CITATION ISSUE DATE
VIOLATIONADDRESS
STREET NO. CITE NO. (LAST) FIRST NAME
294 12/06/17 W. Bay Street, Unit S 431 40014 C/O Robert Crossley 431 Bay Street, LLC 295 12/06/17 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 300 3101 40015 Project Corp Sober Partners296 05/02/19 Wallace Avenue 2068 40714 OC LLC Focus297 05/02/19 Wallace Avenue 2068 40715 Shores Recovery Sunset298 10/25/16 Wilson W 580 41564 Hilario Angel299 11/28/16 Wilson W 580 41573 Hilario Angel CCMC SECT. CITED AMOUNT
13-26, 20-12, 13-322 45013-26, 13-323, 20-12(ii) 90020-12(ii), 13-26, 13-323 450.0020-12(ii), 13-26, 13-323 450.009-372, 13-26, 13-323, 20-12 12009-732, 13-26, 13-323, 20-12(ll) 2000 Closed Operations WEB
Street Name Street No. Program Name Beds
1 16th Place 413 Clean Path Recovery 62
16th Place Reflections Recovery
Center
6 3
16th Place 491 South Coast Behavioral
Health
6 4 18th Street W 777 777 House 125 18th Street W 679 Discovery House 66 18th Street W 685 Discovery House 787 19th Street E 177 Agape House 68 Alder Lane 2527 New Family Solutions 69 Anaheim 2216 Playa House Unknown 10 Anaheim Avenue 1769 Morning Side Recovery 611 Anaheim Avenue 2216 Playa House Unknown12 Arbor Street 973 Solid Landings 613 Augusta 1180 Hampton Unknown14 Babb Street 2959 Unknown 1015 Bay St 431 Unknown16 Boston Way 3145 Solid Landings 1517 Bowling Green 273 Solid landings 618 Briar Rose 1631 Monarch Recovery 619 Cabrillo Street 218 Sober Sanctuaries, Inc. 1220 Canadian Drive 3159 Clean Path Recovery 621 Cassia Avenue 3107 Rock Solid 2222 Charleston St 1143 Solid Landings 823 Charleston St 1174 Solid Landings 624 Cheyenne Street 1055 Solid Landings 625 Conway 1252 Solid Landings 626 Coolidge Avenue 3004 Clean Path Recovery 627 Coolidge Avenue 3004 Solid Landings 1828 Dahlia Avenue 924 Solid Landings 629 Darrel 871 Solid Landings 630 Doctors Circle 2111 Unknown Street Name Street No. Program Name Beds
31 E. 18th St 166 Casa Capri Unknown
32 Flower 268 Unknown33 Gisler Avenue 1811 Solid Landings 634 Grant Avenue 3044 Solid Landings 635 Hamilton Street 394 Solid Landings 636 Hamilton Street 396 Unknown37 Hamilton Street 382 Solid Landings Unknown38 Harbor Boulevard, Unit 2374 Strong Woman Unknown39 Iowa Street 1804 Lotus Place Recovery 640 Joann Street 574 Unknown41 Joann Street 578 Unknown42 La Salle 2829 Unknown43 La Salle Avenue 2869 OC Recovery Unknown44 La Salle Avenue 2829 Solid Landings 645 Marseilles Way 2450 Lotus Recovery Unknown46 Marseilles Way 2450 Unknown47 Mendoza Avenue 2869 Clean Path Recovery Unknown48 Meyer Pl 2012 Unknown Unknown49 Monte Vista Avenue 291 Unknown 650 Monterey Avenue 2822 Solid Landings 651 Nebraska Place 3238 Healing Path 452 Olympic Ave 13741 Unknown Unknown53 Olympic Avenue 13741 Solid Landings 654 Orange Avenue 1513 Hotel California by the Sea 655 Orange Avenue 1775 Morning Side Recovery 1256 Orange Avenue 1965 Solid Landings 657 Orange Avenue Unit A 2379 Balboa Horizons Unknown58 Orange Avenue Unit B & 2379 Balboa Horizons Unknown59 Pamela Ln 2264 The Book House 1660 Paularino Ave 959 Playa House 661 Paularino Avenue 778 Agape House 662 Placentia Ave., Unit B 2190 Unknown63 Placentia Avenue 2212 A-D
2218 A-D
Heritage House
Unknown
Street Name Street No. Program Name Beds
64 Plumer Street 697 Pillars Recovery 15
65 Plumer Street 697 Solid landings 1566 Plumeria Place 3465 Mainstay Recovery 667 Pomona Avenue 1827 Clean Path Recovery 1368 Pomona Avenue 2220 Safe Harbor Treatment
Center For Women
6 69 Raleigh Avenue 2186 Agape House 670 Republic Avenue 2131 Sam's House 671 San Bernardino 1589 Ohio House 772 San Bernardino 1578 Ohio House 873 Sturgeon Dr 506 Time 2 Care llc 674 Trinity Drive 3066 Camilla's Recovery 675 Valencia Street 1009 Morning Side 2476 Velasco Lane 2866 Easy Way Out LLC Unknown77 Victoria St. 357 Windward Way Unknown78 Victoria St. 351 Windward Way Unknown79 Victoria Street 310 Sober Partners 2480 Victoria Street 310 Sober Partners Project Unknown81 Virginia Place 132 Sober Living House 682 W. Bay Street 431 California Prime Recovery Unknown83 Walnut 271 Solid Landings 6
ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Keith Randle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 1:53 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Garrett M. Prybylo; Isaac R. Zfaty; Housing Element; [email protected]; [email protected]; Keith Randle Subject: Formal Complaint of Discrimination by the City of Costa Mesa California Code 65000 et,al.
Attachments: HCD Discrimination Complaint City of Costa Mesa _000163.pdf; HCD letter to City of Anaheim_ 000165.pdf; HCD City of Costa Mesa Resolution NO 18-16_000157.pdf; HCD City of Costa Mesa Conditionals of approval_000158.pdf; HCD City of Costa Mesa Letter dasted July 20 2018 from Sheri Vander Dussen_000159.pdf; HCD City of Costa Mesa Letter dasted August 7th From Fidel Gamboa with operatort permit application_000160.pdf; HCD City of Costa Mesa Letter datted September 9, 2021 from Sheri Vander Dussen re operators permitt_000162.pdf 0Shannan
I am sending this formal compliant (attached) against the City of Costa Mesa. The City is violating California Code 65000 et.al, including 65008, 65580 and 65585
Time is of the essence. I ask you to review the attachments and that you send a cease and desist letter, similar to the one you sent to the cities of Anaheim (attached) and Encinitas earlier this year. I also request that you put a halt to the issuing of Costa Mesa's Housing Element.
I will also send you a hard copy to you at:
2020 W El Camino Ave, Suite 500 Sacramento Ca. 95833. If you have a different mailing address let me know.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email to [email protected] I appreciate you looking into this matter.
