PC 2021/09/27.pdf
City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Agenda
Monday, September 27, 2021
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California
• Chairperson: Natalie Meeks
• Chairperson Pro-Tempore: Dave Vadodaria
• Commissioners: Kimberly Keys, LuisAndres Perez, Steve White, Lucille Kring
• Call To Order - 5:00 p.m.
• Pledge Of Allegiance
• Public Comments
• Workshop 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element Update
• Consent Calendar
• Public Hearing Items
• Commission Updates
• Discussion
• Adjournment
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the
agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary.
A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report
is also available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday,
September 23, 2021, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the
Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the Planning and
Building Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California,
during regular business hours.
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net
September 27, 2021 Page 2 of 5
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations,
Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission
action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk.
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public
hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M.
Public Comments This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or provide public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items.
Workshop 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element Update Consent Calendar There will be no separate discussion on the item prior to the time of the voting on the motion
unless members of the Planning Commission, staff, or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
September 27, 2021 Page 3 of 5
Reports and Recommendations
ITEM NO. 1 SUBMITTAL OF THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE
CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD) Location: Citywide
Request: This is a City-initiated request to submit the Draft
2019-2021 Housing Element to the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review for compliance with State law.
Environmental Determination: Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council determine that the submittal of the Draft Housing Element to HCD is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3)of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Motion
Project Planner:
Susan Kim skim@anaheim.net
September 27, 2021 Page 4 of 5
Public Hearing Items
ITEM NO. 2 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2021-00179,
ADJUSTMENT NO. 3 TO THE EAST CENTER STREET
DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-2 (SPN90-2C)
CODE STREAMLINING AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(DEV2021-00138) Location: Citywide
Request: A City-initiated amendment to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Code) modifying Chapters 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones); 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones); 18.08 (Commercial Zones);
18.36 (Types of Uses); 18.38 (Supplemental Use
Regulations); 18.40 (General Development Standards); 18.42 (Parking and Loading); 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening); 18.92 (Definitions); 18.110 (East Center Street Development Specific Plan (SP 90-2) Zoning and
Development Standards). The proposed amendments and
specific plan adjustments are to provide clarity; create consistency of terms, definitions and processing; streamline approval processes; and, amend development standards to reflect current market trends.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether the proposed action is exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section
15061(b)(3).
Motion
Project Planner:
Christine Nguyen CNguyen2@anaheim.net
Adjourn to Monday, October 11, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.
September 27, 2021 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 5 p.m. September 23, 2021 (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED: ____ _________________________
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin
in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification,
accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning and Building Department either in person at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later than 8:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting.
La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a todos los miembros del público. La Ciudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color u origen nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal.
Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y reglamentos adoptados en aplicación del mismo.
Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha modificación, ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la Ciudad ya sea en persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono al (714) 765-5139,
antes de las 8:00 de la mañana un día hábil antes de la reunión programada.
ITEM NO. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2021
SUBJECT: SUBMITTAL OF THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD) LOCATION: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Anaheim
REQUEST: This is a City-initiated request to submit the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element to the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review for compliance with State law.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, by
motion, find that the submittal of the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element for review by HCD is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3)of the State CEQA Guidelines; and, recommend that the City Council direct the Planning and Building Director to submit said document.
BACKGROUND: The Housing Element is a state-mandated chapter of the
Anaheim General Plan that sets forth an eight-year plan (housing cycle) to address the City’s identified housing needs. The Housing Element describes, identifies, and analyzes the City’s housing needs; and addresses the maintenance and expansion of the housing supply to accommodate the households that currently live and/or may
live in Anaheim in the housing cycle. Through research and analysis, the Housing
Element identifies available candidate housing sites and establishes a Housing Policy Program to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation, as determined by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and approved by HCD. State law requires the submittal of the Draft 2021-
2029 Housing Element by October 15, 2021.
The 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element provides the following:
• Overview of City’s housing and population (Section 2: Community Profile)
• Analysis of opportunities and barriers that affect housing (Section 3: Housing
Constraints, Resources and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing)
• Policies to address the City’s housing needs and comply with State law (Section 4: Housing Policy Program).
