon a request, a waiver or modification of development standards that would physically preclude the construction of a housing development at the densities or with the incentives permitted in the City’s municipal code. The City may meet to discuss the proposal for reduced development standards. A request for waiver or modification may only be denied if the written findings in the City’s Municipal Code have been made. The granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted to require the waiver of any City ordinance unrelated to development standards.

10. On-/Off-Site Improvements
Site improvements in the City consist of those typically associated with development for on-site improvements (street frontage improvements, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks), and off -site improvements

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-40 Calimesa Housing Element Update
caused by project impacts (drainage, parks, traffic, and schools). Because residential development cannot take place without the addition of adequate infrastructure, site improvement requirements are considered a regular component of development of housing within the City and may also influence the sale or rental price of housing. Majority of cost associated with on, and off-site improvements is undertaken by the City and recovered in the City’s development and impact fees.

Specific required improvements that can be found in Title 17 – Subdivisions of the Calimesa Development Code. Common improvements include:
• Grading, drainage, and drainage structures;
• Curbs and gutters;
• Sidewalks;
• Street pavement;
• Adequate domestic water service;
• Sanitary sewer facilities and connections;
• Services from public utilities, where provided;
• Street trees;
• Streetlights and street name signs;
• Any additional improvements and facilities as determined necessary by the commission for the proper development of the site and area.

Building Codes and Enforcement
The City of Calimesa’s building codes are based upon the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (Building, Fire, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Green Building Standards, Residential, Energy, Historical Building, and Existing Building Codes) and are considered to be the minimum necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare of the City’s residents. In compliance with State law, the California Building Standards Code is the 2019 edition with an effective date of January 1, 2020. The City of Calimesa is required by law to enforce the new code.

The Code Enforcement Division is responsible for abating violations of the Calimesa Municipal Code to protect the public's health, safety, and general welfare, as well as overseeing the registration of vacant and abandoned properties. Code compliance is conducted by the City and is based on enforcement in areas of concern and on a complaint basis throughout the City. Major tasks include the abatement of zoning code violations, enforcement of business licenses, maintenance of the code enforcement database, and monthly monitoring of vacant and abandoned properties. This division issues citations and works closely with the City Attorney's office to make sure violations are brought into compliance.

11. Local Processing and Permit Procedures
The development community commonly cites the permit processing time as a contributor to the high cost of housing. Depending on the magnitude and complexity of the development proposal, the time that elapses from application submittal to project approval may vary considerably. Factors that can affect the length of development review on a proposed project include the completeness of the development application and the responsiveness of developers to staff comments and requests for information. Approval times are lengthened for projects that are not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or require rezoning or general plan amendments. Applicants for all permits or reviews are recommended to request a pre-application meeting with the respective department to: discuss City requirements as they apply to the proposed project; review the City’s review process, possible project alternatives or revisions; and identify

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-41 Calimesa Housing Element Update
information and materials the City will require with the application, and any necessary technical studies and information relating to the environmental review of the project.

All permit applications are first reviewed by City Staff for completeness, and discretionary applications must then receive a recommendation through a staff report prior to a review by the app ropriate authority. Various applications may also require public noticing and a public hearing. Table 3-10 shows types of applications and their appropriate authority in the application review process.

The typical timeframe for the development review and permit processing of one single-family infill unit on an existing lot takes one (1) to three (3) months and a single-family subdivision the development review and permit processing takes about nine (9) to 12 months. The typical timeframe for the development review and permit processing of a multi-family housing development takes closer to 12 months.

The permitting of one single-family infill unit includes the following process:
• Submittal of a minor development plan review application (MDPR) to the Planning Department. • Plan check completed by all applicable city departments. Timeline and number of reviews can vary • Conditions of approval for the MDPR are issued once all comments are satisfied. • After the MDPR application is approved, all plans and drawings must be submitted to all applicable city departments.
• Building Permit issued once all conditions of approval are met and all fees are paid.

For a single-family subdivision or a multifamily development the process includes the additional actions:
• Submittal of a tentative tract map with appropriate CEQA documentation. • Public Hearing with Planning Commission for tentative tract map and CEQA documentation approval.
• Submittal of a development plan review for all plans and drawing, can be concurrent with the tentative tract map submittal.
• Public Hearing with Planning Commission for development plan review approval, can be concurrent with the tentative tract map approval.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-42 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-10: Planning Application Review Process
Type of Application Public Hearing
Required
Planning
Director
Planning
Commission City Council
Certificates of
Compliance X
Conditional Use Permits X X
Development
Agreements X X
Minor Development Plan
Review Permits X
Major Development Plan
Review Permits X X
Final Maps X
General Plan
Amendments X X
Home Occupation
Permits X
Lot Line Adjustments X
Parcel Maps, Residential X X
Parcel Mergers May be
requested X
Reversions to Acreage X X
Specific Plans X X
Temporary Use Permits X
Tract Maps X X
Variance X X
Vesting Maps X X
Zoning Clearances X
Zoning Map
Amendments X X
Source: City of Calimesa Municipal Code
Permit Processing
The Zoning Code states that requests for permits, licenses, appeals, amendments, approvals, and other discretionary actions required or allowed require that a permit application form be filled out in its entirety and be submitted to the Planning Department. In addition, other materials, reports, dimensioned plans, or other information required to take an action on the application must be submitted with the application. A minimum, all development applications, regardless of type, must include an application form, a project/site description, paid fees, general conditions sheet, and a site plan. The application checklist of required items for each type of application is available on the City’s website and at the Community Development counter.

Applications must be determined complete by the Director before they are processed, as outlined in the Municipal Code, a complete application consists of the following:
• The application form with all applicable information included on, or attached to, the form; • Other information or forms required for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in compliance with City and State guidelines for the implementation of CEQA; • A statement indicating that the applicant is the owner of the property or is the legal representative of the property owner(s);
• If the application requires a public hearing, a list of the names and addresses of all owners of the property in compliance with Chapter 18.15.080 (Hearings and Appeals) of the Municipal Code;

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-43 Calimesa Housing Element Update
• Payment in full of the required fees and/or deposit for processing the application; and Any other information required by the director.

The amount of time between when a project receives approval and submittal of an application for building permits varies, depending upon a variety of factors and is controlled by a project applicant. While the City makes every effort to streamline permitting processes, this element of time is outside the control of the City.

Factors for variability of time may include the size of a project, type of construction, funding and financing considerations, lease or contract considerations, litigation, seasonal factors, engineering, design and architectural considerations. The timeline can be a matter of a few days to a few weeks, if the project is small and uncomplicated (e.g. ADU/JADU) to months for large-scale, modern construction. The City of Calimesa views the longer time period as common and necessary for larger, more complicated projects and does not see this in any way as hindering the construction of housing or introducing unnecessary delays. In most all cases, the timeline from receiving approval to submitting for building permits is solely dictated by the project applicant and not constrained by any requirements placed upon the applicant by the City.

In most all cases for current and past residential projects, the timeline from receiving approval to submitting for building permits is solely dictated by the project applicant and not constrained by any City requirements placed upon the applicant. The timeline can be a matter of a few days to a few weeks, if the project is small and uncomplicated (e.g. ADU) to months for large-scale, modern construction. The range of time between entitlements and building permits can range from same day to one year for projects developed in the City.

The average time between entitlements and building permit approval is roughly one to two months. In addition, many aspects of the processing times are not controlled by the City as they are solely dictated by the responsiveness of the applicant (i.e. turnaround time for addressing City comments). The City’s permit review and processing timeline is consistent with the processing timeline of nearby cities. Therefore, the City of Calimesa’s processing timeline does not pose as a constraint to the development of housing in the City.

Senate Bill 35
California Senate Bill 35 (SB 35), codified at Government Code Section 65913.41, was signed on September 29, 2017 and became effective January 1, 2018. SB 35 will automatically sunset on January 1, 2026 (Section 65913.4(m)). The intent of SB 35 is to expedite and facilitate construction of affordable housing. SB 35 applies to cities and counties that have not made sufficient progress toward meeting their affordable housing goals for above moderate- and lower-income levels as mandated by the State. In an effort to meet the affordable housing goals, SB 35 requires cities and counties to streamline the review and approval of certain qualifying affordable housing projects through a ministerial process.

When a jurisdiction has made insufficient progress toward their Lower income or Above Moderate income RHNA and/or have not submitted the latest Housing Element Annual Progress Report, it is subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 50 percent affordability. All projects, which propose at least 50 percent affordable units within Calimesa are eligible for ministerial approval under SB 35 as determined by the SB 35 Statewide Determination Summary. To be eligible for SB 35 approval, proposed projects must meet certain criteria, including:
• A multifamily housing development (at least two residential units) in an urbanized area; • Located where 75% of the perimeter of the site is developed; • Zoned or designated by the general plan for residential or mixed use residential;

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-44 Calimesa Housing Element Update
• In a location where the locality’s share of regional housing needs has not been satisfied by building permits previously issued;
• One that includes affordable housing in accordance with SB 35 requirements; • Consistent with the local government’s objective zoning and design review standards; and • Willing to pay construction workers the state-determined “prevailing wage.” A project does not qualify for SB 35 streamline processing if:
• It is located in a coastal zone, conservation lands, or habitat for protected species; • It contains prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance; • It contains wetlands or lands under conservation easement; • It is located in a very high fire hazard severity zone; • It contains a hazardous waste site;
• It is located in an earthquake fault zone;
• It is located in a flood plain or floodway;
• It is a site with existing multi-family housing that has been occupied by tenants in the last ten years or is subject to rent control; or
• It is a site with existing affordable housing.5
Currently, the City of Calimesa does not have a streamlined SB 35 approval process. A program included in Section 4: Housing Plan to ensure the City is compliant with State Law by developing and adopting a streamlined SB 35 approval procedure.

12. Infrastructure Constraints
Another factor that could constrain new residential construction is the requirement and cost to provide adequate infrastructure (major and local streets; water and sewer lines; and street lighting) needed to serve new residential development. In most cases, where new infrastructure is required, it is funded by the developer and then dedicated to the City, which is then responsible for its maintenance. Because the cost of these facilities is generally borne by developers, it increases the co st of new construction, with much of that increased cost often “passed on” in as part of home rental or sales rates.

The City of Calimesa’s infrastructure requirements are outlined within the City’s Municipal Code, Title 12 Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Spaces, Title 13 Public Utilities and Services, and Title 16 Environment.

Additionally, Calimesa has an Infrastructure and Public Services Element in their General Plan and has a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that is aimed at enhancing the quality of life for local residents and businesses. The CIP is a multi-year plan that identifies future public infrastructure and facility improvements within the City and provides information concerning needs, timing, costs, and funding sources. Due to the City of Calimesa’s CIP, partnered with improvements required of developers, infrastructure improvements and requirements are standard items and are not considered an unnecessary burden on the development of housing.
5 JD Supra Knowledge Center, “How California’s SB 35 Can Be Used to Streamline Real Estate Development Projects”, Accessed October 20, 2021.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-45 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Dry Utilities
Dry utilities are the installation of the electric, telephone, TV, internet, and gas in a community. The City must plan to provide necessary resources, such as electric and gas, to increase households from 2021- 2029, as projected by the RHNA allocation.

Dry utilities in Calimesa are serviced by contracted private agencies, including Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, Dish Network, Frontier Communications, and Spectrum.

Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical service to the Calimesa planning area. SCE distributes electricity purchased through the California Power Exchange, which is the electricity marketplace for about 80 percent of California’s electricity customers. SCE is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and includes 50,000 square miles of SCE service area across Central, Costal, and Southern California. SCE continues to provide energy to the state of California through a series of methods including oil and natural gas, renewable energy resources and alternative diverse supplies. SCE is responsible for providing service to all existing and future development in Calimesa.

Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) supplies natural gas to both businesses and residents within the City of Calimesa. As a public utility, SCGC is under jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) which regulates natural gas rates and natural gas services, including in state transportation over the utilities’ transmission and distribution pipelines system, storage, procurement, metering, and billing. Most of California’s natural gas supply comes from out of state. The SCGC 2020 utility report projects total gas demand to decline at annual rate of 1 percent from 2020-2035. From 2020-2035, residential demand is expected to decline from 230 Bcf to 1198 Bcf. The decline is due to declining use per meter – primarily driven by very aggressive energy efficient goals and associated programs – offsetting new meter growth.6 SCGC is responsible for providing service to residential, industrial, and commercial customers in Calimesa.

Water Supply
The South Mesa Water Company (SMWC), Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District (BCVWD), and the Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD) are responsible for providing clean and safe potable water supply to the City of Calimesa. The YVWD provides drinking water, recycled water, sewer collection, sewer treatment, and brine disposal services to the City of Yucaipa and the City of Calimesa. The SMWC provides customers with safe, reliable, high quality drinking water. The BCVWD provides safe, reliable drinking water to families, households, and businesses within its service area. It should be noted that the BCVWD has pipeline facilities within the City of Calimesa; however, the District does not currently serve the City. BCVWD does anticipate that a small portion of Calimesa adjacent to Desert Lawn Drive may be served by BCVWD in the future.7
6 SoCal Gas 2020 California Gas report, Prepared in Compliance with California Public Utilities Commission Decision D .95-01-039.
7 Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, September 2021.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-46 Calimesa Housing Element Update
The City of Calimesa has evaluated the availability of infrastructure from a Citywide and site-specific standpoint. In determining the feasibility of sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA needs, infrastructure provision was a determining factor. Based on the site inventory analysis contained in Appendix B of this Housing Element, deficiencies in infrastructure adjacent to, or on the parcels within the inventory of sites, do not pose a constraint to development. All of the lower income sites are adjacent to existing public roads that contain utilities and other infrastructure.

The SMWC’s water comes from ground water which is extracted from the Calimesa Basin and Live Oak Basin located within the Yucaipa Basin and the Beaumont Basin.

The Yucaipa Valley Water District's local water is supplied from groundwater through surfaces water and local wells collected from Birch Creek, Oak Glen Creek, Adams Tunnel and Clark Tunnel. The District also purchases imported water from the State Water Project through the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency for direct filtration and for recharge of the groundwater basin. The District serves approximately 47,809 customers on 40 square miles (sphere of influence is 68 square miles) in two communities: City of Yucaipa and the City of Calimesa.

The BCVWD’s water comes from local groundwater from Edgar Canyon, groundwater from the Beaumont Groundwater Basin, imported water supplies purchased from the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA), and in near-term recycled water purchased from the City of Beaumont.

Water Demand
According to the 2015 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), total water demand in Calimesa is forecasted to increase by roughly 12 percent from 2020 to 2040, with the increase being met using a combination of groundwater sources and imported water. Table 3-11 identifies expected planning area retail demands (i.e., the amount of water used by residential and nonresidential water customers, and unaccounted water loss) through 2040.

Table 3-11: Planned Water Retail Demand (2020–2040)
Water Use Sector 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Total Acre-Feet per Year 11,240 11,574 11,938 12,325 12,727 Source: San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, 2015.

A key component of the 2015 UWMP is to provide insight into the City’s future water demand outlook. The City’s current water demand is 11,240 AFY, met through locally pumped groundwater and purchased imported water. Table 3-12 is a projection of the City’s water demand for the next 25 years by use type.

Table 3-12: Projected Demands for Potable and Raw Water (2020–2040) Use Type 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Single Family 7,510 7,737 7,986 8,248 8,522
Multi-Family 1,161 1,196 1,234 1,275 1,317
Commercial 315 325 335 346 358
Construction 30 31 32 33 34
Industrial 70 72 74 77 79
Institutional 187 192 198 205 212
Landscape Irrigation 589 607 626 647 668
Sales/Transfers/Exchanges to
other Agencies 200 200 200 200 200
Nonrevenue 1,178 1,214 1,253 1,294 1,137
Total (In Acre-Feet Per Year) 11,240 11,574 11,938 12,325 12,727 Source: San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, 2015.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-47 Calimesa Housing Element Update
As required by state law the City of Calimesa will continue to monitor water supply and demand in the updated urban water management plan at least once every five years. Through this monitoring and regular update schedule the City can account for and plan for future water demands to all sectors of the community.