Keith Randle
http://www.summitcoastalliving.com
949 689-8880
2100 Highland Drive
Newport Beach Ca 92660
There are 7 attachments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Keith Randle <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 3:44 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Housing Element Subject: Fw: City of Costa Mesa Discrimination against Sober Hosuing and violation of Housing Element Attachments: HVD follow up letter to John Bruenner STATE of Ca._000168.pdf Keith Randle Broker Associate Villa Real Estate 949.689.8880 Cell 949.698.1288 Office [email protected] BRE # 00993898
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Keith Randle <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021, 03:37:52 PM PDT
Subject: City of Costa Mesa Discrimination against Sober Hosuing and violation of Housing Element John,
As requested by you I am following you with the synopsis we discussed in detail yesterday.
I have also copied the City of Costa Mesa.
Thanking you in advance for your help on this urgent matter Keith Randle
Summit Coastal Living
949 689-8880
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Anne Paulson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 11:42 AM
To: Housing Element; [email protected]
Subject: Comments on Costa Mesa's Draft Housing Element Dear Costa Mesa,
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on Costa Mesa's Draft Housing Element. It has virtues, but also flaws.
ADUs
Costa Mesa permitted 10 ADUs a year the last three years. It is predicting 107 a year for the next cycle. Costa Mesa permitted 4 ADUs in 2018, 6 in 2019, and 19 in 2020, an average of 10 a year. They’re predicting 858 a year for the 6th Cycle. Page B-11 of the Housing Element says, “The City of Costa Mesa has determined based on past performance and the SCAG/HCD approved methodology that it is appropriate to anticipate the development of 858 accessory dwelling units from 2021 to 2029.” HCD has not approved a methodology that allows cities to project ten times as many ADUs as they have been permitting.
Residential Development Constraints
Costa Mesa analyzes its residential development standards and concludes that none are constraints on development.
Costa Mesa requires two parking spaces, ~640 square feet, for a studio apartment; a typical studio apartment is around 500-600 square feet. And Costa Mesa claims, without any evidence, that this requirement doesn’t make modest studio apartments financially infeasible.
In other words, Costa Mesa requires more space for parking for a studio apartment than for people living in the apartment, and says that’s not a constraint on building studio apartments. Costa Mesa’s justification is that they’re no worse than other nearby jurisdictions. But those other jurisdictions also are failing to build enough housing.
The neighboring jurisdictions’ residential development standards are burdensome and excessive, and so are Costa Mesa’s.
Site Inventory
Costa Mesa plans most of its new housing on five big nonvacant sites: Fairview Development Center, Sakioka Lot 2, Home Ranch, South Coast Plaza, and Pacific Arts Plaza. The city says the owners have indicated there is the potential for future housing development on each of these sites. However, “potential for future housing development” does not forestall the possibility that these sites might not be redeveloped, or might be redeveloped as something other than housing. The city is required to discount the number of units expected from a non-vacant site, if the site might not be redeveloped for housing. The number of units expected from the big housing sites is inflated, because the city did not discount as it is required to do.
The Draft Housing Element must be revised to deal with these issues. --
-- Anne Paulson
It isn't a contest. Enjoy the ride.
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County peopleforhousing.org
Ms. Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
RE: Initial Comments to Draft Housing Element dated August 2021City of Yorba Linda October 13th, 2021
RE: Initial Comments to Draft Housing Element dated August 2021 Dear Ms. Ashabi:
Congratulations on the completion of the 6th Cycle housing element draft. We commend the city for completing its draft early and providing ample time for public comment. In conjunction with the Campaign for Fair Housing Elements, we have reviewed your draft housing element and would like to share the following feedback:
1) We are concerned about ADU projections that appear overly optimistic: Your housing element anticipates 858 ADUs, which is an estimated 107 per year during the 6th cycle planning period. This seems unrealistic. HCD has described two “safe harbors” for estimating ADU production (p. 31, Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook). In the first safe harbor, the city may use the trend in ADU construction since January 2018; as Costa Mesa permitted 4 ADUs in 2018, 6 in 2019 and 19 in 2020, that trend is about 10 ADUs per year or 80 for the next eight year planning period. For the second safe harbor, the city would use five times the construction trend prior to 2018. From 2013-2017, Costa Mesa permitted 8 eight ADUs, or about 2 a year. Five times two is 10, so the second safe harbor yields the same result, about 10 ADUs a year. We do not feel that the city adequately justified a projection of well over ten times the safe harbors.
1 2) The majority of small sites identified for affordable housing (that are not part of a larger parcel or development proposal) are in Latino, low income neighborhoods or existing commercial areas. Have you considered opening up other areas for development, particularly near high performing schools? Legislation like SB 9 and SB 10 provides opportunities for infill development in high opportunity communities. Implementing some of these guidelines would go a long way to desegregating housing in Costa Mesa.
3) The Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) is owned by the state and was included on the last Housing Element, but no housing has been developed. We are not aware of a commitment from the state to developing it as affordable housing.
Assuming that 920 homes of the 2300 proposed (40%) will be low-income affordable is overly optimistic without an agreement in place. According to the Kennedy Commission, 20% low income is a more realistic figure based on SB 82.
We suggest revising it to reflect that input.
4) We commend the city for seeking out discussions with property owners interested in developing their properties for very-low and low-income housing through the planning period. However, for the remaining sites (for which no interview was conducted), the city says it does not have access to private party lease agreements or other contractual agreements among private parties. Under these circumstances, the safe assumption would be to assume zero likelihood of redevelopment for those sites; however the city does not do that. The assumption is that the sites will turn over even without any evidence to support it. 5) This lack of analysis, coupled with the uncertainty of the FDC and the development agreements encumbering low-income housing on the other major sites (Sakoika Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County peopleforhousing.org 2
Lot 2, Home Ranch, and Pacific Arts Plaza) leads us to the conclusion that there are insufficient sites for affordable housing. We would advise the city to increase the number sites for low and very low income housing to enable a buffer for low income housing. There is currently a sufficient buffer for moderate and above moderate (market rate). We advise the city to create a buffer for low income housing; 15-30% is the HCD-recommended buffer.
6) We take issue with the assumption that the city’s development standards, particularly parking requirements, are not a constraint. Costa Mesa’s parking requirements are onerous. The city requires 2 parking spaces for a studio apartment and 3 parking spaces for a two-bedroom apartment. These are burdensome parking requirements, and are a barrier to reducing the cost of housing, both market-rate and affordable.
7) Lastly, Measure Y, the requirement that development proposals over 40 units must be approved by voters is the single largest barrier to new housing development in the city. The city is indeed caught in a bind, having to defend a bad policy that inhibits the ability to comply with state law. Therefore we recommend that you take action to explicitly exempt any development project that includes low, very low or extremely low income housing.