• Review of the City’s implementation of the 2014-2021 Housing Element
(Appendix A: Review of Past Performance of the Fifth Cycle Housing Element)
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net
SUBMITTAL OF DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TO HCD
September 27, 2021 Page 2 of 6
• Identification of sites to accommodate the RHNA (Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis)
• Summary of the community engagement efforts that the City used to engage the public in the development of the Housing Element (Appendix C: Community Engagement).
City staff began its preparation of an update to the 2014-2021 Housing Element (Fifth Cycle
Housing Element) in January 2021 with the assistance of the consulting firm Kimley-Horn. As part of the Housing Element Update process, the City conducted extensive public outreach activities beginning in 2021. These outreach efforts included City Council, Planning Commission and Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) Workshops, three Community
Workshops, and seven Housing Element Update Committee (HEUC) meetings, all of which were
open to the public; an on-line community survey; and e-mail and social media blasts. Staff provided all project materials, including summaries from community workshops, HEUC meeting and the community survey; notices; and draft public review documents on a dedicated website: www.anaheim.net/housingelement.
The City released the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element for a 30-day public review period that began on August 26, 2021 and ended on September 24, 2021. Attachment 1 (Draft Housing Element Website) provides a link to the website where the staff posted the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element for public review. The Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element was also available for
review at the Anaheim Central Library and the Planning and Building Department Public Counter
at City Hall. Staff provided hard copies of the document to the Planning Commission, Housing and Community Development Commission, and City Council. The public was able to provide comments in writing via a comment form on the project website, a dedicated e-mail (housingelement@anaheim.net), or to staff (Susan Kim) at the Planning and Building Department.
In addition, following the release of the document for public review, the City met with the HEUC
and HCDC to solicit initial feedback on the draft document, while requesting that individual members of the HEUC and HCDC submit comments separately in writing. Attachment 2 (Draft Housing Element Comments) provides the one comment letter that staff has
received in writing as of 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 22, 2021. Staff will provide the
Planning Commission with any comments submitted after this date and time separately from the staff report. Any comments that staff receives prior to 1:30 pm on Monday, September 27, 2021, will be posted with the staff report on the Planning Commission agenda webpage (https://www.anaheim.net/AgendaCenter/Search/?term=&CIDs=18). Staff will post any
comments received after 1:30 pm on the day of the Planning Commission meeting, after the
Planning Commission meeting, consistent with the typical process used for comments received on Planning Commission agenda items. PROPOSAL: Staff has prepared the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element in compliance with State
law. The table on the following page and in Section 1 (Introduction) of the Draft 2021-2029
Housing Element describes all of the pertinent State law requirements and the section or appendix of the document where readers can find this information. The request to submit the document to HCD for review is not a request for the City to adopt the document. HCD will review the document to determine whether it complies with State law. Subsequent to HCD’s review, Planning
Commission will make a recommendation to City Council on whether it should amend the City’s
General Plan to adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
SUBMITTAL OF DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TO HCD
September 27, 2021 Page 3 of 6
Table 1-1: Housing Element Requirements
Housing Element Requirement(s) Government Code Section Housing Element
Analysis of employment trends Section 65583.a Section 2
Projection and quantification of existing and projected housing needs for all income groups Section 65583.a Section 3
Analysis and documentation of the City’s housing characteristics, including cost for housing compared to ability to pay, overcrowding, and housing condition Section 65583.a Section 2
An inventory of land suitable for residential development including vacant sites and sites having redevelopment potential Section 65583.a Section 3
Analysis of existing and potential governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement or development of housing for all income levels Section 65583.a Section 3
Analysis of existing and potential nongovernmental (private sector) constraints upon maintenance, improvement or development of housing for all income levels Section 65583.a Section 3
Analysis concerning the needs of the homeless Section 65583.a Section 2
Analysis of special housing needs: handicapped, elderly, large families,
farm workers, and female-headed households Section 65583.a Section 2
Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development Section 65583.a Section 3
Identification of Publicly Assisted Housing Developments Section 65583.a Section 3