Water Quality
Water quality is a measurement of total dissolved solids or other contaminants. The water quality of the upper Santa Ana region is a reflection of local topography, subsurface geology, land use, well pumping, and urbanization forces. Water quality is highest in mountain streams. Where the streams leave the base of the mountains, they are largely influenced by the original agricultural water management practices of the Calimesa area. These historical practices remain today in some areas, evidenced by streams diverted for domestic use, irrigation purposes, percolation, and the recharge of groundwater basins.

The County of Riverside, including Calimesa, is located within the Santa Ana River Basin. The Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Santa Ana Region updated the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin in 2011. The Basin Plan defines water quality objectives and identifies strategies to achieving water quality standards.

In 2020, Yucaipa Valley Water District met all drinking water quality standards based on over 1,500 water samples collected throughout the calendar year.

Wastewater Capacity
The Yucaipa Valley Water District provides sewer collection and sewer treatment services. Sewer treatment takes place at the highly advanced Wochholz Regional Water Recycling Facility that provides advanced treatment, including the capability to demineralize the recycled water. The demineralization process involves a reverse osmosis system that separates small molecules from the recycled water supply.

The Yucaipa Valley Water District operates several recycled water facilities throughout our service area.

This recycled water system provides irrigation water to parks, schools, golf courses and other landscaped areas in order to conserve our drinking water supplies.

Stormwater Management
The City of Calimesa’s Public Works Department is responsible for maintenance and improvements for the majority of the City’s infrastructure along with Riverside County Flood Control who is responsible for maintaining and improving storm drains greater than 36 inches in diameter. The Public Works Department’s responsibility includes storm drains, 36 inches in diameter and smaller, sewage collection system, traffic signals, parks, median islands, roadways, and facilities. The department also manages the solid waste and recycling programs as well as the City’s storm water program.

Fire and Emergency Services
The City of Calimesa formed its own Fire Department effective January 1, 2018. The Calimesa Fire Department is a full-service department which provides the following services and programs:
• Fire Suppression
• Hazardous Materials Response
• Rescue Services
• Pre-Hospital Care Medical Services Provider (BLS) Transition to ALS (Paramedic) expected July 2023
• Fire Prevention – Community Risk Reduction
• Emergency Operations – Disaster Response

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-48 Calimesa Housing Element Update
The current Fire Department staff consists of a Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Marshal, two Battalion Chiefs, three Captains, nine Firefighters, and a contingent of Intern/Reserve Firefighters, supported by an Administrative Assistant. The daily staffing configuration provides for a minimum of 3-person engine company, a 2-person (fast attack) Type – IV Patrol, and a duty Battalion Chief to respond to emergency incidents. The Fire Chief or a designated Chief Officer remains on a 24-hour recall status.

The Fire department’s mission is to provide efficient response times, highly trained fire personnel, and support staff, as well as cooperation and coordination with surrounding fire agencies.

Fire Prevention
Calimesa has historically run between 1,800 and 1,900 calls per year and the City of Calimesa Fire Department's strategy to prevent fire is through programs focused on prevention and education.

Police Services
The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department provides all municipal police-related services to the City of Calimesa, including criminal investigations and preventative patrol, responses to breeches of the peace, traffic enforcement and investigation and community-based policing to include neighborhood watch, and a proud collaborative partnership with the volunteer Calimesa Citizens on Patrol.

Calimesa’s Citizens on Patrol (COP) is a trained city organization of volunteers that patrol the City daily and work in collaboration with the Riverside County Sheriff’s department. The Riverside County Sheriff’s department provides contracted police services to the City in addition to providing training and resources to COP. The COP organization has 23 members, and their duties include:
• Patrolling the City
• Assisting with traffic control
• Assisting deputies as needed
• Residential vacation checks
• Assisting with community programs and events
• Disaster and critical incident response
• Supporting City functions as needed
• Assisting in administering the “You Are Not Alone” program

13. Environmental Constraints
Like many places in California, Calimesa is subject to a variety of potential safety hazards. Some hazards are created by the natural environment; others are man-made and result from human activities. Calimesa faces a diverse array of potential natural hazards such as earthquakes, fire hazards, and flooding hazards.

The City of Calimesa plans and engages mitigation techniques through the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Natural and Safety Element. Environmental Hazards that may pose a constraint to the development of housing in Calimesa are detailed below.

Geologic and Seismic Hazards
Calimesa is located in an area considered to be seismically active, similar to most Southern California cities.

Active and potentially active faults are located in and adjacent to Calimesa While Calimesa is at risk of many natural and man-made hazards, the event with the greatest potential for loss of life or property and economic damage is an earthquake. This is true for most of Southern California, since damaging earthquakes are frequent, affect widespread areas, trigger many secondary effects, and can overwhelm the ability of local jurisdictions to respond. In Calimesa, earthquake-triggered geologic

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-49 Calimesa Housing Element Update
effects include ground shaking, landslides, liquefaction, and subsidence. Earthquakes can also cause human-made hazards such as fires and toxic chemical releases.

Earthquake risk is very high in western Riverside County, which includes Calimesa, due to the nearby presence of two of California’s most active faults: the San Andreas and the San Jacinto Faults. Most of the loss of life and injuries from earthquakes are due to damage and collapse of buildings and structures. While there are proposed candidate housing sites near these faults, b uilding codes have generally been made more stringent following damaging earthquakes. As a result, buildings have become more resistant to structural damage due to seismic activity. In addition to ground shaking, earthquakes can also lead to other, secondary effects as described below.

The proximity of Calimesa to the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults, as well as to other smaller faults in the region associated with the San Andreas fault system, has the potential for generating earthquakes that would result in strong ground shaking including surface rupture. Known fault zones are shown in Figure 3- 1 below.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-50 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-1: Fault Zones Present in Calimesa
Source: Calimesa General Plan, Safety Element, 2014

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-51 Calimesa Housing Element
Flooding
In Calimesa, flood hazards are primarily limited to the areas along the various creeks in the Planning Area.

These areas are planned for uses consistent with periodic flooding (such as open space and parks).

Potential flood hazards are known to affect County Line Road, Calimesa Boulevard, and Park Avenue.

Occasional flooding is also known to occur at the City Fire Station site due to its proximity to the Calimesa Creek, which abuts the property to the north. During heavy storm events, water from Calimesa Creek encroaches onto the fire station property causing localized flooding at the site. According to the City’s 2019- 2020 Capital Improvement program the City allocated an estimated $1,000,000 to storm drain and Calimesa Creek improvements. The improvements are planned to be consistent with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District standards to safely convey 100-year flood events. These improvements will alleviate flooding to local roads, utilities, and public facilities. In developed areas of Calimesa, flood risk will remain low if canyon drainages remain undeveloped and drainage-control facilities are properly maintained.

Areas at an elevated risk of flooding are generally divided into 100-year flood zones and 500-year flood zones. The planning area has areas within both flood zones. As land uses and climate conditions shift and as improvements are made to flood control channels, the size of these flood zones is likely to change.

One additional type of flooding that can occur is the catastrophic flood caused by the failure of a dam.

Calimesa is not in an area that would be affected by inundation due to the failure of an upstream dam. 100-Year Floods
One-hundred-year floods are those that have a 1/100 or one percent chance of occurring in any given year.

The 100-year flood is a regulatory standard used by Federal agencies and most states to administer floodplain management programs and is also used by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as the basis for flood insurance requirements nationwide. Flood insurance rates are based on FEMA designations of flood zones. Standard practice is to avoid or restrict construction within 100-year flood zones, or to engage in flood-proofing techniques such as elevating building pads or constructing walls, dams, and levees. A small portion of Calimesa is located within a 100-year flood plain, primarily along Calimesa Creek.

Figure 3-2 illustrates the flood zones that are within the City of Calimesa. Flooding is not considered a major hazard or constraint to the development of housing as several housing developments have historically been constructed within the floodplain.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-52 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-2: Flood Zones
Source: Calimesa General Plan, Safety Element, 2014

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-53 Calimesa Housing Element
Fire Hazards
Fires can occur in urban environments and can also impact unpopulated areas that may contain brush or grasslands. Chaparral-filled canyon areas pose a significant fire hazard in the city, highlighting the need for strict enforcement of brush management and fire prevention programs.

Wildland Fires
Wildland fires are the primary fire hazard in the planning area. A wildland fire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels that may expose or consume structures. Wildland fires that occur while Santa Ana winds are present constitute a worst-case fire suppression scenario. Because of dry vegetation conditions and Santa Ana winds, the fire danger for Riverside County is considered extremely high for 25 percent of each year. Therefore, there is a statistically significant chance that this worst-case fire suppression scenario could occur.

Urban Fires
Structural and automobile fires are the most common types of urban fires, and they can be caused by a variety of human, mechanical, and natural factors. Urban fires can spread to other structures or areas, particularly if not extinguished promptly. Proactive efforts, such as fire sprinkler systems, fire alarms, fire resistant roofing and construction methods, can help reduce the frequency and severity of urban fires. In newer structures, these safety requirements help confine structural fires to the building or property of origin.

In the older areas of Calimesa, where building materials may not be fire rated and structures are not fitted with fire sprinklers, the probability of structural fires spreading to adjacent buildings is much higher.

Structural fires are of particular concern in high-density areas, where the potential for fire to spread from one building to the next is greater.

Figure 3-3 maps the fire hazard severity zones identified within the City of Calimesa. Large portions of the City of Calimesa are within the Wildland/Urban interface and are therefore subject to fire hazards. All of the candidate sites from the City’s specific plans have previously gone through environmental evaluation and are approved for housing development. Additionally, as the surrounding areas are developed the risk of wildfire and fire severity will decrease. The City’s emergency response services can accommodate the planned increase in dwelling unit capacity.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-54 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-3: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Identified Sites Map Source: Calimesa General Plan, Safety Element, 2014

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-55 Calimesa Housing Element Update
C.Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Beginning January 1, 2019, AB 686 established new requirements for all California jurisdictions to ensure that local laws, programs, and activities affirmatively further fair housing. All Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021 must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Final Rule of July 16, 2015.

Fair Housing is a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have like ranges of choice available to them regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor.

Under State law, affirmatively further fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” These characteristics can include, but are not limited to race, religion, sec, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familiar status, or disability.

The County of Riverside drafted an Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice 2019-2024, but the City of Calimesa did not participate in this analysis. Calimesa does not currently draft its own Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. An Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice examines local housing conditions, economics, policies, and practices in order to ensure that housing choices and opportunities for all residents are available in an environment free from discrimination. The Al assembles fair housing information, identifies any existing impediments that limit housing choice, and proposes actions to mitigate those impediments. The Regional AI examines fair housing issues in the County’s unincorporated areas and cooperating cities from 2019 to 2024.

1. Needs Assessment
The City’s demographic and income profile, households and housing characteristics, housing cost and availability, and special needs populations were discussed in the previous Section 2: Community Profile. 2019-2024 AI Outreach
As part of the Regional AI f or the County of Riverside, a series of outreach workshops and events were hosted at the following locations throughout the region:
• Cabazon Community Center, Cabazon
• Murrieta Community Library room, Murrieta
• County Workforce Development Center, Indio
• Mead Valley Community Center, Mead Valley
Additionally, the County released an “Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Survey” to residents in November 2018. The survey consisted of 34 questions related to fair housing issues, community planning needs (such as access to healthcare and transportation), questions regarding schools and questions about the job market.” The survey was published in English and in Spanish. Links to the surveys were publicized in the public notices for community participation and through email distribution. The survey response period was open for approximately 75 days. During that time, 150 responses were received. According to the data zero residents from Calimesa participated in the housing survey.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-56 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Housing Element Outreach
Additionally, as a part of the 2021 -2029 Housing Element, the City provided the following community engagement opportunities:
• A virtual community workshop held via zoom – October 2021 • A second virtual community workshop held via zoom – November 2021 • An online community survey - available
• A public review draft of the Housing Element available for comment Key challenges and themes identified through community engagement and feedback include the following:
• Lack of affordable housing
• Lack of housing choice as there is little variety of housing types • Lack of housing in close proximity to jobs
• Interest in the development of single room occupancy units • Interest in increased access to community amenities
• Community interest in providing housing and resources for the following special needs groups:
o Persons experiencing homelessness
o Seniors
o Single parents
o Students
Fair Housing Issues
Within the legal framework of federal and state laws and based on the guidance provided by the HUD Fair Housing Planning Guide, impediments to fair housing choice can be defined as:
• Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor which restricts housing choices or the availability of housing choices; or
• Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor.

Locally Available Data
Historic fair housing challenges identified in the City’s 5th cycle housing element include the following:
• Lack of a variety of housing types
• Affordability
• Cost of housing and services for Seniors
• Maintenance and home improvement, especially for manufactured and mobile homes • Accommodations for persons with disabilities
• Proximity to bus stops and other public transportation • Lack of available housing
• Qualification for loans and financing

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-57 Calimesa Housing Element Update
The current fair housing challenges identified by the community during the virtual workshops for the 6th Cycle Housing Element include:
• Lack of a variety of housing types
• Affordability
• Housing and resources for the following special needs groups:
o Persons experiencing homelessness
o Seniors
o Single parents
o Students
Lending Patterns
Availability of financing affects a person’s ability to purchase or improve a home. The analysis of the lending patterns and practices within a community or city help to identify persons who are regularly experience disproportionate roadblocks to home ownership. Table 3-13 below identifies the lending patterns by race and ethnicity, as well as income category for the Riverside San Bernardino Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). According to the data, applicants in the highest income category were more likely to have a loan approved, compared to applicants in the lower income categories. Within each income category, applicants who identified as White consistently had higher rates of approval than applicant of color. Overall, applicants who identified as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Black/African American had the lowest rates of loan approval in all income categories.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-58 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-13: Disposition of Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity –

RIVERSIDE-SAN BERNARDINO-ONTARIO MSA/MD
Applications by Race/Ethnicity Percent
Approved Percent
Denied
Percent
Other Total (Count)
LESS THAN 50% OF MSA/MDMEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 41.1% 38.8% 20.5% 224 Asian 50.1% 26.1% 25.2% 1,721
Black or African American 46.0% 24.1% 30.9% 1,342
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 50.8% 23.5% 26.5% 132 White 48.3% 22.5% 31.3% 14,876
Hispanic or Latino 46.1% 25.4% 30.4% 7,348
50-79% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 49.0% 23.7% 29.9% 435 Asian 52.3% 21.9% 29.1% 2,766
Black or African American 49.5% 20.8% 32.6% 2,103
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 46.9% 18.6% 36.7% 177 White 58.7% 15.2% 29.7% 30,188
Hispanic or Latino 56.4% 17.0% 29.9% 18,832
80-99% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 54.9% 19.4% 31.4% 175 Asian 60.7% 14.3% 29.3% 1,312
Black or African American 59.6% 15.2% 28.5% 981
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 54.8% 12.3% 34.2% 73 White 64.6% 11.4% 27.4% 11,740
Hispanic or Latino 61.5% 13.0% 28.9% 7,287
100-119% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 53.3% 19.7% 29.1% 523 Asian 61.8% 12.3% 30.2% 5,276
Black or African American 55.6% 15.7% 31.6% 3,252
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 57.7% 15.0% 28.0% 246 White 65.9% 10.0% 27.3% 40,822
Hispanic or Latino 62.3% 11.7% 29.2% 23,319
120% OR MORE OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 56.3% 16.9% 29.0% 1,143 Asian 63.5% 10.4% 30.4% 19,603
Black or African American 57.4% 14.4% 33.1% 7,546
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 61.8% 12.0% 30.3% 715 White 68.0% 8.9% 27.8% 110,820
Hispanic or Latino 63.5% 11.0% 31.3% 39,457
Source: FFEIC (2020). Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Disposition of loan applications by income, race, ethnicity of the applicant, 2020. Retrieved from https://ffiec.cfpb.gov/data-publication/aggregatereports/2020/CA/40140/5 (Accessed October 2021).