Thank you for all of your efforts to create a fair and legally compliant housing element. As frequent attendees in community meetings, we understand the city council has many difficult choices to make with regard to its 6th Cycle Housing Element. We encourage the city council to do what is right, even if it is unpopular, Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County peopleforhousing.org 3
and to develop an exemplary housing element that will comply with both the spirit and letter of state housing element law.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Hansburg
Co-Founder & Director
People for Housing Orange County is a network of housing advocates fighting for more inclusive housing policies in Orange County’s high opportunity communities. By legalizing the construction of multifamily housing, streamlining the permitting of all housing, increasing funding for subsidized affordable housing, we believe a future of abundant housing is possible. We envision an integrated society where every person has access to a safe, affordable home near jobs, services, and opportunity.
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County peopleforhousing.org 4
ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Jennifer Hope DesRochers Webster <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 9:41 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Feedback: Housing Element Update - Westside overcrowding Feedback: Housing Element Update
Response-Westside Costa Mesa is overwhelmed with too much population. Too many cars. Not enough parking.
People walk a block or more away from home to find parking.
Please implement this information.. dense housing with apartments & Multi family housing are over crowding the Westside. Please reconsider increased housing “outside” district #4 Ie the west side.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Webster
Westside Resident 30 yrs since September 1988
--
Jennifer Hope Webster "To know God and Make Him known. Be filled with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness and self-control in the power and might of the Fruit of the Holy Spirit" Bible -My purpose statement
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Gonzalez Romero, Arysa (TRBL) <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 8:31 AM
To: Housing Element
Subject: City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Greetings,
A records check of the Tribal Historic preservation office’s cultural registry revealed that this project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. Therefore, we defer to the other tribes in the area. This letter shall conclude our consultation efforts.
Thank you,
Arysa Gonzalez Romero, M.S., RPA.
Historic Preservation Technician
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Main (760)-883-1327 | Cell (760)-831-2484
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
November 30, 2021
Mr. Paul McDougall
Department of Housing and Community Development
Division of Housing Policy Development
2020 W. El Camino Ave., Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
RE: Summary of Concerns Regarding Costa Mesa’s Housing Element Update Dear Mr. McDougall:
We so appreciate the opportunity to speak with you and Marissa Prasse yesterday regarding Costa Mesa’s draft Housing Element Update (2021-2029). As you may know, the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition is a local advocacy group which for years has urged Costa Mesa to facilitate the construction of affordable homes for the city’s lower income residents. This letter summarizes the key concerns we articulated in yesterday’s meeting.
First, we applaud the city’s remarkably robust, open, and serious efforts at public engagement in its Housing Element process. We also congratulate the city for its mostly excellent draft Housing Element. We are particularly pleased the draft clearly states Costa Mesa’s commitment to adopting (finally!) an inclusionary zoning ordinance.
Now, the concerns. We have two:
(1) The draft fails to adequately analyze the constraints on affordable housing development specific to each of the four largest sites in the sites inventory, and (2) The draft fails to adequately analyze the paralyzing effect the city’s “Measure Y” will have on affordable housing development.
I.) Inadequate Analysis of the Four Largest Sites
A. The city should provide additional analysis on the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) site and the implications of SB 82.
The Housing Element identifies FDC as a 109-acre state-owned opportunity site and assumes it can accommodate 2,300 housing units, and that 40% of those future units will be affordable to lower income households (575 very low and 345 low).1 Problematically, however, SB 82 states:
1 Costa Mesa Housing Element, Appendix B Candidate Sites Analysis Overview, October 6, 2021, p. B-15.
“Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of General Services, with the consent of the Director of Developmental Services, may, in the best interests of the state, let to any person or entity real property not exceeding 20 acres located within the grounds of the Fairview Developmental Center for a period not to exceed 55 years, at a price that will permit the development of affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities… A minimum of 20 percent of the housing units developed shall be available and affordable to individuals with developmental disabilities served by a regional center…2”
Given the dictates of SB 82, the city needs to justify its assumption about the number of units possible on the site, as well as its affordability assumption that 40% of the units at FDC will be for lower income. A more realistic affordability assumption for FDC is 20% for lower income. While SB 82 indicates that a minimum of 20% of units will be affordable to individuals with developmental disabilities, there has been no written or public statement from the state expressing interest in making more than 20% of homes affordable to lower income households.
The FDC site holds tremendous potential for meeting the city’s considerable lower income RHNA (4713 units). The fact the site is state-owned, however, could be a significant constraint in developing any housing there within the next eight years, much less the 920 units of lower income housing specified in the sites inventory. The city should create a stand-alone program and commit to actively working with the state to accomplish the specified housing development at FDC anticipated in the sites inventory.
B. The city should provide further analysis on the constraints for the three large sites (Sakioka Lot 2, Home Ranch, and Pacific Arts Plaza) which are currently under development agreements with no affordable housing requirements.
Though these three large sites are in the 2021-2029 sites inventory, they will not be subject to any future inclusionary housing ordinance the city adopts because each site is already under a development agreement with no inclusionary requirement. The only way the owner of one of these sites will be bound by a future inclusionary ordinance is if that owner opts into future General Plan and zoning regulations.3 Absent such a choice to opt into a different governing land use regime, there is no reason to expect any of these property owners will voluntarily include in their respective projects any lower income affordable housing, much less the 15% lower income housing reflected in the sites inventory. Significantly, one of these large property owners has explicitly signaled his unwillingness to be bound by an affordable housing requirement. 2 California Legislative Information, Bill Text SB-82 Developmental Services, June 24, 2015. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB82 3 This fact was confirmed during the city’s consideration of the proposal to extend Sakioka Lot 2’s Development Agreement; the city confirmed that “if the Agreement were extended, and if an inclusionary housing ordinance was adopted along with future General Plan and zoning regulations, the developer would need to comply with the inclusionary housing ordinance IF they opted to develop per the future General Plan and zoning regulations.” (Costa Mesa City Council Agenda Report, An Ordinance for an Extension To And Amendment of the Sakioka Farms Development Agreement, March 18, 2021, p. 11.)
On April 6, 2021, the Costa Mesa City Council extended the expiring Development Agreement for Sakioka Lot 2 for an additional 10 years. Prior to that extension, the city’s Planning Commission recommended the City Council require the extended Development Agreement include affordable housing requirements to help achieve the city’s lower income RHNA goals.4 The property owner, however, was only interested in having Sakioka Lot 2 identified as a housing opportunity site; he was not “amenable” to any affordable housing requirements.5 Given the property owner’s very recent strong opposition to including any affordable housing provisions in the extended Development Agreement, it is unrealistic to assume that same property owner will prioritize the development of housing affordable to lower income households in developing the property.
The city offers no rationale for its expectation the owners of Sakioka Lot 2 and the other two large sites will voluntarily include affordable housing in their future developments.
Importantly, these three large sites are in prime locations near South Coast Plaza, where land values are among the highest in the city. Moreover, each of these three property owners is a longtime owner who has practiced the art of holding onto the land for decades while land values continually climbed upward. Given these facts, the city should analyze the affordability assumptions of “15% lower income” for these three sites in light of each site’s respective development agreement which insulates the site from any affordable housing requirements.
Additionally, it is highly significant Sakioka Lot 2 and Home Ranch have been vacant for decades. How realistic is it that these two sites will be developed in the 2021-2029 cycle? The city must provide that analysis.