Identification of Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Housing Section 65583.a Section 3
Identification of the City’s goal relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing Section 65583.a Section 4
Analysis of quantified objectives and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing Section 65583.b Section 4
Identification of adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate action with required public services and facilities for a variety of housing types for all income levels
Section
65583.c(1) Appendix B
Identification of strategies to assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate- income households
Section
65583.c(2) Section 3
Description of the Public Participation Program in the formulation of Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Programs Section 65583.d Appendix C
Description of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments Section 65583.e Section 3
Analysis of Fair Housing, including Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Section 8899.50 Section 3
Review of the effectiveness of the past Element, including the City’s accomplishments during the previous planning period. Section 65583.f Appendix A
Source: State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development. Subsequent to the release of the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element for public review, staff has identified several minor clarifications and revisions to the document that staff plans to make prior
to submittal to HCD; none of which would change the substance of the findings or policies within
the document. The revised Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element will be included as an attachment to the City Council staff report. In addition, staff will revise Appendix B (Adequate Sites Analysis) to reflect the following:
• Sites previously identified as Potential Housing Sites that upon further analysis staff has
determined would not be suitable for residential development due to size, topography, or existing land use; or,
SUBMITTAL OF DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TO HCD
September 27, 2021 Page 4 of 6
• Sites on which the City has received a request for Conceptual Development Review or a Development Application since the release of the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element for public review through the City’s filing deadline of September 14, 2021.
Even with these revisions to Appendix B (Adequate Sites Analysis), the City continues to have
enough sites to meet its RHNA allocation. Attachment 3 (Candidate Sites Inventory) provides a
table that breaks down the sites by type and income category. The table in Attachment 3 replaces Table B-1 (Summary of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation and Adequate Sites Analysis) of Appendix B of the draft document that the City released in August for public review. Attachment 3 (Candidate Sites Inventory) also includes maps that show the potential
location of the sites to accommodate these units; these maps replace Figures B-1a through B-1f
that were included in the draft document released in August. The revised Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element that City Council will review on October 5, 2021 will reflect these proposed sites. Furthermore, if directed by a motion of the Planning Commission, staff will also include any
additional edits requested by Planning Commission at its meeting on September 27, 2021.
In addition to the above edits, at the City Council workshop held on August 24, 2021, the Mayor directed staff to reconvene the Housing Working Group, formed by Council Member O’Neil in 2019, to discuss a policy to create an Affordable Housing Production Program. This working group
includes Mayor Pro Tem Faessel, Council Member O’Neil, and Council Member Diaz. Council
Member Diaz replaces Council Member Kring who was previously in the working group, but has since termed out of office. The working group also includes staff from the City Manager’s Office, Community and Economic Development, and Planning and Building Departments. As directed by the Mayor, the purpose of the Affordable Housing Production Program is to create a strategy to
fund affordable housing. The working group will present their proposed strategy to the City
Council at a workshop on September 28, 2021. Staff anticipates that this strategy will replace the following strategy in the Draft Housing Element with a more specific approach and a shorter timeline for implementation.
Housing Production Strategy 1A: Affordable Housing Production Program
The City has a substantial need for affordable housing that will be a challenge to
accommodate within the 2021-2029 planning period. Due to prevailing project
development costs including high land values and other factors, the ability of the private
market to develop affordable housing without some level of subsidy is a continuing
challenge. Therefore, the City will evaluate a variety of policy prescriptions that will
encourage and facilitate the construction of below market-rate housing.
The City will evaluate affordable housing production options as an additional strategy to
provide a variety of housing types and opportunities for very low, low- and moderate-
income households. The City will assess and analyze affordable housing production policy
options, standards, requirements and regulations to determine an appropriate program, with
the goal of generating local revenue for use in affordable housing production.