Hate Crimes
Hate crimes are violent acts against people, property, or organizations because of the group to which they belong or identify with. The Federal Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to threaten, harass, intimidate, or act violently towards a person who has exercised their right to free housing choice. Table 3-14 below displays the reported hate crimes in Calimesa between 2014 and 2019. From 2014-2019 a total of one hate crime was reported in the City, which was motivated by race, ethnicity, or ancestry.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-59 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-14: City of Calimesa Reported Hate Crimes by Bias Motivation (2015-2019) Year
Race/
Ethnicity/
Ancestry
Religion Sexual
orientation Disability Gender Genderidentity Total
2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting. Hate Crime Statistics Report, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
The City refers fair housing inquires to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (FHCRC). The FHCRC is a non-profit organization that fights to protect the housing rights of all individuals. Since 1986, FHCRC's mission is "to provide comprehensive services which affirmatively address and promote fair housing (antidiscrimination) rights and further other housing opportunities for all persons without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex, familial status (i.e. presence of children), disability, ancestry, marital status, age, source of income, sexual orientation, genetic information, or other arbitrary factors." The City is committed to creating outreach avenues to continue to provide fair housing services to special needs residents such as those who may be English second language and/or nonwhite, low-income residents, or disabled residents.

FHCRC provides programs and services focused on eliminating housing discrimination, prov iding general housing assistance, and education and outreach activities to residents in the Riverside County. In recent years the Fair Housing Foundation has performed the following in the region:
• Expanding affordable housing opportunities
• Housing rehabilitation
• Public policies and programs affecting housing development • Outreach to lenders
• Fair housing services
• Access to home purchasing financing
• Foreclosure prevention outreach services
Fair housing services are offered by FHCRC via phone, email, or in-person at any of the four FHCRC offices located in Riverside, Moreno Valley, Palm Springs, and Corona.

FHCRC uses government regulated testing methodologies to enforce, support, and conduct fair housing investigations. A housing discrimination complaint can be investigated through testing, the gathering of witness statements and through research surveys. Based on the details provided by the complainant, FHCRC will either investigate the complaint or advise the complainants of their other options, which include conciliation, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), or a private attorney.

From July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2018, FHCRC received 393 discrimination inquiries from West County residents. West County includes all jurisdictions in Riverside County west of CA SR-111, excluding the Cities of Riverside, Corona, Moreno Valley, Perris, Menifee, Hemet, and Temecula. Physical Disability -

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-60 Calimesa Housing Element Update
related discrimination was cited in 244 out of 393 cases representing 62 percent of all complaints. Race related discrimination was the second most common basis for alleged discrimination in West County, representing 10.2 percent of all complaints. The FHCRC Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice does not provide a breakdown of outcomes by jurisdiction but does provide an overview of housing complaint outcomes for the whole service area. Of all the complaints in the FHCRC service area, 56 percent were counselled, 37 percent were provided with fair housing education. 3.3 percent of the complainants hired a private attorney, 3 percent were referred to HUD, and .64 percent were conciliated.

Additionally, HUD maintains data of all housing discrimination complaints filed by jurisdiction. These grievances can be filed on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, familial status, and retaliation. Between 2014 and 2019, 48,823 formal fair housing complaints were filed with HUD. About 12 percent (5,833 cases) were filed by California residents. The number and basis of fair housing cases filed by Calimesa residents is not available at this time as the only accessible HUD data is at the State level.

The City of Calimesa’s Code Enforcement Division occasionally receives complaints from residents about the state of their living situations and claims to why property owners/managers allowed conditions to deteriorate to levels worthy of contacting Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement works to ensure that property owners and managers comply with Code standards and abate any violations found in investigations. Additionally, Code Enforcement also encourages residents to reach out to the Fair Housing Council for further guidance when complaints are filed over the mistreatment due to demographic background or identity.

The City of Calimesa is in compliance with existing fair housing laws. There have been no findings against the City of Calimesa from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) or from the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).

2. Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Knowledge
Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
Data from the dissimilarly index on segregation is not available for the City of Calimesa. However, this section analyzes racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and racially concentrated areas of affluence as well as existing housing need and household characteristics.

It is important to note that segregation is a complex topic, difficult to generalize, and is influenced by many factors. Individual choices can be a cause of segregation, with some residents choosing to live among people of their own race or ethnic group. For instance, recent immigrants often depend on nearby relatives, friends, and ethnic institutions to help them adjust to a new country.8 Alternatively, when white residents leave neighborhoods that become more diverse, those neighborhoods can become segregated. Other factors, including housing market dynamics, availability of lending to different ethnic groups, availability of affordable housing, and discrimination can also cause residential segregation.

Table 3-15 shows several neighborhood segregation household demographics by Census Tract. Tract 06065043823 has a much higher median income than tracts 06065043802 and 0605043811 at $119,984.

Tract 06065043823 has a higher percentage of people who speak English less than very well and lower 8 Allen, James P. and Turner, Eugene. “Changing Faces, Changing Places: Mapping Southern California”. California State University, Northridge, (2002).

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-61 Calimesa Housing Element Update
percentage of renter-occupied units. Tract 06065043811 has the lowest median income at $63,013, the highest percentage of low-income households, and the highest percentage of renter-occupied units. The three Census Tracts below are considered lower displacement risk according to the University of Berkeley ’s Urban Displacement Project 2022.

Table 3-15: Neighborhood Segregation Household Data
Census Tract Median Income
LowIncome
Households
Speak English
Less Than Very
Well
RenterOccupiedDisplacement
Risk
06065043823 $119,984 13.2% 12.6% 12.9% Lower Risk
06065043802 $65,160 40.8% 4.5% 16.8% Lower Risk
06065043811 $63,013 46.2% 3.8% 18.2% Lower Risk
Source: UC Berkley – Urban Displacement Project (2022)

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-62 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-4: Neighborhood Segregation
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-63 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Overall, the City of Calimesa has a range of racial demographics from moderate to high percent total nonwhite populations in the western portion of the City and moderate to low percent total non-white population in the eastern portion of the City. The City’s neighborhood segregation consists of three (3) group mix neighborhoods in the western portion of the City and Latinx-White neighborhoods in the eastern portion of the City. Additionally, the majority of the City has a moderate diversity index consistent with s urrounding jurisdictions except for the southernmost portion of the City is identified as having a lower diversity.

Figure 3-5: Calimesa Racial Demographic, 2018 uses data from the ESRI 2018 demographic estimates.

The figure shows the racial demographics by block group within the City. The western portion of the city has a moderate to high (41% - 80%) percent total non-white population and the eastern portion of the city has a less than moderate to low (less than 20% - 40%) percent total non-white population.

Figure 3-6 Calimesa Neighborhood Segregation, 2019 uses data from the article, "Neighborhood Foreclosures, Racial/Ethnic Transitions, and Residential Segregation,” which discuss how neighborhood foreclosure rates were used to assess the impact of housing foreclosure on neighborhood racial and ethnic change and patterns of racial residential segregation. The article describes racially selective migration streams on patterns of residential segregation which were then used to develop a model to project ho w the foreclosure crisis increased racial segregation 9. Overall, the data from "Neighborhood Foreclosures, Racial/Ethnic Transitions, and Residential Segregation” is used to identify which racial groups, according to research and modeling, have more than 10 percent representation within the given census tract.

Figure 3-6 shows the neighborhood segregation by tract within the City. The western portion of the City has a three (3) group mix neighborhood concentration consisting of a Latinx, White, and Asian neighborhood type. The eastern portion of the City has a Latinx -White neighborhood concentration consisting of a Latinx-White neighborhood type.

Figure 3-7 Calimesa Diversity Index, 2018 uses data from the ESRI 2018 demographic estimates. The figure shows the diversity index by block group within the City. The western portion of the City has high (70% - 85%) diversity whereas the eastern portion of the City has less than moderate to moderate (40% - 70%) diversity all consistent with the diversity of surrounding jurisdictions. The very southern portion of the City has lower diversity.
9 Hall, Matthew, Kyle Crowder, and Amy Spring. 2015. “Neighborhood Foreclosures, Racial/Ethnic Transitions, and Residential Segregation.” American Sociological Review 80:526–549. ACS, 2019.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-64 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-5: Calimesa Racial Demographic, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-65 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-6: Calimesa Neighborhood Segregation, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-66 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-7: Calimesa Diversity Index, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-67 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Race/Ethnicity
Segregation is defined as the separation or isolation of race/ethnic group, national origin group, individuals with disabilities, or other social group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social connection or dealing between persons or groups, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means.

To measure segregation in a given jurisdiction, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides racial or ethnic dissimilarity trends. Dissimilarity indices are used to measure the evenness with which two groups (frequently defined on racial or ethnic characteristics) are distributed across the geographic units, such as block groups within a community. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with 0 meaning no segregation and 100 indicating complete segregation between two groups. The index score can be understood as the percentage of one of the two groups that would need to move to produce an even distribution of racial/ethnic groups within the specified area. For example, if an index score is above 60, 60%, of people in the specified area would need to move to eliminate segregation. The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <40: Low Segregation
• 40-54: Moderate Segregation
• >55: High Segregation

REGIONAL TRENDS
Riverside County is a large, diverse jurisdiction in which people of color comprise a majority of the population. As of the 2018 Census, 36.6 percent of residents were non-Hispanic Whites, 6 percent of residents were non-Hispanic Blacks, 48 percent were Hispanic, 6.1 percent were non-Hispanic Asian, 0.4 percent were Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native, and 2.9 percent were all other Non-Hispanic residents. Refer to Figure 3-8 for the distribution and proportion of non-white residents at the block group level.

In Riverside County, all minority (non-White) residents combined are considered moderately segregated from White residents, with an index score of 44.93 at the Census Tract Block Group level (Table 3-16).

Segregation between non-White and White residents has remained relatively steady since 1990. However, since 1990, segregation has increased from low to moderate levels for Hispanic residents, the largest increase among all racial/ethnic groups. This trend is commonly seen throughout the State and is likely attributed to an increase of Hispanic residents during the migration boom of the mid-to-late 1990s. Asian or Pacific Islander residents also experienced a slight increase in segregation amongst White residents.

Overall, segregation between Black residents and White residents has decreased since 1990s.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-68 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-8 Racial Demographics (Percent of Total Non-White Population) in Riverside County Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-69 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-16: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (1990-2020) in Riverside County Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Current
(2010 Census
Block Group)
Non-White/White 41.19 41.95 41.86 44.93
Black/White 67.52 62.54 58.42 61.80
Hispanic/White 36.70 45.24 48.07 49.49
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 34.89 32.73 35.67 40.55 Source: HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool (AFFH-T), Table 3 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends, Data version: AFFHT006, released July 10th, 2020.

A key aspect of fair housing choice is equal access to credit for the purchase or improvement of a home, particularly considering the continued impacts of the lending/credit crisis. In the past, credit market distortions and other activities such as “redlining” were prevalent and prevented some groups from having equal access to credit. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977 and the subsequent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HDMA) were designed to improve access to credit for all members of the community and hold the lend industry responsible for community lending. Under the HMDA, lenders are required to disclose information on the disposition of home loan applications and on the race or national origin, gender, and annual income of loan applicants.

However, lending discrimination continues to be a contributing factor to disproportionate housing needs, as class groups who struggle to obtain access to loans are more likely to experience housing problems such as cost burdens, overcrowding, and substandard housing, and to b e renters rather than homeowners. When banks and other financial institutions deny loan applications from people of color, they are less likely to achieve home ownership and instead must turn to the rental market. Riverside County’s Analysis of impediments identified six instances were a racial/ethnic group had approval rates that were lower than the group approval rates as a whole (shown in Table 3-17). These groups included the following:
• Middle Income Asian Home Improvement Loans – 0 percent approval rate vs. 37.93 percent group approval rate
• Middle Income White Home Refinance Loans – 38.92 percent approval rate vs 54.02 percent group approval rate
• Upper Income White Home Improvement Loans – 36.54 percent approval rate vs. 52.04 percent group approval rate
• Upper Income Asian Home Improvement Loans – 30.77 percent approval rate vs. 52.04 percent group approval rate
• Upper Income African American Refinance Loans – 45.56 percent approval rate vs. 57.13 percent group approval rate
• Upper Income African American Refinance Loans – 43.33 percent approval rate vs. 57.13 percent group approval rate

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-70 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-17: Home Loan Approval Rates by Applicant Characteristics Type Low/Mod Income
<80% MFI
Middle Income
80-120% MFI Upper Income 120+ MFI
Race/Ethnicity Loan
Applications
Approval
Rate
Loan
Applications
Approval
Rate
Loan
Applications
Approval
Rate
Home
Purchase 320 65.31% 536 74.25% 1142 75.57%
Hispanic 121 66.94% 177 68.36% 203 72.41%
White 89 57.30% 154 67.53% 430 68.37%
Asian 17 64.71% 25 72.00% 54 66.67%
African
American 11 63.64% 44 79.55% 80 66.25%
All Others 6 66.67% 5 80.00% 33 72.73%
Decline or N/A 76 72.37% 131 88.55% 342 90.35%
Home
Improvement 122 22.95% 116 37.93% 269 52.04%
Hispanic 41 21.95% 43 32.56% 50 62.00%
White 44 20.45% 38 34.21% 104 36.54%
Asian 4 25.00% 2 0.00% 13 30.77%
African
American 6 16.67% 12 58.33% 19 63.16%
All Others 2 50.00% 3 66.67% 11 81.82%
Decline or N/A 25 28.00% 18 44.44% 72 63.89%
Home
Refinance 525 40.57% 535 54.02% 1150 57.13%
Hispanic 191 32.46% 136 50.00% 169 49.70%
White 161 32.92% 185 38.92% 428 45.56%
Asian 17 35.29% 14 57.14% 43 51.16%
African
American 22 31.82% 26 53.85% 60 43.33%
All Others 8 62.50% 5 60.00% 28 50.00%
Decline or N/A 126 63.49% 169 73.37% 422 74.88%
Notes: 1. Median household income in the past 12 months (in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars).

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

When racial and ethnic groups are unable to obtain loans, they are far more likely to be relegated to certain areas of the community. While de jure segregation (discriminatory separation of groups of people by government-enacted law) is currently illegal, the drastic difference in loans denied between White individuals and minorities perpetuates de facto segregation, which is segregation that is not created by law, but which forms a pattern as a result of various outside factors, including former laws.

LOCAL TRENDS
According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, the majority (61.4 percent) of residents were White. 28.9 percent were Hispanic or Latino, 2.7 percent were Asian alone, 1.7 percent were Black or African American, and less than a percent each were American Indian, Some Other Race, and Native Hawaiian.

Table 3-18 displays the racial composition of the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Region compared to the city of Calimesa. Overall, the data shows that the City is less diverse than the region. The City’s White population percentage is almost double that of the region’s White population. The City also has half the

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-71 Calimesa Housing Element Update
percentage of Hispanic or Latino residents compared to the region at 28.9 percent and 47.25 percent, respectively. The City also has a lower percentage of Black or African American residents (1.7 percent) compared to the region (7.14 percent). The Region has a higher percentage of Asian or Pacific Islander than the city of Calimesa.

Table 3-18: Racial Composition for Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Region and Calimesa Race/Ethnicity Riverside-San BernardinoOntario, CA (Region)City of Calimesa White, Non-Hispanic 36.61% 61.4%
Black, Non-Hispanic 7.14% 1.7%
Hispanic or Latino 47.25% 28.9%
Asian or Pacific Islander 6.19% 2.7%
Native American 0.46% <1%
Two or More Races 2.17% <1%
Other 0.18% <1%
Source: County of Riverside Analysis of Impediments (2019-2024), U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-Year Estimates Figure 3-9 provides visuals on racial demographics for the City of Calimesa on the block group level. The City has for main racial distributions. The eastern portion of the City has a Non-White population percentage between 21 and 40 percent while the western portion falls between 41 and 60 percent. The southern region of the City generally consists of 81 percent and above Non-White residents. However, one neighborhood in the southern most section of the City has a Non-White population of less than 20 percent.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-72 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-9 Racial Demographics (Percent of Total Non-White Population) Calimesa Source:

California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-73 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Further analysis for protected classes such as persons with disabilities and other protected classes is found under Section 3 (Discussion of Disproportionate Housing Needs).