Finally, the city should clarify if the affordability assumptions on these three large sites include units that result from a density bonus. For example, the draft indicates that for Sakioka Lot 2, the city “determined that it is realistic to assume that 15% of future units on this site may be available to residents at the lower income levels.”6 Is this 15% actually a density bonus where a developer would be granted a higher density on the proposed development and in exchange, the developer would have to set aside 15% of the units to be affordable? The significance of such a calculation is that the developer may elect to not develop Sakioka Lot 2 to full capacity under the density bonus, and thereby opt out of including any affordable housing.
II.) Inadequate Analysis of Measure Y’s Constraints on Affordable Housing Development Measure Y is Costa Mesa's largest unique constraint to development because it incentivizes less dense, and thus unaffordable, development, and perpetuates exclusionary zoning. The city 4 Costa Mesa City Council Agenda Report, An Ordinance for an Extension To And Amendment of the Sakioka Farms Development Agreement, April 6, 2021, p. 9-10.
5 Costa Mesa City Council Agenda Report, An Ordinance for an Extension To And Amendment of the Sakioka Farms Development Agreement, April 6, 2021, p. 2.
6 Costa Mesa Housing Element, Appendix B Candidate Sites Analysis Overview, October 6, 2021, p. B-12.
council should adopt a policy to exempt from Measure Y any projects approved under the inclusionary zoning ordinance which contribute units toward meeting the city’s extremely low-, very low-, and low-income RHNA requirements.
Thank you for considering our concerns about the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update.
For your reference, we are attaching our September letter to the city with more extensive comments on the draft. This letter focuses only on our top concerns.
Sincerely,
Kathy Esfahani
Kathy Esfahani
For The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
cc: Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner of the City of Costa Mesa Richard Walker, Public Law Center
Cesar Covarrubias, The Kennedy Commission
ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: ARIOS, JUSTIN
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 8:16 AM
To: ARIOS, JUSTIN
Subject: FW: Constraints on Development: Parking
From: Anne Paulson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 7:29 PM
To: PC Public Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Constraints on Development: Parking
Dear Costa Mesa Councilmembers,
I understand you're having a hearing next week concerning constraints that you may be imposing that impede development of housing. I commend you for considering this important issue.
I sent this comment to your Housing Element email in October, but I'm repeating it now, somewhat edited, for consideration in your hearing. Thanks.
Costa Mesa's Parking Requirements are Excessive
In your Draft Housing Element, Costa Mesa analyzes your residential development standards and concludes that none are constraints on development. However, Costa Mesa's parking standards look like they would definitely constrain development. Costa Mesa requires two parking spaces, ~640 square feet, for a studio apartment; a typical studio apartment is around 500-600 square feet.
In other words, Costa Mesa requires more space for parking for a studio apartment than for people living in the apartment, and you say that’s not a constraint on building studio apartments. Costa Mesa’s justification is that you’re no worse than other nearby jurisdictions. But those other jurisdictions also are failing to build enough housing. The neighboring jurisdictions’ residential development standards are burdensome and excessive, and so are Costa Mesa’s.
Parking spaces are very, very expensive to build. An above-ground space will cost around $50-60,000 to build. An underground space will cost around $70-90,000. So the parking alone for that studio apartment will cost upwards of $100,000 to build, well over $150,000 if it's underground. This can be the difference between financial feasibility and financial infeasibility. Moreover, this is an issue of fairness. Costa Mesa has sunny, mild weather, great for biking or ebiking. Yet a person on a limited income, who wants to save money by forgoing a car, or a family that wants to save by just having one car, is still forced to pay for parking they don't want.
Your parking requirements are excessive across the board: 2 parking spaces for a studio apartment, 2.5 for a 1 BR, 3 for a 2 BR, 4 for a 3 BR apartment. In every case, you're requiring as much or more space for the cars as for the people. It's like instead of expecting developers to build apartments for people with attached parking, you're expecting developers to build giant parking lots for cars, with a little attached storage to store humans when they're not in the cars.
Please change these parking requirements. They make no sense, they're unfair, and they constrain development.
Thank you.
--
-- Anne Paulson
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
LEGAL ADVOCACY UNIT
350 S. Bixel St., Ste. 290
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (213) 213-8000
Fax: (213) 213-8001
TTY: (800) 719-5798
Intake Line: (800) 776-5746
www.disabilityrightsca.org
Sent Via Email Only
January 18, 2022
City Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
Re: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - CITY OF COSTA MESA 2021-2029 (SIXTH CYCLE) HOUSING ELEMENT (GP-21-01)
To Mayor John Stephens and the Honorable Members of the City Council:
We are writing to urge the City Council not to approve the draft Housing Element until it is revised to reflect changes that are needed in Costa Mesa’s laws and procedures to reduce barriers to housing for people with disabilities. Disability Rights California is a non-profit agency established under federal law to protect, advocate for and advance the human, legal and service rights of Californians with disabilities.1 Disability Rights California works in partnership with people with disabilities, striving towards a society that values all people and supports their rights to dignity, freedom, choice, and quality of life. Since 1978, Disability Rights California
1 Disability Rights California provides services pursuant to the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15001, PL 106-402; the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801, PL 106-310; the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794e, PL 106-402; the Assistive Technology Act, 29 U.S.C. § 3011,3012, PL 105-394; the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1320b-20, PL 106-170; the Children’s Health Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 300d-53, PL 106-310; and the Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. § 15461-62, PL 107-252; as well as under California Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 4900 et seq.
DRC Comments on Public Hearing Item #1: Housing Element January 18, 2022
has provided essential legal services to people with disabilities regarding access to housing and other critical needs.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) sent the City a December 3, 2021 letter regarding revisions that the City must make to the draft Housing Element to bring it into compliance with the law. The December 3 letter explained that the City would need to address a number of issues concerning “Housing for People with Disabilities.” However, the revisions to the draft Housing Element before the Council’s consideration today fail to adequately respond to the issues raised by HCD. We write to call particular attention to the following:
1. Reasonable Accommodation
HCD’s December 3, 2021 letter noted that the “additional factors” that the City may consider in its review of a reasonable accommodation application “may act as constraints,” and explained that the draft Housing Element must “include specific analysis of any potential constraint, including considering public comments and add or modify programs as appropriate.” The revisions to the draft Housing Element do not adequately respond to this comment. If an accommodation is necessary to provide people with disabilities full and equal access to housing due to their disabilities, an accommodation must be provided unless the City can demonstrate that doing so would be an undue financial and administrative burden or would be a fundamental alteration of the relevant programs, services, or activities. The same is true if a reasonable accommodation is necessary to provide meaningful access to housing for people with disabilities. The City’s current reasonable accommodation procedures create additional and unnecessary barriers to access because they allow for consideration of additional factors, such as impact on neighbors.
Impact on neighbors, for instance, may only come into the reasonable accommodation analysis if it gives rise to an undue financial and administrative burden on the City, in light of the full resources available to the City, or if it would result in an unavoidable and fundamental alteration to a relevant City program, service, or activity. Otherwise it may not be considered at all, and the City should not be inviting neighbors, who may oppose a reasonable accommodation request due to fear and stereotypes regarding people with disabilities, to weigh in on the request. Moreover, DRC Comments on Public Hearing Item #1: Housing Element January 18, 2022
the City’s draft Housing Element notes that the City’s current procedure is to consider “the extent to which the City would have to dedicate resources, such as staff time and funds, to grant the request and other requests like it.” Draft HE at 3-33. This is an illegal factor: the City must consider each reasonable accommodation request on its own and may not deny an accommodation request on the grounds that others may make a similar request.
Additionally, Disability Rights California has gained some familiarity with the actual operation of Costa Mesa’s reasonable accommodation process through our representation of an individual plaintiff in the Insight v.
Costa Mesa case, and we have been appalled at what we have learned.
Costa Mesa Zoning Code and practice put the burden on the applicant to demonstrate that a requested accommodation would not be an undue burden or fundamental alteration, which is contrary to law. Moreover, Costa Mesa requires applicants to submit their reasonable accommodation requests to City staff for a purported consideration of their request, but City staff admitted to us in deposition testimony that this is a sham proceeding in the case of group homes seeking a waiver of the City’s 650-foot separation requirement, because the City Council has directed staff never to grant such a request.
The City’s revised Housing Element neither adequately
acknowledges nor responds to these problems, which result in unnecessary and illegal barriers to access for people with disabilities.
2. Definition of Family
HCD’s December 3 letter observed that the City defines “family” as “a single housekeeping unit with multiple restrictions that may act as constraints on housing for persons with disabilities” and explained that the Housing Element “should include specific analysis of any potential constraint, including considering public comment and add or modify programs as appropriate.” However, the revised Housing Element does not do this. The definition ignores the fact that many individuals with disabilities do have a disability-related reason for needing separate leases, or for taking their meals separately, or for keeping expenses separate from other members of the household, or for relying on a third party to DRC Comments on Public Hearing Item #1: Housing Element January 18, 2022
determine who else lives in the household, for instance. Public benefits programs that people qualify for on the basis of disability, such as housing or income subsidies, for instance, can require things such as separate leases, meals, or finances. People can have a disability-related reason for having separate food. Due to a disability-related impairment, a person may need a third party to organize their housing and determine who else will be living with them. The revised Housing Element does not engage with any of these matters and entirely disregards the constraints that they place on housing options for people with disabilities.
Nor does the Housing Element acknowledge that, as a practical matter, these are only constraints for people with disabilities. The City has no practice of investigating whether blood relatives, or roommates without disabilities, are actually eating meals or doing chores together. The restrictions only become an issue with people with disabilities are living together, because they will be treated as a “group home” if they cannot demonstrate that they are a family/single housekeeping unit.
3. Group Homes
HCD’s December 3 letter accurately observes that the “City’s zoning code appears to isolate and regulate various types of housing for persons with disabilities based on the number of people and other factors.” As noted above, the City does not have “a barrier-free definition of family,” as the December 3 letter explains is required. As a result, the City subjects housing for people with disabilities to onerous regulations and excludes them from some residential zones. And, as the December 3 letter notes, “these housing types in many cases are subject to a special use or conditional use permit, potentially subjecting housing for persons with disabilities to higher discretionary standards where an applicant must demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood, unlike other residential uses.”
The revised Housing Element does not “include specific analysis of these and any other constraints, including their enforcement and considering public comments, for impacts on housing for persons with disabilities and add or modify programs as appropriate,” as the December 3 letter explains that it should. Instead, the revised Housing Element DRC Comments on Public Hearing Item #1: Housing Element January 18, 2022
simply argues without evidence that Costa Mesa is justified in imposing these restrictions on housing options for people with disabilities. The revised Housing Element argues that, by limiting housing options for people with disabilities, the City is actually protecting them. But this is nonsensical. Many people have a disability-related reason for needing to live in the kind of housing that Costa Mesa terms a “group home.” Our client in the Insight case, for instance, is a woman with mental health disabilities who needed to live in a supportive environment for a month or two while she transitioned from a psychiatric facility to community living.
Costa Mesa’s group home ordinances restrict the ability of housing providers to create this kind of housing in the community. There are far too few housing options for people with disabilities as it is. And in the case of our client, enforcement of Costa Mesa’s group home ordinances will result in Insight’s housing being shut down, with nowhere else in the City to go.
Because it is the only housing of its kind in the region, people like our client will have nowhere to go for that kind of housing, and will be either stuck in an institution or living in a housing situation that does not provide what they need.
We urge the City Council not to approve the draft Housing Element until it fully responds to these and other barriers to access for people with disabilities.
Sincerely,
Autumn M. Elliott
Litigation Counsel
Zeenat Hassan
Staff Attorney
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
DRC Comments on Public Hearing Item #1: Housing Element January 18, 2022
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
February 28, 2022
Policy Recommendations for 6th Cycle Housing Element
Dear Planning staff:
YIMBY Law submits this letter to share our policy goals and recommendations for the Policies and Programs section of your Housing Element. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Housing Element process.
The Policies and Programs section of the city’s Housing Element must respond to data, analysis and findings presented in the Housing Needs section. We repeatedly see findings that housing prices are high, segregation exists, and there is a lack of housing for special populations, but the Policies and Programs don’t respond to these findings or try to change outcomes. The overview of the city’s housing environment should set the scene, and the policies and programs should explain what the city is going to do to fix it.
Our policy goals are as follows:
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
1. Prioritize rezoning in high resource, historically exclusionary neighborhoods.
Many of the highest resource neighborhoods with the best access to jobs, good schools, and other amenities have histories of exclusion which are still reflected in their zoning. Cities should rezone to allow more housing opportunities in those neighborhoods, particularly those with low Vehicle Miles Traveled, as part of their 1 Housing Elements.
2. Establish a strong tenant protection ordinance so that new housing benefits everyone. Development should not permanently displace current residents.
Housing replacement programs, temporary housing vouchers, right of return, and demolition controls will create stability for renters while allowing new homes to be built for new households and to accommodate the growth associated with RHNA.
In your sites inventory and rezoning programs, you should prioritize development on sites with owner-occupied housing & commercial uses over those with existing rent-controlled apartments or other rental housing with lower income residents.
3. Support homeownership opportunities for historically excluded groups.
Homeownership continues to be a path to building financial security and inter-generational wealth, which has been systematically denied to many Americans. As a society, we need to make this right by intentionally offering opportunities to communities who have been excluded. The housing element should identify opportunities to create a variety of for-sale housing types and create programs to facilitate property ownership among excluded groups.
Site Capacity
4. Adequately plan for density. Ensure that a site’s density will accommodate the number of homes that are projected to be built. In addition, make sure height limits, setback requirements, FAR, and other controls allow for adequate density and the ability to achieve a site’s realistic capacity. Housing will not be feasible if you have a high density paired with low height limits. This density should be emphasized around jobs and transit and should go beyond the Mullin density in those areas.