Summary of Potential Effects on Integration and Segregation Trends Affordability of future candidate housing sites have the potential to affect current patterns of residential segregation based on race and ethnicity and/or income once housing is built within the City. Previous analyses have established that there are varying levels of racial and ethnic segregation in Calimesa but there is no significant segregation. Communities in the southern part of Calimesa are generally characterized by non-white predominance. However, there is a concentration of White residents in the southern most community in the City.

By placing more affordable housing in predominantly non-white communities, housing issues such as overcrowding, overpayment, and lack of housing options can be alleviated where they are felt most. The redistribution of lower-income household opportunities into places where non-white predominance is not as strong could mean the alteration of settlement trends for non-white and low-income households. As a results, Calimesa communities could become further integrated in regard to race/ethnicity and income.

Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) To assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract-based definition of R/ECAPs. The definition involves a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concentration threshold is straightforward: R/ECAPs must have a non-white population of 50 percent or more. Regarding the poverty threshold, Wilson (1980) defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements this with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be a R/ECAP if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.

Location of residence can have a substantial effect on mental and physical health, education opportunities, and economic opportunities. Urban areas that are more residentially segregated by race and income tend to have lower levels of upward economic mobility than other areas. Research had found that racial inequality is thus amplified by residential segregation. 10 However, these areas may also provide different opportunities, such as ethnic enclaves providing proximity to centers of cultural significance, or business, social networks, and communities to help immigrants preserve cultural identity and establish themselves in new places. Overall, it is important to study and identify these areas in order to understand patterns of segregation and poverty in a City.

Figure 3-10 below displays the R/ECAP analysis in the Calimesa area. The HUD data available does not provide information specific to the City of Calimesa, a broader more regional approach was taken, as shown in the map. The figure shows there are no pockets of racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty in or near the City. While the City has no R/ECAP areas, there are still concentrated areas of poverty in the City therefore, the City is committed to increasing housing mobility opportunities for persons. Section 4 of 10 Schulz, A. J., Williams, D. R., Israel, B. A., & Lempert, L. B. (2002). Racial and spatial relations as fundamental determinants of health in Detroit. The Milbank quarterly, 80(4), 677–iv. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.00028.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-74 Calimesa Housing Element Update
this Housing Element outlines housing opportunity, affordable housing, and fair housing strategies to increase opportunities to all households.

Table 3-19 below identifies the racial and ethnic composition of the City of Calimesa as compared to the County of Riverside and the State of California. The City of Calimesa, the County of Riverside and the State of California all has a majority White population. Additionally, Calimesa, the County and the State have a population over 30 percent Hispanic or Latino of any race. All three geographies have under one percent population of Native Indian and Alaska Native persons and under one percent Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. The City of Calimesa is comparatively less diverse than the County of Riverside, with an overall small percentage on non-white residents. Lack of diversity may be due to a number of factors, cost of housing, cost of living, access to economic opportunity or access to community and necessary resources.

While there is no local data for the limited of diversity of the Calimesa population, the City is committed to creating outreach avenues to continue to include residents who may be English second language and/or nonwhite.

Table 3-19: Population by Race
Race/Ethnicity Calimesa County of Riverside California
2019 2019 2019
White 80.0% 59.9% 59.7%
Black or African American 1.3% 6.5% 5.8%
American Indian and Alaska
Native

1.0% 0.8% 0.8%
Asian 3.3% 6.5% 14.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander

0.0% 0.3% 0.4%
Some other race 7.3% 21.5% 14.0%
Two or more races 7.1% 4.4% 4.9%
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any
race) 30.5% 48.9% 39.0%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-year estimates, 2019.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-75 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-10: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs), County of Riverside and Calimesa Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-76 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty have long been analyzed and reviewed as a contributing factor to segregation. However, patterns of segregation in the United States show that of all racial groups, Whites are the most severely segregated. 11 Research also identifies segregation of affluence to be greater than the segregation of poverty. Racial and economic segregation can have significant effects on respective communities, including but not limited to, socioeconomic disparities, educational experiences and benefits, exposure to environmental conditions and crime, and access to public goods and services.

Data used in the analysis of Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) is from the 2017-2021 American Community Survey and measured at the census tract level. HCD has created an RCAA metric to reflect California’s relative diversity and regional conditions, and to aid local jurisdictions in their analysis of racially concentrated areas of poverty and affluence pursuant to AB 686 and AB 1304. HCD’s RCAA metric is created by first calculating a Location Quotient (LQ) for each California census tract using data from the 2017-2021 ACS. This LQ represents the percentage of the predominant population for each census tract in a given Council of Governments (COG) region. For example, a census tract with a LQ of 1.5 has a percentage of total white population that is 1.5 times higher than the average percentage of total white population in the given COG region. To determine the RCAAs, census tracts with an LQ of more than 1.25 and a median income 1.5 times higher than the COG Area Median Income (AMI), or 1.5 times the State AMI, whichever is lower, are assigned a numeric score of 1. A score of 1 indicates that a census tract is an RCAA. Census tracts that did not meet this criterion are assigned a score of 0.

The nationwide RCAA analysis identifies the following:
• RCAA tracts have more than twice the median household income of the average tract in their metro area.
• Poverty rates in RCAAs are significantly lower and are, on average about 20 percent of a typical tract.
• RCAAs tracts are more income homogenous than RECAPs.
• The average RCAA is about 57 percent affluent, whereas the average RECAP had a poverty rate of 48 percent.
• The typical RCAA tract has a rate of affluence 3.2 times that of a typical tract, whereas RECAPs on average had a poverty rate 3.2 times that of a typical tract.

Overall, RCAAs may represent a public policy issue to the extent that they have been created and maintained through exclusionary and discriminatory land use and development practices. Postwar patterns of suburbanization in many metropolitan areas were characterized by White communities erecting barriers to affordable housing and engaging in racially exclusionary practices. 12 Additionally, Table 3-20 below shows local (Calimesa) and regional (Riverside County) context for the median household incomes of white residents.
11 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Minnesota. Edwards Goets, Damiano, Williams. 2019.
12 Ibid.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-77 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-20: Median Household Income by Race
Race
Calimesa County of Riverside
Median
Income Population Median Income Population
White $ 55,3411 84.8% $70,4561 66.7%
All Households $ 56,903 -- $ 67,005 --
Notes: 1. Median household income in the past 12 months (in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars).

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

All of the City of Calimesa has a moderate to high concentration of people who identify as White. The southern region also reports a larger percentage of households who earn a median annual income of at least $125,000. It is important to note that the area reporting households who earn a median annual income of at least $125,000 is almost entirely uninhabited. The overlap of high racial concentrations (those who identify as White) and high incomes result in an RCAA. It can be determined that there are no census tracts in Calimesa that would meet the criteria to be categorized as an RCAA. A historical analysis of Calimesa shows that there have not been RCAAs in the City in its recorded history.

There are RCAA’s in Riverside County, but they are located in very few census tracts, most of which are either vacant or have low populations. There are two RCAAs bordering Calimesa’s northern City limit in Yucaipa and Redlands. This indicates that areas near Calimesa have a moderate to high concentration of people who identify as white which overlaps with a large percentage of households reporting they earn a median annual income of up to $125,000.Figures 3-11 below display the White majority tracts and median incomes throughout Calimesa.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-78 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-11: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) – Calimesa Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-79 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Regional Opportunity Index (ROI)
The UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank partnered to develop the Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) intended to help communities understand local social and economic opportunities. The goal of the ROI is to help target resources and policies toward people and places with the greatest need to foster thriving communities. The ROI incorporates both “people” and “place components, integrating economic, infrastructure, environmental, and social indicators into a comprehensive assessment of the facto rs driving opportunity.”
The ROI: People is a relative measure of people's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life as follows:
• Education Opportunity: Assesses people’s relative success in gaining educational assets, in the form of a higher education, elementary school achievement, and regular elementary school attendance.
• Economic Opportunity: Measures the relative economic well-being of the people in a community, in the form of employment and income level.
• Housing Opportunity: Measures the relative residential stability of a community, in the form of homeownership and housing costs.
• Mobility/Transportation Opportunity: Contains indicators that assess a community’s relative opportunities for overcoming rural isolation.
• Health/Environment Opportunity: Measures the relative health outcomes of the people within a community, in the form of infant and teen health and general health. • Civic Life Opportunity: A relative social and political engagement of an area, in the form of households that speak English and voter turnout.

The ROI: Place is a relative measure of an area's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life. • Education Opportunity: Assesses a census tract's relative ability to provide educational opportunity, in the form of high-quality schools that meet the basic educational and social needs of the population.
• Economic Opportunity: Measures the relative economic climate of a community, in the form of access to employment and business climate.
• Housing Opportunity: Measures relative availability of housing in a community, in the form of housing sufficiency and housing affordability.
• Health/Environment Opportunity: A relative measure of how well communities meet the health needs of their constituents, in the form of access to health care and other health-related environments.
• Civic Life Opportunity: Measures the relative social and political stability of an area, in the form of neighborhood stability (living in same residence for one year) and US citizenship.

Figure 3-12 (Regional Opportunity Index, people) identifies the achievement levels that persons living within the City have and Figure 3-13 (Regional Opportunity Index, place) displays the opportunity that different census tracts can provide. As shown in Figures 3-12 below, the majority of the City of Calimesa is classified as a moderate to high opportunity zone with pockets of slightly higher opp ortunity in the north and southeast portion of the City. This indicates a moderate level of relative opportunities that people are able to achieve as well as a moderate level of relative opportunities that Calimesa provides. Figure 3-13 below shows that the majority of Calimesa has low opportunity with a pocket in the south with the lowest

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-80 Calimesa Housing Element Update
opportunity and another pocket of low opportunity. This indicates a low level of relative opportunities that people are able to achieve as well as a low level of relative opportunities that Calimesa provides.

Table 3-21 below identifies the City’s overall opportunity indicators compared to the County and State. The data shows the following key findings:
• The City has higher rates of college educated adults than the County and equal to the State and lower levels of UC and CSU eligibility.
• Calimesa residents experience higher basic income levels, and the City has less than half the job availability rate of the State. Overall City job quality is less than both the County and State’s rate and growth in Calimesa is 2% as opposed to the County’s 5% and State’s 3%. Bank accessibility for residents is lower rates than the County and State. • Calimesa has a significantly higher rate of homeownership than the County and State (88 percent, 65%, and 55 percent respectively) as well as higher rates of cost burden. • There are higher rates of adequate housing in the City compared to the County and State. • Mobility and transportation access is higher in Calimesa than the County and State; Calimesa residents have higher commute times than the County and State’s median. • Overall health and environmental opportunities similar to the County and State. However, Calimesa has lower health care availability as well as higher rates supermarket availability. • Calimesa has higher rates of US citizenship and English speakers, and a higher percentage of voters compared to the County and State.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-81 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-21: Opportunity Indicators, Calimesa and California ROI Indicator Calimesa Riverside
County California
Education
People
College Educated Adults 38% 28% 38%
Math Proficiency 71% 69% 70%
English Proficiency 68% 63% 65%
Elementary Truancy 30% 31% 24%
Place
High School Graduation Rate 88% 85% 83%
UC/CSU Eligibility 28% 33% 41%
Teacher Experience 42% 59% 36%
High School Discipline Rate 7% 7% 6%
Economic
People
Employment Rate 92% 86% 89%
Minimum Basic Income 75% 60% 64%
Place
Job Availability 223.0 531.3 701.8
Job Quality 28% 33% 40%
Job Growth 2% 5% 3%
Bank Accessibility 0.1 0.2 0.2
Housing
People
Home Ownership 88% 65% 55%
Housing Cost Burden 60% 51% 52%
Place
Housing Adequacy 98% 92% 91%
Housing Affordability 0.3 0.3 0.2
MobilityPeople
Vehicle Availability 94% 91% 86%
Commute Time 48% 56% 60%
Internet Access 4.4 4.6 4.0
Health/Environmenta
l
Place
Infant Health 96% 95% 95%
Birth to Teens 4% 9% 7%
Years of Life Lost 29.4 32.9 29.8
Place
Air Quality 8.3 9.1 10.0
Prenatal Care 85% 84% 83%
Access to Supermarket 75% 39% 53%
Health Care Availability 0.5 1.3 1.8
Civic Life
People
Voting Rates 27% 26% 31%
English Speakers 97% 90% 88%
Place
US Citizenship 93% 84% 83%
Neighborhood Stability 85% 84% 85%
Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-82 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-12: Regional Opportunity Index, People (2014)

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-83 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-13: Regional Opportunity Index, Place (2014)

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-84 Calimesa Housing Element Update
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee/HCD Distribution of Private and Public Resources
The Department of Housing and Community Development together with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee established the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD). The Task force developed the TCAC/HCD opportunity Area Maps to understand how public and private resources are spatially distributed.

The Task force defines opportunities as pathways to better lives, including health, education, and employment. Overall, opportunity maps are intended to display which areas, according to research, offer low-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health.

According to the Task Force’s methodology, the tool allocates the 20 percent of the tracts in each region with the highest relative index scores to the “Highest Resource” designation and the next 20 percent to the “High Resource” designation. Each region then ends up with 40 percent of its total tracts as “Highest” or “High” resource. These two categories are intended to help state decision-makers identify tracts within each region that the research suggests low-income families are most likely to thrive, and where they typically do not have the option to live—but might, if given the choice. As shown in Figure 3-14 below, all of Calimesa and the surrounding regions are classified as high and highest resource. The City of Calimesa is committed to exploring programs and avenues to increase housing access and opportunity to both existing residents, future residents, and households in nearby area.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-85 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-14: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps, Calimesa (2020) Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and Department of Housing and Community Development, 2020.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-86 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Opportunity Indicators
Opportunity indicators also help inform communities about disparities in acces s to opportunity. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed the opportunity indicators to help inform communities about disparities in access to opportunity, the scores are based on nationally available data sources and assess resident’s access to key opportunity assets in the City. Table 3-22 provides the index scores (ranging from zero to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
• Low Poverty Index: The low poverty index captures poverty in a given neighborhood. The poverty rate is determined at the census tract level. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have highperforming elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools.

The higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. • Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
• Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a three-person single-parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. • Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a three-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
• Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. • Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.

Table 3-22 below displays the opportunity indices by race and ethnicity for persons living in Riverside County; opportunity indicators data is not available for the City of Calimesa. Table 3-22 shows poverty among the County’s Hispanic and Native American, Non-Hispanic, populations. Almost all racial and ethnic groups in the County are reported having low scores for school proficiency, labor market, transit, low transportation costs, and job proximity. The Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic, population is the only one to score above 50 in the school proficiency index category. The County’s whole population are subject to fairly low levels of environmental health.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-87 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-22: Opportunity Indices by Race/Ethnicity, Riverside County (Riverside
County, CA
CDBG)
Jurisdiction
Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, NonHispanic 55.42 50.59 32.21 42.95 36.27 35.59 51.35 Black, NonHispanic 53.05 48.56 28.83 43.34 35.68 36.13 45.38 Hispanic 38.72 37.59 23.26 46.71 39.19 31.93 50.77
Asian or
Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic

66.75 61.81 42.07 48.13 31.22 37.62 39.79
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic

41.33 36.49 22.15 40.93 37.76 32.05 59.71
Population below federal poverty line
White, NonHispanic 43.49 39.50 24.61 43.08 39.64 32.15 55.33 Black, NonHispanic 32.37 33.01 20.20 41.20 39.83 26.04 54.93 Hispanic 24.54 28.02 15.14 49.53 42.62 29.52 53.26
Asian or
Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic

54.59 51.62 32.00 44.78 35.62 41.21 45.47
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic

34.71 30.52 17.33 39.34 41.01 40.69 56.10
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Online Mapping tool, Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA School Proficiency
TCAC and HCD charged the Task Force with creating an opportunity map to identify areas in every region of the state whose characteristics have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families – particularly long-term outcomes for children.13 The TCAC reviews elementary school test scores, graduation rates for high schools and demographic attributes related 13 California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map, December 2020.