5. Provide sufficient zoned capacity to accommodate all income levels, including a minimum No Net Loss buffer of 30%. Not every site will be developed at maximum density during the eight-year planning period. Identify an ample amount of opportunity sites and zone the sites to accommodate lower-income housing types (usually a statutory minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre) to give the city the best chance at meeting its RHNA.
6. Use data from the 5th Cycle to calculate the likelihood of development for your 6th Cycle site inventory. Likelihood of development is a measure of the probability of an inventory site being developed during the planning period. The median likelihood of development across the state is 25%, meaning only one of every four sites will likely be developed during the planning period for the median city. Incorporating the likelihood of development into the zoned capacity will set the city up to successfully achieve their RHNA, making the housing element less of a paper exercise and more of an actionable, functional document.
Accessory Dwelling Units
7. Commit to an automatic mid-cycle adjustment if ADU permitting activity is lower than estimated in the housing element. We highly recommend complying with HCD’s standards of using one of its “safe harbor” methodologies to anticipate future ADU production. However, if the city is optimistic about ADU growth, then creating an automatic mid-cycle adjustment will automatically facilitate alternative housing options (i.e., a rezoning program, removing development constraints, ADU incentives, etc.) if the city falls behind the estimated ADU production.
8. Incentivize new ADUs, including those that are rent-restricted for moderateor lower-income households or that are prioritized for households with housing choice vouchers. Consider offering low- or no-interest loans, forgivable loans, impact fee waivers for ADUs that are 750 square feet or larger, allowances to facilitate two-story and second-story ADU construction, etc.
Zoning
9. Allow residential to be built in areas that are zoned for commercial use.
There are a myriad of ways to do this, but a housing overlay is one common policy.
Additionally, consider eliminating new commercial space in mixed-use developments where there is not a strong demand or there is otherwise a glut of commercial space that is unused or frequently vacant.
10. Allow flexibility in inclusionary zoning. Cities should require different percentages for different AMI levels. Additionally, we urge cities to incentivize land dedication to affordable developers in order for market-rate developers to meet their inclusionary requirements. Avoid getting trapped into thinking that the affordable units must be “sprinkled throughout” the market-rate units, or require the market-rate units to look exactly the same as the affordable ones. This should be balanced against not locating all of the affordable units in one place and ghettoizing neighborhoods by creating or perpetuating racially concentrated areas of poverty.
Better Entitlement Process & Reducing Barriers to Development
11. Ensure that the city has a ministerial process for housing permitting, especially multi-family housing, and remove impact fees for deed-restricted housing. A discretionary process for housing development creates uncertainty and adds to the cost of construction. For example, multi-family housing should not require a conditional use permit or city council approval unless the builder is asking for unique and extraordinary concessions. Right-sizing governmental constraints, entitlement processes, and impact fees will help the city successfully meet its RHNA.
12. Reduce parking standards and eliminate parking minimums. Minimum parking requirements are a major constraint on housing, especially for lower cost housing types. They can cost in excess of $30,000 per spot and can raise rents by as much as 17%, and eliminating them is particularly important for smaller & other spatially constrained sites. Consider adopting a parking maximum.
13. Cap fees on all new housing. Most construction costs are outside the City’s control, but reducing impact fees can demonstrate that a city is serious about building new housing. At a minimum, cities should delay the collection of impact fees until the issuance of the certificate of occupancy to reduce financial impacts on new housing and make the units cheaper by not asking the developer to carry impact fee charges or debt throughout the construction phase.
14. Provide local funding. One of the largest barriers to building new affordable homes is the lack of city/county funds available to assemble sites, provide gap funding, and to pay for dedicated staff. Without new funding, especially at the local level, we will not be able to build more affordable homes. There are three new revenue streams that should be considered: 1) Transfer tax, a one-time payment levied by a jurisdiction on the sale of a home, may be utilized to raise much needed revenue to fund affordable homes; 2) Vacancy tax may be collected on vacant land to convince landowners to sell their underutilized properties and be used to fund the construction of affordable homes; 3) Commercial linkage fees should be adopted or revisited for increases on new commercial developments.
We urge you to include these policies in your 6th cycle Housing Element.
Best regards,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
[email protected]
Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
February 1, 2022
Mayor John Stephens and Members of the City Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA
RE: Measure Y and Complying with Costa Mesa’s RHNA Requirement Dear Mayor Stephens and Council Members:
There are two critical things Costa Mesa must do to comply with its legal obligation to accommodate its 2021-2029 RHNA for lower income households. The first thing is to adopt a strong inclusionary housing ordinance requiring a minimum of 15% of all new homes to be affordable to lower income households. The second is to amend Measure Y so it no longer impedes housing development in Costa Mesa.
Members of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition (the Coalition) participated in the City’s well-attended January 11th community meeting on Measure Y. We were very pleased to hear widespread support for amending Measure Y. Many residents who called in during the meeting specifically lamented Costa Mesa’s lack of affordable housing. These same residents expressed the common sense view that Measure Y’s burdensome “city-wide vote” requirement is impeding the construction of new residential development in our city. While a few commenters warned the City not to touch Measure Y, the vast majority of callers supported amending this voter-enacted law so Costa Mesa can gain the affordable housing so many of our residents desperately need.
In my public comments, I suggested the City should amend Measure Y to state that it does not apply to any housing development which includes a minimum percentage of lower-income affordable units. At the time, I urged a 20% requirement for exemption from Measure Y. While 20% would be terrific, our Coalition would also support a 15% lower-income affordable requirement for exemption from Measure Y. Absent such an amendment, Costa Mesa will never meet its lower income RHNA obligation, and its residents will continue to suffer the lifeconstricting consequences of paying unaffordable rents. We urge you to act.
Thank you for considering our concerns about the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update.
Sincerely,
Kathy Esfahani
Kathy Esfahani
For The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
cc: Justin Arias, Associate Planner for the City of Costa Mesa Paul McDougal and Marisa Prasse, California Department of Housing and Community Development
Richard Walker, Public Law Center
Cesar Covarrubias, The Kennedy Commission
February 1, 2022
Mayor John Stephens and Members of the City Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
RE: Agenda Item 1. CITY OF COSTA MESA 2021-2029 (SIXTH CYCLE) HOUSING
ELEMENT
Dear Honorable Mayor Stephens:
The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad based coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $27,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering and working with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing and land-use policies that has led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income working families.
In order to meet its 2021-2029 RHNA goals, the City must adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance with a 15% requirement of affordable housing production at extremely low, very low and low-income categories. In addition, the City must exempt affordable housing development projects, especially those that include extremely low, very low, and low-income units. Measure Y is the City’s largest constraint to affordable housing development. By requiring a “city-wide vote”, Measure Y is preventing the devlopment of much needed affordable housing.
Density bonus alone will not develop affordable housing that is needed in the City. The City’s 5th Cycle RHNA progress demonstrates that above moderate income housing production has outpaced lower income housing development by a 38 to 1 ratio. The density bonus alone has not been effective in producing affordable housing for lower income households. From 2014-2020, only 30 permitted units were issued at low and very low income. Of those, only 9 units are deed restricted at very low and 21 units are non-deed restricted ADUs at very low and low income.
We strongly encourage the City to prioritize the development of affordable homes to better meet the housing needs of low income residents in Costa Mesa. The Commission has provided the following recommendations for the City to consider:
1. Adoption of an effective Inclusionary Housing Ordinance with a 15% requirement of affordable housing production at extremely low, very low and low-income categories within the first 2 years of the next planning period.
a. The Housing Element should be revised to contain a clear commitment to adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by October 2022 in order to have a beneficial impact in the upcoming planning period.
b. The City must adopt the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance prior to any zoning changes or other land use changes that could negatively affect allowable residential densities needed to meet 2021-2029 RHNA goals.
Kennedy Commission Comments
February 1, 2022
2. The City must make mid-cycle adjustments to programs to better facilitate affordable housing development if RHNA goals are not moving forward during the first half of the 2021-2029 planning period, especially among low, very low, and extremely low income.
3. The City’s largest constraint to affordable housing development is Measure Y because it incentivizes less dense and thus unaffordable development. The City must exempt affordable housing development projects especially those that include extremely low, very low, and low-income units.
The Commission looks forward to partnering with the City to increase affordable home opportunities for lower income households in the Costa Mesa. Please keep us informed of any updates and meetings regarding strategies to increase affordable homes for lower income households in the City. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
Glossary of Housing Terms
Appendix D
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-1
Glossary of Housing Terms
Above-Moderate-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually greater than 120% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available legibility limits established by the U.S. Department of housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) is a legal requirement that federal agencies and federal grantees further the purposes of the Fair Housing Act. AFFH means "taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.
Apartment. An apartment is one (1) or more rooms in an apartment house or dwelling occupied or intended or designated for occupancy by one (1) family for sleeping or living purposes and containing one (1) kitchen.
Assisted Housing. Generally multi-family rental housing, but sometimes single-family ownership units, whose construction, financing, sales prices, or rents have been subsidized by federal, state, or local housing programs including, but not limited to Federal state, or local housing programs including, but not limited to Federal Section 8 (new construction, substantial rehabilitation, and loan management set-asides), Federal Sections 213, 236, and 202, Federal Sections 221 (d) (3) (below-market interest rate program), Federal Sections 101 (rent supplement assistance), CDBG, FmHA Sections 515, multi-family mortgage revenue bond programs, local redevelopment and in lieu fee programs, and units developed pursuant to local inclusionary housing and density bonus programs.
Below-Market-Rate (BMR). Any housing unit specifically priced to be sold or rented to low- or moderateincome households for an amount less than the fair-market value of the unit. Both the State of California and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development set standards for determining which households qualify as “low income” or “moderate income.” (2) The financing of housing at less than prevailing interest rates.
Build-Out. That level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all developable sites in accordance with the General Plan; the maximum level of development envisioned by the General Plan.
Build-out does not assume that each parcel is developed to include all floor area or housing units possible under zoning regulations.
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-2
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). A grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitled communities and administered by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non-entitled jurisdictions. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including public facilities and economic development.
Condominium. A structure of two or more units, the interior spaces of which are individually owned; the balance of the property (both land and building) is owned in common by the owners of the individual units. (See “Townhouse.”)
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A term used to describe restrictive limitations that may be placed on property and its use, and which usually are made a condition of holding title or lease.
Deed. A legal document which affects the transfer of ownership of real estate from the seller to the buyer.
Density Bonus. The allocation of development rights that allow a parcel to accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned, usually in exchange for the provision or preservation of an amenity at the same site or at another location.
Density, Residential. The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of land. Densities specified in the General Plan may be expressed in units per gross acre or per net developable acre.
Developable Land. Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural resource areas.
Down Payment. Money paid by a buyer from his own funds, as opposed to that portion of the purchase price which is financed.
Duplex. A detached building under single ownership that is designed for occupation as the residence of two families living independently of each other.
Dwelling Unit (DU). A building or portion of a building containing one or more rooms, designed for, or used by one family for living or sleeping purposes, and having a separate bathroom and only one kitchen or kitchenette. See Housing Unit.
Elderly Housing. Typically, one- and two-bedroom apartments or condominiums designed to meet the needs of persons 62 years of age and older or, if more than 150 units, persons 55 years of age and older, and restricted to occupancy by them.
Emergency Shelter. A facility that provides immediate and short-term housing and supplemental services for the homeless. Shelters come in many sizes, but an optimum size is considered to be 20 to 40 beds.
Supplemental services may include food, counseling, and access to other social programs. (See “Homeless” and “Transitional Housing.”)
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-3
Extremely Low-Income Household. A household with an annual income equal to or less than 30% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.
Fair Market Rent. The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposed of administering the Section 8 Program.
Family. (1) Two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption [U.S. Bureau of the Census]. (2) An Individual or a group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide single-family housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, not including a fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, lodging house or institution of any kind [Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines].
General Plan. A comprehensive, long-term plan mandated by State Planning Law for the physical development of a city or county and any land outside its boundaries which, in its judgment, bears relation to its planning. The plan shall consist of seven required elements: land use, circulation, open space, conservation, housing, safety, and noise. The plan must include a statement of development policies and a diagram or diagrams illustrating the policies.
Goal. A general, overall, and ultimate purpose, aim, or end toward which the City will direct effort.
Green Building. Green or sustainable building is the practice of creating healthier and more resourceefficient models of construction, renovation, operation, maintenance, and demolition. (US Environmental Protection Agency)
Historic Preservation. The preservation of historically significant structures and neighborhoods until such time as, and in order to facilitate, restoration and rehabilitation of the building(s) to a former condition.
Historic Property. A historic property is a structure or site that has significant historic, architectural, or cultural value.
Household. All those persons—related or unrelated—who occupy a single housing unit. (See “Family.”) Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). The State agency that has principal responsibility for assessing, planning for, and assisting communities to meet the needs of low-and moderate-income households.
Housing Element. One of the seven State-mandated elements of a local general plan, it assesses the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community, identifies potential sites adequate to provide the amount and kind of housing needed, and contains adopted goals, policies, and Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-4
implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Under State law, Housing Elements must be updated every five years.
Housing Payment. For ownership housing, this is defined as the mortgage payment, property taxes, insurance, and utilities. For rental housing this is defined as rent and utilities.
Housing Ratio. The ratio of the monthly housing payment to total gross monthly income; also called Payment-to-Income Ratio or Front-End Ratio.
Housing Unit. The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A housing unit may be a single-family dwelling, a multi-family dwelling, a condominium, a modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential unit considered real property under State law.
Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD). A cabinet-level department of the federal government that administers housing and community development programs.
Implementing Policies. The City’s statements of its commitments to consistent actions.