Accessed online October 2021.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-88 Calimesa Housing Element Update
to race, ethnicity, and poverty for school enrollment to create the school proficiency indicator. 14 Figure 3- 15 shows that all of Calimesa is considered high proficiency. There is a slight overlap between lower education outcomes and areas with a higher concentration of Hispanic or Latino , Non-White, and, Low- and Moderate-Income populations. This area of lower education opportunity scores is located in the northern portion of the City, just east of the 10 freeway. There is no correlation between proficient schools or educational outcomes and areas with higher rates of persons with a disability, but it is still important to prevent such concentration moving forward.The data shows that the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA allocation are evenly dispersed throughout the community with an emphasis on locating units where there is a high level of access to important public services, such as proficient schools, and transit. The distribution of potential units provides increased opportunities for low-income housing in areas with higher rates of low educational outcomes.
14 IBID.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-89 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-15: Education Score – TCAC Opportunity Areas, Calimesa Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-90 Calimesa Housing Element Update
LOCAL
The City of Calimesa is served by two school district the Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District which serves the western portion of the City and Beaumont Unified School District which serves the eastern portion of the City. Mesa View Middle School is the only public school within the City. Mesa Grande Academy is the only currently operating elementary school, which is owned and operated by the Seventhday Adventist Church. High school students in the City attend either Yucaipa High School or Beaumont High School. None of the schools that serve Calimesa students fall within a racially or ethnically concentrated area poverty (R/ECAP). According to the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, 40 percent of Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified school district students met or exceeded the standard for English Language Arts while 25.17 percent of students met or exceeded the standard for Mathematics. In Beaumont Unified school district, 45 percent of students met or exceeded the standard for English Language Arts while 31 percent of students met or exceeded the standard for Mathematics.

Figure 3-16 shows neighborhood segregation within the City with the location of schools overlaid on the map. Mesa View Middle School falls within a mixed group typology and has a 37 percent proficiency for English Language Arts and a 22 percent proficiency for Mathematics. Yucaipa High School falls within a Latinx-White typology and has a 54 percent proficiency for English Language Arts and a 24 percent proficiency for Mathematics. Beaumont High School falls within a Latinx -White typology and has a 61 percent proficiency for English Language Arts and a 27 percent proficiency for Mathematics. Mesa Grande Academy falls with a Latinx-White typology and has no data available in the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress database. In general, Calimesa students, regardless of race, ethnicity, or protected class, have higher proficiency and access to educational opportunities than the averag e student in the region. While Calimesa residents can experience positive educational outcomes, the City is dedicated to maintaining and improving education opportunities and outcomes through implementation of programs in the Housing Plan.

Figure 3-16: Neighborhood Segregation and School Proficiency (2022)

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-91 Calimesa Housing Element Update

REGIONAL TRENDS
Stanford’s Education Data Archive (SEDA) is an “initiative aimed at collecting data to help decisionmakers, parents, students, and children improve educational opportunity for all children. According to SEDA, Riverside County provides lower than average education opportunities compared to counties across the country. The data revealed the following findings within the county of Riverside:
• The County has average test scores 0.92 grade levels below the national average • The County has average test scores 1.2 grade levels lower than those of counties with similar socioeconomic status
• The County’s students learn 1.9 percent less each grade than the national average • Test scores in the County have increased an average of 0.01 grade levels each year Figure 3-17 below also shows educational opportunity scores in the County according to TCAC. The figure shows that cities in the western portion of the County generally have higher educational outco mes than cities on the eastern side of the County.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-92 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-17: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps, Region (2020) Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-93 Calimesa Housing Element Update

INVESTMENT AND PROGRAMS
Calimesa has placed a high priority on investing in community assets such as schools, recreational facilities and programs, social service programs, parks, streets, and active transportation and infrastructure. The City will aim to identify a minimum of one project or program that seeks to improve community assets such as schools by FY 23/24 as well as specific funding sources and amounts to allocate. The programs and projects will address disparities in access to opportunities such as education. The City’s Consolidated Plan also has the objective of providing new or improved community facilities such as school facilities.

In addition, the County of Riverside offers Expanded Learning Opportunities (ELO) has grant funding opportunities which provides supplemental instruction and support to students, including those identified as needing academic, social-emotional, and other supports, such as meals and snacks.

Job Proximity and Economic Score
In additional to school proficiency, the TCAC opportunity maps identify economic indicators such as job proximity and economic opportunity. The economic domain of the TCAC studies the following indicators to identify economic opportunities in a city:
• Poverty Indicator: The Task Force chose to use 200 percent of the poverty line to reflect the higher cost of living in California. Because each indicator in this domain is designed to measure opportunity in a positive sense, this indicator is measured as the percent of a tract’s or rural block group’s residents who live above 200 percent of the federal poverty line. 15 • Adult Education Indicator: This indicator was measured by calculating the percent of adults 25 years and older who have earned at least a bachelor’s degree in each tract and rural block group.
• Employment Indicator: The employment rate was calculated as the percent of individuals in each tract and rural block group age 20-64 who are employed in either the civilian labor force or the armed forces. The Task Force opted to use the employment rate because the unemployment rate does not account for individuals who have dropped out of the labor force due to disillusionment with their job prospects.
• Proximity to Jobs Indicator: This indicator was calculated in two stages. The first stage uses Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LEHDLODES) data from 2017 to calculate the population-weighted median distance traveled by workers earning $1,250 a month or less (or the equivalent of $15,000 a year). 16 The second stage calculates the number of “proximate” jobs by aggregating the number of jobs filled by individuals without bachelor’s degrees that fall within the typical commute distance.

Figure 3-18 displays the TCAC economic indicators score. The map shows that the City of Calimesa has a majority positive economic score Citywide with only two census tracts receiving a lower score.

Additionally, Figure 3-18 displays the TCAC data for job proximity. The map shows that the eastern portion of the City has moderate job proximity, and the western portion of the City has low job proximity.

There is a slight overlap between lower economic scores and job proximity and areas with a higher concentration of Hispanic or Latino, Non-White, and, Low- and Moderate-Income populations. There is also a correlation between job proximity and areas with higher rates of persons with a disability, so it is important to prevent such concentration by allocating units in areas with higher access to economic opportunities. 15 California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map, December 2020.

Accessed online September 2021.
16 Note: The Task Force chose this benchmark in recognition that low-wage workers tend to commute shorter distances than higher-wage employees due to constraints on mode and cost of travel.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-94 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Special needs populations and populations with protected characteristics may be negatively affected by their proximity to jobs. Lower proximity to jobs may create inaccessibility and make it more difficult for these populations to obtain jobs where transportation is not available. In general, the City experiencing poor employment opportunities and job proximity, The areas in Figure 3-19 with the poorest job proximity are areas in the hills which are either vacant land or exclusively residential. It is common to see vacant or exclusively residential areas with low job proximity due to little to no employment opportunities.

The data shows that the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA allocation are evenly dispersed throughout the community with an emphasis on locating units where there is a high level of access to important public services, and transit. The distribution of potential units provides increased opportunities for low-income housing in areas with higher rates of low economic scores and job proximity.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-95 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-18: Economic Score – TCAC Opportunity Areas, Calimesa Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-96 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-19: Job Proximity Index, Calimesa
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-97 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Access to Transit
Access to transportation, specifically public transit provides households with affordable and environmentally friendly commuting options. It can also increase accessibility to essential retail such as grocers and markets as well as recreational activities and safe transit options f or young adults and children.

AllTransit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the data provided, Calimesa scored a

2.3 AllTransit performance score, illustrating very low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling negligible number of people to take transit to work. Additionally, AllTransit identified the following transit related statistics for Calimesa:
• 63.8 percent of all jobs in Calimesa are located within ½ mile of transit • There are 5,111 customer households within a 30-minute transit commute of local businesses • 0.21 percent of workers in Calimesa walk to work
o percent of workers in Calimesa bike to work
On average, households in Calimesa have the following:
• 230 transit trips per week within ½ Mile
• 2 transit routes available within ½ mile of an average block group. • 4,839 jobs accessible in a 30-minute transit trip
• 0.34 percent of all commuters use transit
By comparison, the City of Banning scored 2.6, the City of Beaumont scored 2.5, the City of Hemet scored

3.9 and the City of Moreno Valley scored 4.4. Access to transportation increases both economic and environmental/health opportunities. Table 3-23 and Figure 3-20 show transit performance scores in the City of Calimesa.

Table 3-23: Opportunity Indicator – Transit
Jurisdiction
All Transit
Performance
Score
Transit Trips
Per Week
within 1/2 Mile
Jobs
Accessible
in 30-min
trip
Commuters
Who Use
Transit
Transit
Routes
within 1/2
Mile
Calimesa 2.3 230 4,839 .34% 2
County of
Riverside 3.3 589 27,262 1.42% 3
Source: AllTransit, Online transit metric viewer. Accessed September 2021.

Most of the City has poor transit accessibility, but the areas with higher concentrations of all protected characteristics exhibit the highest transportation scores in the City. Residents with protected characteristics may exhibit a disproportionate need for reliable public transportation. Although public transit is not as accessible, it is generally affordable and makes up a small proportion of a households’ expenses as seen in Table 3-22.

It is important to increase access to transportation in the rest of the City in order to improve access for all protected classes. There is a correlation between low transit scores areas and higher rates of persons with a disability, so it is important to prevent such concentration by allocating units in areas with higher access to transportation and economic opportunities.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-98 Calimesa Housing Element Update
The data shows that the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA allocation are evenly dispersed throughout the community with an emphasis on locating units where there is a high level of access to important public services, and transit. The distribution of potential units provides increased opportunities for low-income housing in areas with higher rates of low transportation access.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-99 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-20: AllTransit Score, Calimesa
Source: AllTransit, Online transit metric viewer. Accessed September 2021.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-100 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Environmental Justice
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviro Screen). In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviro Screen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include poverty, educational attainment, linguistic isolation and unemployment. Research has shown a heightened vulnerability of people of certain ethnicities and lower socioeconomic status to environmental pollutants.

The CalEnviro Model Is made up of a suite of 20 statewide indicators of pollution burden and population characteristics associated with increased vulnerability to pollution’s health effects. The model uses the follow analysis and calculation to identify areas of health risk:
• Uses a weighted scoring system to derive average pollution burden and population characteristics scores for each census tract.
• Calculates a final CalEnviro Screen score for a given census tract relative to the other tracts in the state by multiplying the pollution burden and population characteristics components together.
• The score measures the relative pollution burdens and vulnerabilities in one census tract compared to others and is not a measure of health risk.

Figure 3-21 below displays mapped results for the CalEnviro Screen in Calimesa. The map shows that the City has moderate to low pollution scores, which is consistent with nearby jurisdictions of Yucaipa and Cherry Valley. Overall, low scoring signif ies low pollution burdens in the City, therefore, the City of Calimesa shows low exposure to harmful pollutants.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-101 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-21: CalEnviro Screen 4.0, Calimesa
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-102 Calimesa Housing Element Update

3. Discussion of Disproportionate Housing Needs
The analysis of disproportionate housing needs within Calimesa evaluated existing housing need, need of the future housing population, and units within the community at-risk of converting to market-rate.

Existing Needs
As described on Section 3.E.1 of this Housing Element, the Riverside County Housing Authority administers Section 8 Housing vouchers within the City of Calimesa. As of February 2021, the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside had a 111,000-applicant waitlist to receive Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers, with approximately 500 to 600 people from that list admitted into the program per year. 17 Three households are
currently housed by Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers in Calimesa.

Housing Needs in Calimesa
A variety of factors affect housing needs for different households. Most commonly, disability, household income and households’ characteristics shape the type and size of housing units needed, as well as accessibility based on existing units in a City. Tables 3-24 through 3-30 displayed data for demographic characteristics of Calimesa, as compared to the County of Riverside and the State of California. Additional detailed analysis of the Calimesa community demographics is outlined in Chapter 2: Community Profile of this Housing Element.

Table 3-24 displays the data for persons with disabilities in the City, County, and State. Overall, about 10 percent of the California population reported having at least one disability. Similarly, in the County , nearly 11 percent of persons reported at least one disability. The City reported a higher percentage than the State and the County at 17 percent. Of the 17 percent Calimesa residents who reported a disability, the majority were ambulatory difficulties, which could be tied to the City’s senior population. Ease of reasonable accommodation procedures and opportunity for accessible housing can provide increase housing security for the population with disabilities.

Table 3-24: Population by Disability Type, Compared by Geography, 2019 Disability City of Calimesa County of Riverside California Total with a Disability 17.0% 11.6% 10.6%
Hearing Difficulty 4.0% 3.3% 2.9%
Vision Difficulty 2.9% 2.3% 2.0%
Cognitive Difficulty 4.7% 4.5% 4.3%
Ambulatory Difficulty 10.9% 6.5% 5.8%
Self-care Difficulty 3.2% 2.8% 2.6%
Independent Living 9.4% 5.9% 5.5%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Figure 3-22 below identifies the percentage of persons with disabilities living in Calimesa, according to 2019 ACS data. As the figure illustrates, the City of Calimesa has a moderate disabled population (10-20 17 County of Riverside Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Recommended budget volume 1, June 2021, accessed December 1, 2021.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-103 Calimesa Housing Element Update
percent), with census tracts towards the easternmost part of the City containing 10 to 20 percentage and a high disabled population in the southernmost part of the City (20 to 30 percent). These figures are similar to those of neighboring jurisdictions.

The majority of the proposed housing sites are located within the census tracts reporting disabled population from less than 10 to 20 percent. While the percentages are relatively low and similar to neighboring communities, the location of the potential future housing sites in these census tracts may provide opportunities for affordable housing in conjunction with or near services.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-104 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-22: Calimesa Population with a Disability
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-105 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Tables 3-25 and 3-26 display household type and income data for the State, County and City. Overall, the City has a lower percentage of family households than the County and State; this includes family households, married-couple family households, and those with children. Of the three jurisdictions, Calimesa has the largest percentage of non-family households at approximately 4 percent more than the State and 8 percent more than the County. Regarding household income, the City had a significantly lower median household income than the County and State in 2019 ($56,903 in the City compared to $67,005 in the County and $75,235 in the State). As Table 3-26 shows, majority of the City’s households are lower earning; in total 63.6 percent of households in Calimesa earn less than the State median income. Additionally, 55 percent of households in the County and 49.9 percent of households in the State earn less than the State median income.

The data shows that there are two block groups in the northern portion and along County Line Rd and one block group in the southernmost area whose median income for households is less than $55,00. There are block groups in the southern areas of the City ranging from $87,100 and $125,000. The mixed income pattern is comment in the region as seen in the block groups surrounding the City. While there is no significant concentration of income levels in Calimesa, it is important to address any issues that may exacerbate conditions in areas of lower household income.