Implementation. Actions, procedures, programs, or techniques that carry out policies.
Infill Development. The development of new housing or other buildings on scattered vacant lots in a builtup area or on new building parcels created by permitted lot splits.
Jobs-Housing Balance. A ratio used to describe the adequacy of the housing supply within a defined area to meet the needs of persons working within the same area. The General Plan uses SCAG’s definition which is a job total equal to 1.2 times the number of housing units within the area under consideration.
Land Use Classification. A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of properties.
Live-Work Units. Buildings or spaces within buildings that are used jointly for commercial and residential purposes where the residential use of the space is secondary or accessory to the primary use as a place of work.
Low-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than51%-80% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.
Low-income Housing Tax Credits. Tax reductions provided by the federal and State governments for investors in housing for low-income households.
Manufactured Housing. Residential structures that are constructed entirely in the factory, and which since June 15, 1976, have been regulated by the federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-5
Act of 1974 under the administration of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (See “Mobile home” and “Modular Unit.”)
Mixed-Use. Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. A “single site” may include contiguous properties.
Moderate-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than 81%-120% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.
Monthly Housing Expense. Total principal, interest, taxes, and insurance paid by the borrower on a monthly basis. Used with gross income to determine affordability.
Multiple Family Building. A detached building designed and used exclusively as a dwelling by three or more families occupying separate suites.
Ordinance. A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or county.
Overcrowded Housing Unit. A housing unit in which the members of the household, or group are prevented from the enjoyment of privacy because of small room size and housing size. The U.S. Bureau of Census defines an overcrowded housing unit as one which is occupied by more than one person per room.
Parcel. A lot or tract of land.
Planning Area. The area directly addressed by the general plan. A city’s planning area typically encompasses the city limits and potentially annexable land within its sphere of influence.
Policy. A specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies clear commitment but is not mandatory. A general direction that a governmental agency sets to follow, in order to meet its objectives before undertaking an action program. (See “Program.”)
Poverty Level. As used by the U.S. Census, families and unrelated individuals are classified as being above or below the poverty level based on a poverty index that provides a range of income cutoffs or “poverty thresholds” varying by size of family, number of children, and age of householder. The income cutoffs are updated each year to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index.
Program. An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to adopted policy to achieve a specific goal or objective. Policies and programs establish the “who,” “how” and “when” for carrying out the “what” and “where” of goals and objectives.
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-6
Redevelop. To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing on a property; or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use.
Regional. Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that of a single jurisdiction and affecting a broad geographic area.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment. A quantification by the local council of governments of existing and projected housing need, by household income group, for all localities within a region.
Rehabilitation. The repair, preservation, and/or improvement of substandard housing.
Residential. Land designated in the General Plan and zoning ordinance for building consisting of dwelling units. May be improved, vacant, or unimproved. (See “Dwelling Unit.”) Residential Care Facility. A facility that provides 24-hour care and supervision to its residents.
Residential, Multiple Family. Usually three or more dwelling units on a single site, which may be in the same or separate buildings.
Residential, Single-Family. A single dwelling unit on a building site.
Retrofit. To add materials and/or devices to an existing building or system to improve its operation, safety, or efficiency. Buildings have been retrofitted to use solar energy and to strengthen their ability to withstand earthquakes, for example.
Rezoning. An amendment to the map to effect a change in the nature, density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area.
Second Unit. A self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from, and in addition to, the primary residential unit on a single lot. “Granny Flat” is one type of second unit.
Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program that is one of the main sources of federal housing assistance for low-income households. The program operates by providing “housing assistance payments” to owners, developers, and public housing agencies to make up the difference between the “Fair Market Rent” of a unit (set by HUD) and the household’s contribution toward the rent, which is calculated at 30% of the household’s adjusted gross monthly income (GMI). “Section 8” includes programs for new construction, existing housing, and substantial or moderate housing rehabilitation.
Shared Living Facility. The occupancy of a dwelling unit by persons of more than one family in order to reduce housing expenses and provide social contact, mutual support, and assistance. Shared living facilities serving six or fewer persons are permitted in all residential districts by Section 1566.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-7
Single-Family Dwelling, Attached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally connected with at least one other such dwelling unit. (See “Townhouse.”) Single-Family Dwelling, Detached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally independent from any other such dwelling unit or structure intended for residential or other use. (See “Family.”)
Single Room Occupancy (SRO). A single room, typically 80-250 square feet, with a sink and closet, but which requires the occupant to share a communal bathroom, shower, and kitchen.
Subsidize. To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the granting to terms or favors that reduces the need for monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may take the forms or mortgage interest deductions or tax credits from federal and/or state income taxes, sale, or lease at less than market value of land to be used for the construction of housing, payments to supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like.
Substandard Housing. Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition, do not provide safe and sanitary housing.
Supportive Housing. Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 53260(d), and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. “Target population" means adults with low incomes having one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions, or individuals eligible for services provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and may, among other populations, include families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, or homeless people. [California Health and Safety Code Sections 50675.14(b) and 53260(d)]
Target Areas. Specifically, designated sections of the community where loans and grants are made to bring about a specific outcome, such as the rehabilitation of housing affordable by Very-Low and Low-income households.
Tax Increment. Additional tax revenues that result from increases in property values within a redevelopment area. State law permits the tax increment to be earmarked for redevelopment purposes but requires at least 20 percent to be used to increase and improve the community’s supply of very lowand low-income housing.
Tenure. A housing unit is owner-occupied if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. A cooperative or condominium unit is owner-occupied only if the owner or co-owner lives in it. All other occupied units are classified as renter-occupied including units rented for cash rent and those occupied without payment of cash rent.
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-8
Townhouse. A townhouse is a dwelling unit located in a group of three (3) or more attached dwelling units with no dwelling unit located above or below another and with each dwelling unit having its own exterior entrance.
Transitional Housing. Shelter provided to the homeless for an extended period, often as long as 18 months, and generally integrated with other social services and counseling programs to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency through the acquisition of a stable income and permanent housing. (See “Homeless” and “Emergency Shelter.”)
Undevelopable. Specific areas where topographic, geologic, and/or superficial soil conditions indicate a significant danger to future occupants and a liability to the City.
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-9
Acronyms Used
ACS: American Community Survey
BMPs: Best Management Practices
CALTRANS: California Department of Transportation
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act
CHAS: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
CIP: Capital Improvement Program
DDS: Department of Developmental Services
DIF: Development Impact Fee
DU/AC: Dwelling Units Per Acre
EDD: California Employment Development Department
FAR: Floor Area Ratio
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
HCD: Department of Housing and Community Development
HOA: Homeowners Association
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development
LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission
MFI: Median Family Income
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
RTFH: Regional Task Force on the Homeless
RTP: Regional Transportation Plan
SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments
SPA: Sectional Planning Area
STF: Summary Tape File (U.S. Census)
TOD: Transit-Oriented Development
TDM: Transportation Demand Management
TSM: Transportation Systems Management
WCP: Water Conservation Plan