Table 3-25: Population by Familial Status, Compared by Geography, 2019 Familial Status City of Calimesa County of Riverside California Family Households 64.60% 72.70% 68.70%
Married-Couple
Family Households

50.10% 53.80% 49.80%
Female Householder,
no spouse present

7.90% 13.00% 13.00%
With Children 23.00% 37.20% 34%
Non-Family
Households

35.40% 27.30% 31.30%
Total Households 3,235 724,893 13,044,266
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-106 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-26: Households by Income, Compared by Geography, 2019 Households Income City of Calimesa County of Riverside California Less than $10,000 6.0% 5.4% 4.8%
$10,000-$14,999 5.4% 3.9% 4.1%
$15,000-$24,999 9.1% 8.4% 7.5%
$25,000-$34,999 11.1% 8.5% 7.5%
$35,000-$49,999 14.2% 11.7% 10.5%
$50,000-$74,999 17.8% 17.1% 15.5%
$75,000-$99,999 12.1% 13.1% 12.4%
$100,000-$149,999 14.7% 16.9% 16.6%
$150,000-$199,999 6.0% 7.9% 8.9%
$200,000 or More 3.7% 7.1% 12.2%
Median Income $56,903 $67,005 $75,235
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019 Figure 3-23 below shows a large distribution of census tracts made up of 40 to 60 percent married -couple households. A small southern section of the City shows higher rates of married -couple households; this area includes all single-family homes. In the northernmost part of the City is the lowest percentage of married-couple households. This area, however, is made up of retail, commercial and industrial uses and some residential neighborhoods.

Figure 3-24 illustrates the density of children in married-couple family households throughout Calimesa.

As the figure shows, the propensity of children aligns with the percentages of married -couple households, as shown in Figure 3-23.

As percentages of married-couple households are higher in the City, it is expected for female-headed households, with no spouse present, to be lower. Figure 3-25 shows low percentages of children living in female-headed households, except for the eastern area that 20 to 40 percent of children living in femaleheaded households.

Lastly, as evident in the high rates of married-couple households and moderate rates of female-headed households, Figure 3-26 shows very low percentages of persons over 18 years of age living alone throughout the entire City. This is similar to neighboring cities which are also entirely made up of less than 20 percent individuals living alone.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-107 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-23: Calimesa Married-Couple Households
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-108 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-24: Children in Married-Couple Households
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-109 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-25: Children in Female Households with no Spouse Present Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-110 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-26: Households Living Alone
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-111 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-27 shows the population of persons experiencing homelessness on a regional level, in Calimesa, and in the surrounding cities. From 2019 to 2020, Calimesa had an increase in homeless population of 6.3 percent. Hemet saw a was the only jurisdiction to experience a decrease, while Moreno Valley and Banning increased by 334.2 percent and 10.3 percent, respectively. Riverside County saw an increase of about 2.6 percent in people experiencing homelessness between 2019 and 2020. While there are no homeless shelters within the City limits, there are two listed near the City: Our House Youth Shelter (intended for persons aged 11-17) and the Salvation Army Cold Weather Shelter (only in operation between December 1 through March 31).
18 Increased opportunity for affordable housing and housing assistance as a result of Housing Element adoption has the potential to help house persons experiencing homelessness.

Table 3-27: Homelessness in Calimesa and Surrounding Cities Jurisdiction 2019 Percent of
County 2020 Percent of County
Percent
Change
Banning 39 1.4% 43 1.5% 10.3%
Beaumont 15 0.5% 16 0.6% 6.7%
Calimesa 16 0.6% 17 0.6% 6.3%
Hemet 112 4.0% 93 3.2% -17.0%
Moreno Valley 38 1.4% 165 5.7% 334.2%
Riverside
County 2,811 100.0% 2,884 100.0% 2.6%
Source: Riverside County Point in Time Count, April 2019, June 2020.

People experiencing homelessness in Calimesa are those who do not have a fixed, regular, and adequate overnight residence, or whose overnight residence is a shelter, street, vehicle, or enclosure or structure unfit for habitation. Factors contributing to increases of homelessness may include the following:
• Lack available resources to support stable housing access • Spikes in rent increase and lack of tenant protections • Housing discrimination
• Evictions
• Lack of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income persons • Increases in the number of persons whose incomes fall below the poverty level • Reductions in public subsidies to the poor
• The deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill
The City has evaluated the location of homeless persons in sheltered versus unsheltered living conditions.

It was found that most known homeless persons in the community are currently living in unsheltered conditions. The unsheltered homeless count includes counts in the street, unincorporated areas, and events specific to Transitional Age Youth (TAY). Table 3-28 shows the unsheltered homeless population in Calimesa and surrounding jurisdictions. From 2020 to 2022, the count of unsheltered homeless persons 18 Homeless Shelters Directory. (2020). Calimesa, CA Homeless Shelters. Available at https://www.homelessshelterdirectory.org/city/ca-calimesa.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-112 Calimesa Housing Element Update
dropped by 53 percent. Both Calimesa and Moreno Valley had the biggest drop in uns heltered homeless count compared to the surrounding jurisdictions.

Table 3-28: Unsheltered Homeless Count in Calimesa and Surrounding Cities Jurisdiction Unsheltered
2019 2020 2022 Difference (2020-2022)
Banning 39 43 54 26%
Beaumont 15 16 16 0%
Calimesa 16 17 8 -53%
Hemet 112 93 82 -12%
Moreno Valley 38 165 77 -53%
Riverside County 2045 2155 1980 8%
Source: Homeless Point-in-Time Count and Survey 2022
Table 3-29 shows the most recent homeless count in Calimesa and surrounding jurisdictions. Calimesa had no count of sheltered homeless person in 2022. The City had the least amount of homeless persons in total compared to all the surrounding jurisdictions.

Table 3-29: Homelessness in Calimesa and Surrounding Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Unsheltered Sheltered Total
2022 2022 2022
Banning 54 11 65
Beaumont 16 3 19
Calimesa 8 0 8
Hemet 82 85 167
Moreno Valley 77 10 87
Riverside County 1,980 1,336 3,316
Source: Homeless Point-in-Time Count and Survey 2022
Table 3-30 displays data for households experiencing overpayment or cost burden in the State, County and City. Housing Cost burden has a number of consequences for a household, mainly displacement from their existing living situation creating limited access essential goods and often employment by potentially increasing commute times. Overall, the percentage of households that experience a cost burden greater than 30 percent is lowest in the City (29.5 percent) while the County and State report about 40 percent. The City has a lower percentage (approximately 5 percent less than the County and State) of households that have a high-cost burden over 50 percent. It is important to note that Cost Burden data was not available for

43.4 percent of the City. Increased opportunity for affordable housing and housing assistance funds help to prevent cost burden on households.

Table 3-30: Households by Overpayment, Compared by Geography Overpayment/Cost Burden City of Calimesa County of Riverside California Cost Burden > 30% 29.5% 40.3% 40.1%
Cost Burden > 50% 13.9% 19.2% 19.4%
Cost Burden Not Available 43.4% 1.5% 1.4%
Source: Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data, 2013- 2017.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-113 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-31 displays data for household tenure (owner vs. renter) for the State, County and City.

Homeownership is a crucial foundation for helping families with low incomes build strength, stability, and independence. The opportunity for transition into the homebuyer’s market is important for persons and households in different communities, homeownership allows for increased stability and opportunity to age in place. Table 3-31 shows that the City has a higher rate of homeownership compared to the County and State.

Additionally, Table 3-32 displays data for overcrowding in the State, County and City. Overcrowding is defined as between 1.01 and 1.5 persons per room in a household, and severe overcrowding is defined as more than 1.51 persons per room. Overcrowding often occurs when nonfamily members combine incomes to live in one household, such as college students and roommates, it also occurs when there are not enough size appropriate housing options for large or multigenerational families. The City experiences low rates of overcrowding in comparison to the County and the State. Overcrowding in the City is also shown to occur more often in owner households rather than renter households. In Calimesa, owner and renter households that are severely overcrowded represent 0.0 percent of all households.

Table 3-31: Households by Tenure, Compared by Geography, 2019 Household Tenure City of Calimesa County of Riverside California Owner Households 84.4% 66.3% 66.0%
Renter Households 15.6% 33.7% 34.0%
Total Occupied Housing Units 3,235 724,893 13,044,266
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Table 3-32: Households by Overcrowding, Compared by Geography Overcrowding and
Tenure
City of Calimesa County of Riverside California
Owner Households
Overcrowded 1.5% 2.1% 1.6%
Severely Overcrowded 0.0% 0.8% 0.6%
Renter Households
Overcrowded 0.7% 3.0% 3.6%
Severely Overcrowded 0.0% 1.1% 2.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Figure 3-27 and Figure 3-28 show overpayment for both homeowners and renters throughout the City. As the figures show, the City high overpayment rates closer to the northern edge of the City. Figure 3-28 shows renters are disproportionately overburdened by housing costs throughout most of the City, with some census tracts reporting over 80 percent of renters experiencing a cost burden.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-114 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-27: Overpayment by Home Owners
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-115 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-28: Overpayment by Renters
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-116 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Housing Needs Summary
The data shows that households in Calimesa experience higher rates of disability and non-family households. Residents on average, earn less than the State median income but experience less cost burdens, overcrowding, and homelessness than both the County and State averages. Calimesa experiences higher homeownership rates and lower renter households than the Co unty and State.

The City has included programs in Section 4: Housing Plan to better address the housing needs of Calimesa residents.

Housing Stock in Calimesa
Tables 3-33 and 3-34 display comparative housing stock data for the State, County and City. Table 3-29 below shows data for occupied housing units by type. A variety of housing stock provides increased opportunity in communities for different size and households types. The majority of housing stock in Calimesa is classified as one-unit, detached housing, or single-family housing. Mobile home or other type of housing makes up 37.4 percent of the City which is far greater than both the County and State. Under 1 percent of Calimesa homes include 10 or more units and are referred to as multi-family housing. In comparison to the County and the State, Calimesa has a much lower amount of single-family homes and multi-family housing that includes at least 10 units.

Table 3-33: Occupied Housing Units by Type, Compared by Geography Housing Unit Type City of Calimesa
County of
Riverside
California
1, detached 58.1% 70.8% 58.2%
1, attached 2.8% 4.6% 7.1%
2 apartments 0.0% 1.2% 2.3%
3 or 4 apartments 0.2% 3.3% 5.5%
5 to 9 apartments 0.6% 4.3% 6.0%
10 or more apartments 0.7% 7.7% 17.3%
Mobile home or other type of
housing

37.4% 8.0% 3.5%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Table 3-34 below displays housing stock by year built or the City, County, and State. Older housing generally requires more upkeep, regular maintenance and can cause a cost burden on both renters and homeowners. A majority of housing units were built between 1960 and 1989 in all three jurisdictions.

Overall, increased numbers of older housing can lead to displacement, cost burden, and substandard living conditions.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-117 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-34: Housing Unit by Type, Compared by Geography Year Built City of Calimesa County of Riverside California Built 2014 or later 6.3% 2.3% 1.7%
Built 2010 to 2013 2.4% 2.6% 1.7%
Built 2000 to 2009 12.2% 26.0% 11.2%
Built 1990 to 1999 7.9% 15.8% 10.9%
Built 1980 to 1989 19.4% 21.3% 15.0%
Built 1970 to 1979 22.5% 14.5% 17.6%
Built 1960 to 1969 14.3% 7.7% 13.4%
Built 1950 to 1959 8.4% 6.0% 13.4%
Built 1940 to 1949 3.8% 1.8% 5.9%
Built 1939 or earlier 2.8% 2.1% 9.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Substandard Housing
The City of Calimesa has not conducted a windshield survey to estimate the number of substandard housing within its jurisdiction. In lieu of this analysis, the City uses Code Enforcement cases and estimates of units lacking basic facilities as well as the age of dwelling units.

The Code Enforcement received 51 complaints in 2021 and received 74 as of May 2022. A majority of complaints are for overgrown vegetation, neighbor disputes, and illegally parked vehicles. Occasionally, the City receives complaints about substandard housing conditions. In 2021 and 2022, the Code Enforcement Division received 12 complaints related to substandard housing conditions.

Table 3-35 shows the amount of units that may require repair or replacement in the City of Calimesa. HCD defines substandard housing as dwelling units in need of rehabilitation and replacement as a result of factors such as structural damage and lack of facilities (kitchen, plumbing, telephone, etc.). While there are no units within the City that lack kitchen or plumbing facilities, there are approximately 161 units that lack telephone facility access. Renter households are more likely to experience lack of telephone facilities when compared to owner occupied units, however renters only make up approximately 15 percent of all occupied housing units in the City.

Table 3-35 shows that approximately half (50.94 percent) of the housing units in Calimesa were built before 1979. Similarly to lack of telephone facilities, renters are slightly more likely to live in dwelling units built before 1979. Based on this analysis, it can be estimated that there may be anywhere from 161 to 1,648 substandard units in the City. Based on Code Enforcement cases and complaints, the Code Enforcement Department estimates that approximately 3 to 5 percent of the City’s existing housing stock is in need of rehabilitation. The City’s housing stock is approximately 3,618 housing units. Of the total housing units, regardless of occupancy status, the City estimates that approximately 97 to 162 housing units are in need of rehabilitation. Of the units that may be in need of rehabilitation, it is estimated that 10 percent, or 13 housing units, are in need of significant rehabilitation or replacement. Housing units in need of significant rehabilitation or replacement make up less than one half (0.5) percent of the total housing stock in the City.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-118 Calimesa Housing Element Update
The actual number of units in need of these services cannot be known, however the City offers financial assistance in the form of housing rehabilitation loans for the repair of homes occupied by low-income households if a resident feels they need assistance to make their homes more livable. 19 Table 3-35: Estimate of Substandard Housing
Substandard
Condition
Number
of Owner
Occupied
Units
Percent of all
Owner
Occupied
Housing Units
(2,729 units)
Number
of Renter
Occupied
Units
Percent of all
Renter
Occupied
Housing Units
(506 units)
Total
Number
of Units
Percent of
all Occupied
Housing
Units (3,235
units)
Without
Telephone
Services
117 4.3% 44 8.7% 161 5.0%
Without
Complete
Kitchen
Facilities
0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Without
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Housing
units Built
before 1979
1,390 50.93% 258 51% 1,648 50.94%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019. Table S2504.

Table 3-36 below shows the substandard housing within the City compared to Riverside County and and California from 2010 to 2019. Calimesa has seen a drop in occupied housing units without complete plumbing and kitchen facilities from 2010 to 2019. In 2019, there were no occupied housing units without complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. Calimesa had a lower percentage of substandard housing compared to the County and the State. Both the County and State saw a 0.1 percent decrease in occupied housing units without complete plumbing facilities from 2010 to 2019. Similarly, the County and State did not see any changes to the occupied units without complete kitchen facilities (0.7 percent and

1.1 percent, respectively).
19 City of Calimesa. Housing Rehabilitation Loan. Available at http://www.cityofcalimesa.net/housingrehab.htm.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-119 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-36: Substandard Housing Over Time by Geography
Factors Calimesa Riverside County State of California
2010 2019 2010 2019 2010 2019
Total
Occupied
Housing Units
3,176 3,235 666,906 724,893 12,392,852 13,044,266
Without
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities

0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% 0.4%
Without
Complete
Kitchen
Facilities

1.5% 0.0% 0.7% 0.7% 1.1% 1.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2019.

Table 3-37 below displays the County’s housing stock by year built. Older housing may generally require more upkeep and regular maintenance and can cause a cost burden on both renter and homeowners.

Units over 30 years of age are considered older and more at-risk of requiring upgrades. Approximately

32.1 percent of the County’s housing stock was built prior to 1980. These units should be considered for major rehabilitation. Majority of the housing stock was built after 1980 (68 percent) indicating a relatively newer housing stock.

Table 3-37: Age of Riverside County Housing Stock
Year Built Number of Occupied
Housing Units Percent
2014 or later 19,154 2.3%
2010 to 2013 21,819 2.6%
2000 to 2009 218,763 26.0%
1990 to 1999 132,893 15.8%
1980 to 1989 178,975 21.3%
1970 to 1979 121,586 14.5%
1960 to 1969 64,405 7.7%
1950 to 1959 50,018 6.0%
1940 to 1949 15,187 1.8%
1939 or earlier 17,701 2.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Table 3-38 below displays the City’s housing stock by year built. Approximately half of the housing stock was built prior to 1980 (51.8 percent). 48.2 percent of the occupied housing units are built after 1980, with the majority of units built between 1980 to 1989 (19.4 percent).

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-120 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-38: Age of Calimesa Housing Stock
Year Built Number of Occupied
Housing Units Percent
2014 or later 225 6.3%
2010 to 2013 86 2.4%
2000 to 2009 433 12.2%
1990 to 1999 280 7.9%
1980 to 1989 690 19.4%
1970 to 1979 799 22.5%
1960 to 1969 509 14.3%
1950 to 1959 297 8.4%
1940 to 1949 136 3.8%
1939 or earlier 100 2.8%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Future Housing Need
The City’s future housing need is based on the RHNA allocation of 495 very low and 275 low-income units within the 2021-2029 planning period. Appendix B of this Housing Element shows the City’s ability to meet its 2021-2029 RHNA allocation at all income levels. This demonstrates the City’s ability to accommodate the allocated future affordable housing need of the community.

Displacement Risk
The potential for economic displacement risk can result from a variety of factors, including large-scale development activity, neighborhood reinvestment, infrastructure investments, and changes in local and regional employment opportunity. Economic displacement can be an inadvertent result of public and private investment, where individuals and families may not be able to keep pace with increased property values and market rental rates.

Affordable covenants help to ensure that certain housing units remain affordable for an extended period of time. Covenants help balance the housing market in a community and provide lasting affordable options to low and very low-income households. However, the City of Calimesa has zero (0) housing units with affordable covenants and therefore zero (0) housing units are at risk of converting to market-rate units.

Figure 3-29 uses data from the University of California Berkley Urban Displacement Project which identifies sensitive communities where residents may be vulnerable to displacement due to rising property values and neighborhood change.20 Sensitive communities are communities that have populations vulnerable to 20 PlaceWorks 2021, UC Berkley Urban Displacement Project. Accessed through the California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer on December 1, 2021, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60 .

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-121 Calimesa Housing Element Update
displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. A populations vulnerability is determined by the following:
• The population’s share of very low-income residents is above 20%, and • The census tract meets two (2) of the following criteria:
o The tract’s share of renters is above 40% in 2017
o Share of people of color is above 50% in 2017
o Share of very low-income households that are severely rent burdened is above the county median
o Local surrounding experience of displacement pressures (percent change in rent above county median for rent increases)
• Or, the difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap).

Figure 3-29 shows that there are no census tracts identified as sensitive communities vulnerable to displacement within the City of Calimesa. However, there are sensitive communities within surrounding justifications such as Yucaipa which has two (2) sensitive communities, Beaumont with three (3), Moreno Valley with 20, and Redlands with four (4) sensitive communities.

Although no sensitive communities exist, it is important to ensures that there are affordable housing options in geographical areas that experience high rates of cost burden and may be susceptible to displacement.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-122 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-29: Sensitive Communities
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-123 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-30 below shows the estimated displacement risk for Calimesa and the surrounding cities. The figure shows that there are lower displacement risks and a census tract that has low data quality. However, there are at risk of displacement communities within surrounding jurisdictions such as Yucaipa which has one (1) community at risk, Redlands with three (3), Moreno Valley with ten (10), Beaumont with one (1), and Banning with four (4) communities at risk of displacement.

Table 3-39 analyzes the four census tracts that make up the City. Census tracts 6065043811, 6065043802, and 6065043823 showed lower displacement risk. Of the four census tracts, only one of them was categorized as a hot market (census tract 6065043823). This census tract also had the highest median income at $119,984 and had the greatest rent gap which was $931.95 higher than nearby rents.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-124 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-30: Estimated Displacement Risk Map

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-125 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-39: Areas Vulnerable of Displacement (2019)
Data 6065043811 6065043802 6065043814 6065043823
Demographics
Population 4,031 5,996 944 10,092
Households 1,403 1,967 473 2,715
Renter Occupied 18.20% 16.80% 5.90% 12.90%
Median Income $63,013 $65,160 $46,164 $119,984
Low-Income Households 46.20% 40.80% 57.40% 13.20%
Speak English Less
Than Very Well 3.80% 4.50% 0.00% 12.60%
Race/Ethnicity:

Latino-White
White 68.30% 58.30% 71.80% 34.50%
Black 4.20% 0.90% 1.90% 6.90%
Asian 2.70% 2.50% 2.80% 11.90%
LatinX 21.50% 34.90% 19.60% 42.60%
Other 3.20% 3.40% 3.90% 4.20%
Housing
Median Rent $702 $1,282 $974 $2,263
Rent Gap
tract rent is $503.91
lower
than nearby rents.
tract rent is $77.76
higher
than nearby rents.
tract rent is $314.12
lower
than nearby rents.
tract rent is $931.95
higher
than nearby rents.

Hot Market No No No Yes
Displacement Type: Lower Displacement
Risk
Lower Displacement
Risk Low Data Quality Lower Displacement Risk
Note: The Census greatly underestimates rent and home values.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Assisted Units “At-Risk” of Conversion
Jurisdictions are required by State Housing Element Law to analyze government-assisted housing that is eligible to convert from lower income to market rate housing over the next 10 years. State law identifies housing assistance as a rental subsidy, mortgage subsidy or mortgage insurance to an assisted housing development. Government assisted housing may convert to market rate housing for several reasons, including expiring subsidies, mortgage repayments, or expiration of affordability restrictions. However, the City of Calimesa has zero (0) assisted housing units and therefore no assisted housing unit at-risk of converting to market rate.

Cost of Preservation of Units
There are many options to preserving units including the following:
• Providing financial incentives to project owners to extend lower income use restrictions, • Purchasing affordable housing units by a non-profit or public agency, or • Providing local subsidies to offset the difference between the affordable and market rate units .

The City of Calimesa does not have any deed-restricted units therefore there are none at risk of converting.

However the analysis below uses local rental subsidy to estimate the cost of preservation of units at risk.

The analysis is exemplary and illustrative in nature due to the fact that the City does not have any deedrestricted units and therefore no units at-risk. Rent subsidy would provide financial assistance to residents

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-126 Calimesa Housing Element Update
if their affordable units converted to market rate. To determine the subsidy needed, Fair Market Rents were compared to market rate rents.

Table 3-40: 2022 HUD Fair Market Rent
Size of Unit Fair Market Rent
Efficiency $1,062
1-Bedroom $1,202
2-Bedroom $1,509
3-Bedroom $2,065
4-Bedroom $2,542
Source: HUD FY 2022 Fair Market Rent Documentation System – Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA
Table 3-41: Estimated Monthly Subsidy to Preserve “At-Risk” Units Example Unit Size
Monthly Rents
Difference Monthly
Subsidy Fair Market Annual Subsidy
Rents1
Market
Rate2
Efficiency $1,062 NA NA NA NA
1-Bedroom $1,202 $998 -204 0 0
2-Bedroom $1,509 $1,300 -209 0 0
3-Bedroom $2,065 $1,495 -570 0 0
4-Bedroom $2,542 $2,250 -292 0 0
TOTAL 0
Source:

1. HUD FY 2022 Fair Market Rent Documentation System – Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA

2. Kimley-Horn and Associate Analysis – based on Zumper’s January 2020 median rent data, accessed November 8, 2021.

Based on the analysis above the data shows that units in Calimesa are available below Fair Market Rent as defined by HUD. Therefore should the City need to preserve units in the future the data shows that no subsides would be required.

Resources to Preserve At-Risk Units
A variety of programs exist to help cities acquire, replace, or subsidize at-risk affordable housing units. The following summarizes financial resources available:
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – CDBG funds are awarded to cities on a formula basis for housing activities. The primary objective of the CDBG program is the development of viable communities through the provision of decent housing, a suitable living environment and economic opportunity for principally low- and moderate-income persons.

Eligible activities include administration, fair housing, energy conservation and renewable energy sources, assistance for economic development, public facilities and improvements and public services.
• HOME Investment Partnership – Local jurisdiction can receive funds by formula from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing in lower income households. Eligible activities include housing acquisition, rehabilitation, and development, homebuyer assistance, and rental assistance. • Section 8 Rental Assistance Program – The Section 8 Rental Assistance Program provides rental assistance payments to owner of private, market rate units on behalf of very low-income

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-127 Calimesa Housing Element Update
tenants, senior citizens, disabled and/or handicapped persons, and other individuals for securing affordable housing.
• Section 202/811 Program – Non-profit and consumer cooperatives can receive no-interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 program for the construction of very lowincome rental housing with the availability of supportive services for seniors and persons with disabilities. These funds can be used in conjunction with Section 811, which can be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities and immediate care facilities. The capital advance funding can also provide project rental assistance for the properties developed using the funds. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, and rental assistance.
• California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Multifamily Programs – CalHFA’s Multifamily Programs provide permanent financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of new constriction of rental housing that includes affordable rents for low- and moderate-income families and individuals. One of the programs is the Preservation Loan program which provides acquisition/rehabilitation and permanent loan financing designed to preserve or increase the affordability status of existing multifamily housing projects. • Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) – This program provides tax credits to individuals and corporation that invest low-income rental housing. Tax credits are sold to those with high tax liability and proceeds are used to create housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties. • California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC) – The California Community Reinvestment Corporation is a multifamily affordable housing lender whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, and residents with special needs by facilitating private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.

Qualified Entities to Preserve
The following organizations have the experience and capacity to potentially assist in preserving at-risk units:
• Jamboree Housing Corporation
• Riverside Housing Development
Corporation
• Neighborhood Housing Services of
the Inland Empire, Inc.
• Nexus for Affordable Housing, Inc.
• Palm Communities
• Southern California Housing
Development Corporation
• Northtown Housing Development
Corporation
• National Community Renaissance
Quantified Objectives
Housing Element Law requires that cities establish the maximum number of units that can be preserved over the planning period. Since the City has zero (0) affordable housing units “at-risk” of converting to market rate the City does not have an objective of units to preserve.

Senate Bill 330
Effective January 1, 2020, Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) aims to increase residential unit development, protect existing housing inventory, and expedite permit processing. Under this legislation, municipal and county agencies are restricted in ordinances and policies that can be applied to residential development. The revised definition of ‘Housing Development” now contains residential projects of two or more units, mixeduse projects (with two-thirds of the floor area designated for residential use), transitional, supportive, and emergency housing projects. SB 330 sets a temporary 5-year prohibition of residential density reduction associated with a “housing development project,” from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2025. For example,

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-128 Calimesa Housing Element Update
during this temporary prohibition, a residential triplex cannot be demolished and replaced with a duplex as this would be a net loss of one unit.

None of the housing strategy sites contain significant existing housing with low-income tenants who will be displaced if the sites redevelop. To the extent that there is existing housing, all housing must be replaced (Government Code Section 66300). SB 330 also provides relocation payments to existing low-income tenants. The State has also adopted just cause eviction provisions and statewide rent control to protect tenants from displacement.

The City is committed to making diligent efforts to engage underrepresented and disadvantaged communities in studying displacement.

Sites Inventory
The City of Calimesa has enough residentially zoned vacant land to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation. While the units are located throughout the City, a majority are located within the northern, and central portions of the City. These areas are generally more developed and have increased access to transit amenities, higher job proximity, and higher educational opportunity. The location of the sites in the s ites inventory does not concentrate sites in areas with disproportionate segregation, poverty, or housing needs in ways that would exacerbate existing conditions. Rather, the location of sites aims to assist areas with disproportionate segregation, poverty, and housing needs in addressing these challenges.

Integration and Segregation
While the City of Calimesa has a diverse population throughout the City as a whole, areas with the largest concentration of non-white populations are located in the northern edge of the City, however this area exhibits higher access to transportation and opportunities. The site inventory distributes sites in these areas but also distributes them largely throughout the northern, central, and western portions of the City.

In addition, the City generally has median incomes with some lower income census tracts around the City’s northern edge. Per Calimesa’s RHNA allocation the sites inventory accommodates a mix of low and very low-income housing as well as moderate and above moderate-income housing throughout the northern and western portions of the City as well as in the central area. Lower income housing around the northern edge will provide additional affordable housing opportunities to ensure that displacement will not be exacerbated and the moderate and above moderate housing in this area will prevent the exacerbation of the concentration of lower income households.

Access to Opportunity
The majority of the City is considered moderate and high resource according to the TCAC Opportunity Map composite score. Thus, while the majority of sites identified in the sites inventory are located in high resource areas, they are not disproportionately located in these areas in the context of the resource level of the City as a whole. However, the northern and western portions of the City have closer access to job proximity as well as higher educational opportunity. The northern and central portions of the City have increased access to transit amenities. Sites were placed throughout the northern, western, and central portions of the City to take advantage of the current and future assets within those areas.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
The City of Calimesa's renters experience high rates of overpayment in the northern and southern portions of the City and owners experience moderate rates of overpayment evenly throughout the City. Site selection emphasized access to public services and transportation. Consideration was given to the lower income sites around the downtown area and in the northern portion of the City. Placement of lower income sites in these areas provides access to supportive services such as education facilities and transit amenities and

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-129 Calimesa Housing Element Update
ensures that there are affordable housing options in geographical areas that experience high rates of cost burden and may be susceptible to displacement. Additionally, there are some housing sites placed in the central and eastern portion of the City.

4. Assessment of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues Current Local Contributing Factors
The analysis within the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) section yielded the following fair housing issues results in Calimesa:
• The City’s western portion has a moderate to high racial demographic and diversity which is segregated from the eastern portion of the City which has a moderate to low racial demographic and diversity. Additionally, The City’s neighborhood segregation consists of either three group mix neighborhoods in the western portion of the City or Latinx-White neighborhoods in the eastern portion of the City.
• The City has no racially concentrated area of affluence (RCAA). There are two RCAAs bordering Calimesa’s northern City limit in Yucaipa and Redlands. This indicates that areas near Calimesa have a moderate to high concentration of people who identify as white which overlaps with a large percentage of households reporting they earn a median annual income of up to $125,000.
• The UC Davis Regional Opportunity Index analyzing people shows that the residents within Calimesa have a moderate to high level of achievement throughout the majority of the City, with only a few census tracts in the southern portion of the City showing a low level of achievement. The Regional Opportunity Index analyzing place shows that the residents within Calimesa have a low level of access to opportunity throughout the majority of the City, with only a few census tracts in the southern portion of the City showing the lowest level of access to opportunity. This indicates that the majority of the resident within Calimesa may leave the City to get access to economic, educational, and other resources. • The analysis of the TCAC/HCD opportunity areas maps show that most census tracts in Calimesa are classified with the “Moderate Resource,” “High Resource” and “Highest Resource” designation. This indicated that these census tracts are within the top 40 percent in the region in terms of areas that lower-income residents may thrive if given the opportunity to live there. This analysis focuses on persons related indicators and indicates that the residents of Calimesa are of high resource as opposed to City itself. • The opportunity indices identify high proficiency in educational access and a majority positive economic score across the City. Additionally, the opportunity indices also identify moderate job proximity in the eastern portion of the City and low job proximity in the western portion of the City.
• The City provides very low transit trip opportunity, additionally, about 63.8 of all city jobs are within 1/2 miles of transit but just under 0.5 percent (0.34%) of the working population uses public transit as a primary source of transportation.
• There are 0 units with affordable covenants at risk of converting to market rate before the year 2030 in the City.
• The CalEnviroScreen mapping tool (2021) identifies most of the City as moderate to low scoring, indicating low pollution level.

Programs have been added to the Housing Plan to mitigate contributing factors to affordable housing. The programs are listed in Table 3-42 below.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-130 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-42: Contributing Factors to Fair Housing
Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level Programs Disparities in Access
to Opportunity/
Disproportionate
Access to Services
Housing Mobility,
Place-based Strategies
to Encourage
Community
Conservation and
Revitalization
The City of Calimesa is considered
very low scoring in transit opportunity
performance by AllTransit. A lack of
transportation options throughout the
City may restrict residents from
accessing resources and
opportunities not within their
immediate neighborhoods. The City
could improve its access to
opportunity/services by focusing on
investing in transit across the City to
provide those impacted by poor
mobility with additional resources.

Medium • Program Action H-2.1:

Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing
• Program Action H-2.3:

Housing Rehabilitation
Program
• Program Action H-2.5:

Proactive Code Enforcement
• Program Action H-3.10:

Capital Improvement
Programming and
Prioritization
Disproportionate
Housing Needs
New Housing Choices
and Affordability in
Areas of Opportunity,
Housing Mobility
Section 3.C.3 of this Housing
Element provides details on the
housing stock within Calimesa.

Table 3-33 states that the majority of
housing units within the City are
single-unit, detached, single family
residences. Additionally, the City has
less than two percent of all types of
apartment units combined. In
comparison, the County of Riverside
and the State of California have a
more evenly distributed stock of a
variety of different housing unit types
available. A lack of different housing
unit types may restrict residents from
finding appropriate housing within
the City. As a part of the Housing
Element, the City’s goal is to expand
housing choice for households of all
incomes.

High • Program Action H-1.4:

Reasonable Accommodation
• Program Action H-2.8:

Emergency, Transitional and
Supportive Housing
• Program Action H-2.1:

Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing
• Program Action H-2.11:

Supportive Housing and Low
Barrier Navigation Centers
• Action H-2.12: Housing for
Persons with Developmental
Disabilities
• Program Action H-3.14:

Farmworker and Agricultural
Worker Housing
• Program Action H-4.1: Senior
Housing Opportunities
Fair Housing
Enforcement and
Outreach
Housing Mobility
The City of Calimesa partners with
the Fair Housing Council of
Riverside County (FHCRC) to assist
individuals with fair housing related
issues, as well as provide
informational resources and
education for the community.

However, the City did not participate
in the regional AI report and none of
the City’s residents participated in
the County wide fair housing survey.

The City should provide additional
resources, outreach, and information
on fair housing.

Medium • Program Action H-2.1:

Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing
• Program Action H-2.7: Fair
Housing Council
• Program Action H-2.10:

Community and Stakeholder
Engagement

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-131 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Table 3-42: Contributing Factors to Fair Housing
Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Level Programs Availability of
Affordable Housing
New Housing Choices
and Affordability in
Areas of Opportunity,
Housing Mobility
The City of Calimesa does not
currently have any deed restricted
affordable housing units. A lack of
deed restricted units may make it
hard for resident to maintain and find
affordable housing within the City.

The City should partner with
affordable housing developers to
better understand the challenges to
creating affordable housing in
Calimesa. Additionally, the City
should focus on increasing the
affordable housing stock and
maintaining deed restricted units.

High • Program Action H-2.1:

Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing
• Program Action H-1.2: NonProfit Entity Participation in Affordable Housing
• Program Action H-3.4:

Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance
• Program Action H-4.2: State
and Federal Housing
Incentives

5. Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686
AB 686 requires that jurisdictions identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The site identification requirement involves not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA (provided in Appendix B), but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.

Figures 3-31 through 3-35 below identify the sites to accommodate future housing, as identified in the adequate sites analysis, overlaid on demographic data using the 2019 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates.
• Figure 3-31 – Calimesa Proposed RHNA Sites, Hispanic/Latino • Figure 3-32 – Calimesa Proposed RHNA Sites, Non-White Population • Figure 3-33 – Calimesa Proposed RHNA Sites, Low- and Moderate-Income Block Groups • Figure 3-34 – Calimesa Proposed RHNA Sites, R/ECAP Areas • Figure 3-35 – Calimesa Proposed RHNA Sites, RCAA
• Figure 3-36 – Calimesa Proposed RHNA Sites, TCAC Opportunity Areas • Figure 3-37 – Calimesa Proposed RHNA Sites, Urban Displacement Index The following figures include population data for two block groups in the western region of the City (illustrated in Figure 3-31) which remains mostly undeveloped and vacant. This land encompasses Summerwind Ranch and Mesa Verde Specific Plans. Specifically, the two block groups include the following population density from which the data is derived:
• 060650438231 – population of 8,917 over 3,413.5 acres/5.3 square miles (2.6 persons per acre) • 060650438232 – population of 827 over 6,019.9 acres/9.4 square miles (0.1 persons per acre)

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-132 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-31: Summerwind Ranch Specific Plan and Mesa Verde Specific Plan Block Groups Figure 3-31 shows the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA for Calimesa in relation to the location of residents of Hispanic origin. These sites take into consideration access to vital goods, services, and public transportation and are therefore ideal areas for the City to focus much of its future housing growth.

It is anticipated that accessory dwelling unit (ADU) growth, including growth for affordable ADUs, will occur in the less dense areas of the community.

Figure 3-32 shows the following findings:
• 37 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 3,028 potential units, 30% of total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic less than 20 percent. Of these units, 133 are proposed as affordable to low and very low-income households.
• 68 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 6,926 potential units, 68% of total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic between 20 and 40 percent. Of these units, 342 are proposed as affordable to low and very low-income households.
• 36 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 253 potential units, 2% of total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic between 40 and 60 percent. Of these units, 38 are proposed as affordable to low and very low-income households.

The data shows that the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA allocation are dispersed throughout the community with an emphasis on locating units where there is a high level of access to important public services and transit. The distribution of potential units does not disproportionately impact areas with larger concentrations of the Hispanic population.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-133 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-32: Calimesa Proposed RHNA Sites, Hispanic/Latino

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-134 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-33 shows the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA for Calimesa in relation with census data showing the percentage of the population within each block group that is non-white.

Figure 3-33 shows the following findings:
• 66 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 3,177 potential units, 31% of total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that is nonwhite between 20 and 40 percent. Of these units, 139 are proposed as affordable to low and very low-income households.
• 77 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 6,121 potential units, 60% of total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that is nonwhite between 40 and 60 percent. Of these units, 327 are proposed as affordable to low and very low-income households.
• 5 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 909 potential units, 9% of total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that is nonwhite between 60 and 80 percent. Of these units, 46 are proposed as affordable to low and very low-income households.

The data shows that the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA allocation are dispersed throughout the community with an emphasis on locating units where there is a high level of access to important public services and transit. The distribution of potential units does not disproportionately impact areas with larger concentrations of Non-White populations.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3- 135
Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-33: Calimesa Proposed RHNA Sites, Non-White Population

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-136 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-34 shows location of the proposed candidate sites to meet the very low and low income RHNA for Calimesa in comparison with census data showing the percentage of the population within each block group who is categorized as low income or moderate by the American Community Survey.

Figure 3-34 shows the following findings:
• 42 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 3,937 potential units, 39% of total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that is lowand moderate-income between 10 and 25 percent. Of these units, 179 are proposed as affordable to low and very low-income households.
• 63 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 358 potential units, 4% of total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that is lowand moderate-income between 25 and 50 percent. Of these units, 41 are proposed as affordable to low and very low-income households.
• 43 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 5,912 potential units, 58% of total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that is lowand moderate-income between 50 and 75 percent. Of these units, 292 are proposed as affordable to low and very low-income households.

The data shows that the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA allocation are evenly dispersed throughout the community with an emphasis on locating units where there is a high level of access to important public services and transit. The distribution of potential units provides increased opportunities for low-income housing in areas with higher rates of low-income persons.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3- 137
Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-34: Calimesa Proposed RHNA Sites, Low- and Moderate-Income Block Groups

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-138 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-35 shows the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA for Calimesa in relation with data showing R/ECAP areas within the City. R/ECAPs are racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; they are marked in red hatchings. The goal of the AB 686 analysis is to analyze how the sites identified to accommodate the RHNA allocation may exacerbate or mitigate existing fair housing issues . Figure 3-30 shows there are no R/ECAP areas in Calimesa.

Figure 3-36 shows the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA f or Calimesa in relation with data showing RCAA areas within the City. RCAAs are racially or ethnically concentrated areas of affluence; they are identified as areas with a White Non-Hispanic population greater than 80 percent and a median household income greater than $125,000. Figure 3-31 shows that there are no RCAA areas in Calimesa.

Figure 3-37 shows the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA for Calimesa in relation with the TCAC/HCD Opportunity areas within the City. TCAC is the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee/Housing and Community Development Opportunity Area Maps which show how resources are spatially distributed throughout the City.

Figure 3-37 shows the following findings:
• The City of Calimesa is considered a moderate to high opportunity City, with the majority of the City ranked as the high resource level.
• 39 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 6,777 potential units, 66% of total potential units) are located within the Highest Resource region of the City. Of these units, 336 are proposed as affordable to low and very low-income households. • 66 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 3,177 potential units, 31% of total potential units) are located within the High Resource region of the City. Of these units, 139 are proposed as affordable to low and very low-income households. • 43 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 253 potential units, 2% of total potential units) are located within the Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) region of the City. Of these units, 38 are proposed as affordable to low and very low-income households.

The data shows that the majority of proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA allocation are located in areas with the Highest Resource designation. Approximately 66 percent of all low and very low-income sites are proposed in these areas. As a result, more residents living in lower income households will have access to greater resources. Overall, the distribution of potential units provides increased opportunities for populations living in areas with all opportunity levels and does not focus any one income category in a specific area of the City.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-139 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-35: Calimesa Proposed RHNA Sites, R/ECAP Areas

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-140 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-36: Calimesa Proposed RHNA Sites, RCAA

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-141 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-37: Calimesa Proposed RHNA Sites, TCAC Opportunity Areas

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-142 Calimesa Housing Element Update
The UC Berkeley Urban Displacement projects provides a database for Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties displaying gentrifications and socioeconomic indicators based on 2015 ACS data. The final (2018) version of the database shows whether each Census tract comprising these three Southern California counties gentrified between 1990 and 2000; gentrified between 2000 and 2015; gentrified during both of these periods; or exhibited characteristics of a “disadvantaged” tract that did not gentrify between 1990 and 2015. The outcome of the data is a map which displays displacement typology by census tract (outlined below).

Table 3-43: Displacement Typologies
Displacement
Typology Definition and Qualifier
Low Income/Susceptible
to Displacement:
• Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018
Ongoing Displacement
of Low-Income
Households:
• Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018
• Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018
At Risk of Gentrification: • Low-income or mixed low-income tract in 2018 • Housing affordable to low or mixed low-income households in 2018 • Didn't gentrify 1990-2000 OR 2000-2018
• Marginal change in housing costs OR Zillow home or rental value increases in the 90th percentile between 2012-2018
• Local and nearby increases in rent were greater than the regional median between 2012-2018 OR the 2018 rent gap is greater than the regional median rent gap
Early/Ongoing
Gentrification:
• Low-income or mixed low-income tract in 2018
• Housing affordable to moderate or mixed moderate-income households in 2018
• Increase or rapid increase in housing costs OR above regional median change in Zillow home or rental values between 2012-2018 • Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018
Advanced Gentrification • Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018
• Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high• income households in 2018
• Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs • Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018
Stable Moderate/Mixed
Income:
• Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018
Risk of Becoming
Exclusive:
• Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018
• Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high- income households in 2018
• Marginal change or increase in housing costs
Becoming Exclusive: • Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018
• Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high- income households in 2018
• Rapid increase in housing costs
• Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018
• Declining low-income in-migration rate, 2012-2018
• Median income higher in 2018 than in 2000

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-143 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Stable/Advanced
Exclusive:
• High-income tract in 2000 and 2018
• Affordable to high or mixed high-income households in 2018 • Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs As shown in Figure 3-33 below, the data shows that Calimesa has a limited mix of typologies throughout the City. There are four typologies that characterize the City: “At Risk of Becoming Exclusive”, “Unavailable or Unreliable Data”, “Stable/Advanced Exclusive”, and “Stable Moderate/Mixed Income”. The majority of the City’s census tracts are characterized as “Stable Moderate/Mixed Inco me”, which indicates that neighborhoods in these census tracts are typically moderate to high income earning. The analysis concludes the following:
• 76 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 7,753 potential units, or 95 percent of all potential units) are located within block groups designated as ‘Stable Moderate/Mixed Income’.

Of those units, 382 units, or approximately 90 percent of all low-income units. are proposed in these areas.
• 72 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 403 potential units, or about 5 percent of the total potential inventory) are located within block groups designated as ‘At Risk of Becoming Exclusive’. Of those units, 44 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes, which accounts for approximately 10 percent of all low-income units.

Overall, the City of Calimesa is made up of areas that are becoming more exclusive and or are already exclusive. The data shows that the majority of proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA allocation are located in areas that are characterized as “Stable Moderate/Mixed Income”. The distribution of potential units provides increased opportunities for populations living in areas with all opportunity levels. Additionally, it does not over burden areas characterized as “At Risk of Becoming Exclusive” with a large influx of moderate and above moderate housing units which would speed up gentrification in these areas. The distribution of units would not exacerbate existing disparities between communities.

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-144 Calimesa Housing Element Update
Figure 3-33: Calimesa Proposed RHNA Sites, Urban Displacement Analysis

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-145 Calimesa Housing Element Update

6. Analysis of Fair Housing Priorities and Goals
To enhance mobility and promote inclusion for protected classes, the chief strategy included in this housing element is to provide sites suitable for affordable housing in high-resource, high opportunity. Programs that affirmatively further fair housing include:
• Program Action H-1.2 Non-Profit Entity Participation in Affordable Housing • Program Action H-1.3 Accessibility to Persons with Disabilities • Program Action H-1.4 Reasonable Accommodation
• Program Action H-2.1: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing • Program Action H-2.2: Section 8 Tenant Based Rental Assistance • Program Action H-2.7: Fair Housing Council
• Program Action H-2.8: Emergency, Transitional and Supportive Housing • Program Action H-2.9: Dissemination of Housing Support and Referral Services • Program Action H-2.11: Supportive Housing and Low Barrier Navigation Centers • Program Action H-2.12: Housing for Persons with Developmental Disabilities • Program Action H-3.4: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
• Program Action H-3.15: Farmworker and Agricultural Worker Housing • Program Action H-4.1: Senior Housing Opportunities
• Program Action H-4.3: Senior Housing Opportunities

Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH Page 3-146 Calimesa Housing Element Update
D.Housing Resources

1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation
This section of the Housing Element provides an overview of the resources available to the City to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Residential Sites Inventory and RHNA Obligation
Appendix B of the Housing Element incudes the required site analysis tables and site information for the vacant and non-vacant properties to meet the City’s RHNA need through the 2021-2029 planning period.

The following discussions summarize the City’s site inventory, shown in Table 3-44, and adequate sites identification strategy.

Table B-44: Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory
Extremely
Low/
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
2021-2029 RHNA 495 275 379 868 2,017
Pipeline Projects 0 0 2,248 2,248
Projected ADU Construction 17 10 5 32
Remaining RHNA 753 369 0 1,122
Existing Sites Available
Residentially Zoned Sites 141 0 480 621
Summerwind Ranch at Oak Valley
Specific Plan 150 1,266 1,675 3,091
Mesa Verde Specific Plan 185 2,909 556 3,650
Heritage Oaks Equestrian
Community Specific Plan 0 0 45 45
JP Ranch 24 227 227 478
Reidman Map 9 0 170 179
Subtotal Potential Capacity
Based on Existing GP and
Zoning
509 4,402 3,153 8,064
Sites to Accommodate Remaining RHNA Need
Residential Infill Priority Area
Overlay Zone Area 1 0 0 484
1,370 Residential Infill Priority Area
Overlay Zone Area 2 264 264 358

TOTAL POTENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY 790 4,676 6,248 11,714
Unit Surplus (%) 3% 1,134% 620% 481%
Unit Surplus (#) 20 4,297 5,380 9,697
Above Moderate- and Moderate-Income Sites
For the 2021-2029 planning period, the City’s RHNA allocation is 379 for moderate income sites and 868 for above moderate-income sites. Utilizing the City’s existing residentially zoned land, projects in the pipeline, specific plan and development agreement capacity, the City can fully accommodate the moderate