Objective: Evaluate an appropriate affordable housing production program for the City Responsible Party: Community Development/ Planning & Building Source of Funds: General Fund Timeline for Implementation: Within 36 months of Housing Element adoption
SUBMITTAL OF DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TO HCD
September 27, 2021 Page 5 of 6
Once staff has received City Council approval to submit the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element to
HCD, staff will prepare amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element, amendments to the Zoning Code and zone changes that will be necessary to reflect potential housing sites and/or the Housing Element’s Housing Policy Program. While the Housing Element is a policy document that in of itself would not create a new physical impact on the environment, these changes to the
Land Use Element have the potential to create an impact on the environment. Therefore, staff will
be preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) to analyze these changes, as well as a Climate Action Plan, to streamline future environmental review. In conjunction with these efforts, staff will be preparing amendments to the General Plan Circulation, Safety, and Green Elements, and creating a new Environmental Justice Element, all of which are required in conjunction with the
approval of the Hosing Element, pursuant to State law. The EIR will also analyze the impacts of
these General Plan amendments. This package of General Plan amendments, Zoning Code amendments and zone changes, will come before the Planning Commission and City Council, potentially in phases, within the six to thirty-six months, following the adoption of the Housing Element.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council determine that the submittal of the Draft Housing Element to HCD is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3)of the State CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2), this action is not subject to CEQA because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), the action fits
within the general rule that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In that, this is a request to submit a document for review by HCD, it would not have a significant effect on the environment; and, therefore, the activity is not subject to CEQA. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that it has prepared the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element in compliance with State law. Since State law requires the submittal of the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element by October 15, 2021, and in order to meet the State deadline of October 15, 20219, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend submittal of the document to HCD, based
upon its review of the following:
• The Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element released for public review on August 26, 2021;
• The revisions identified in this staff report; and,
• Any additional edits requested and agreed upon by Planning Commission at its meeting on
September 27, 2021.
Staff anticipates that with these revisions, the document will be ready for submittal to HCD for review for compliance with State law.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Susan Kim, AICP, LEED AP ND Niki Wetzel, AICP
Principal Planner Deputy Planning and Building Director
SUBMITTAL OF DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TO HCD
September 27, 2021 Page 6 of 6 Attachments: 1. Draft Housing Element Website 2. Draft Housing Element Comments 3. Candidate Sites Inventory
Item No. 1
Attachment 1
DRAFT 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
The City released the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element for a 30-day public review period that
began on August 26, 2021 and ended on September 24, 2021. The Draft Housing Element was
also available for review at the Anaheim Central Library and the Planning and Building
Department Public Counter at City Hall. Staff also provided hard copies of the document to the
Planning Commission, Housing and Community Development Commission, and City Council.
The Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element was also available on the project website
www.anaheim.net/HousingElement at https://www.anaheim.net/5998/2021-2029-Draft-Housing-
Element. The website provides viewers with the ability to download/view the entire document or
to download/view the document by section or appendix. The website provides several formats to
submit comments, either through an on-line form, an email address
(housingelement@anaheim.net) or a physical address at City Hall.
City of Anaheim Housing Element
6thCycle: 2021-2029
DRAFT August 2021
Table of Contents [DRAFT August 2021] Page TOC-2
A. Table of Contents
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
A. Role of the Housing Element ...........................................................................................1-2
B. State Policy and Authorization .........................................................................................1-3
1. Background ..................................................................................................................1-3
2. State Requirements .......................................................................................................1-3
3. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) .....................................................................1-5
4. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements.....................................................................1-5
5. Public Participation ........................................................................................................1-6
6. Data Sources.................................................................................................................1-7
SECTION 2: COMMUNITY PROFILE
A. Population Characteristics ..............................................................................................2-2
1. Population Growth .....................................................................................................2-2
2. Age Characteristics .....................................................................................................2-3
3. Race/Ethnicity Characteristics ......................................................................................2-5
B. Employment Characteristics ............................................................................................2-8
1. Employment and Wage Scale .......................................................................................2-8
C. Economic Characteristics .............................................................................................. 2-11
1. Household Type and Size........................................................................................... 2-11
2. Household Income ................................................................................................... 2-14
D. Housing Issues ............................................................................................................ 2-17
1. Overcrowding.......................................................................................................... 2-18
2. Overpayment (Cost Burden) In Relation to Income........................................................ 2-19
E. Underserved, Vulnerable, and Special Needs Populations.................................................. 2-21
Table of Contents [DRAFT August 2021] Page TOC-3
1. Seniors ................................................................................................................... 2-21
2. Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities ................................................... 2-23
3. Large Households..................................................................................................... 2-25
4. Single-Parent Households.......................................................................................... 2-25
5. Farmworkers ........................................................................................................... 2-26
6. Extremely Low-income Households and Poverty Status ................................................. 2-26
7. Persons Experiencing Homelessness .......................................................................... 2-29
8. Students ................................................................................................................ 2-31
F. Housing Stock Characteristics ........................................................................................ 2-31
1. Housing Growth....................................................................................................... 2-32
2. Housing Unit Types .................................................................................................. 2-32
3. Housing Availability and Tenure ................................................................................. 2-33
4. Housing Age and Condition........................................................................................ 2-34
5. Housing Cost and Availability ..................................................................................... 2-37
SECTION 3: HOUSING CONSTRAINTS, RESOURCES, AND AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
A. Nongovernmental Constraints .........................................................................................3-2
1. Land Costs and Construction Costs ...............................................................................3-2
2. Availability of Financing ..............................................................................................3-3
3. Economic Constraints .................................................................................................3-5
B. Governmental Constraints ..............................................................................................3-5
1. Land Use Controls ......................................................................................................3-6
2. Residential Zones .......................................................................................................3-9
3. Variety of Housing Types Permitted ............................................................................ 3-13
4. Residential Planned Unit Development ....................................................................... 3-18
Table of Contents [DRAFT August 2021] Page TOC-4
5. Growth Management Measures................................................................................. 3-19
6. Specific Plans........................................................................................................... 3-19
7. Housing for Persons with Disabilities .......................................................................... 3-22
8. Development Fees ................................................................................................... 3-24
9. State Density Bonus Law ........................................................................................... 3-29
10. On-/Off-Site Improvements ...................................................................................... 3-32
11. Local Processing and Permit Procedures ..................................................................... 3-32
12. Infrastructure Constraints ......................................................................................... 3-34
13. Environmental Constraints ........................................................................................ 3-37
C. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) ................................................................... 3-40
1. Needs Assessment ................................................................................................... 3-41
2. Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Knowledge ........................................................... 3-43
3. Discussion of Disproportionate Housing Needs............................................................. 3-58
4. Assessment of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing in Anaheim ..................................... 3-72
5. Analysis of Sites (Pursuant to AB 686) ......................................................................... 3-73
6. Summary of Programs to Support Fair Housing............................................................. 3-80
D. Housing Resources....................................................................................................... 3-80
1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation ............................................................................. 3-80
E. Financial Resources...................................................................................................... 3-91
1. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher .............................................................................. 3-91
2. Energy Conservation................................................................................................. 3-93
SECTION 4: HOUSING PLAN
A. Housing Policy Program ..................................................................................................4-1
B. Key Policy Considerations ...............................................................................................4-3
Table of Contents [DRAFT August 2021] Page TOC-5
C. Housing Policy Strategy Areas..........................................................................................4-6
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance ………….……………………………………………………………………………...A-1
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis
1. Adequate Sites Analysis Background ............................................................................ B-1
2. Pipeline Projects ....................................................................................................... B-6
3. Accessory Dwelling Units...........................................................................................B-11
4. Candidate Sites ........................................................................................................B-12
Appendix C: Community Outreach and Engagement …………………….……………………….……………………………C-1
Section 1: Introduction [DRAFT August 2021] Page 1-1
Section 1:
Introduction
Section 1: Introduction [DRAFT August 2021] Page 1-2
Section 1: Introduction
A. Role of the Housing Element
The Housing Element is a state mandated chapter of the Anaheim General Plan that sets forth an eight-
year plan (housing cycle) to address the City’s identified housing needs. The Housing Element describes,
identifies and analyzes the City’s housing needs; and, addresses the maintenance and expansion of the
housing supply to accommodate the households that currently live and/or are expected to live in Anaheim
in the housing cycle. Through research and analysis, the Housing Element identifies available candidate
housing sites and establishes a Housing Policy Program to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) allocation, as determined by the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) and approved by the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
The Housing Element provides the following:
• Overview of City’s housing and population (Section 2: Community Profile)
• Analysis of opportunities and barriers that affect housing (Section 3: Housing Constraints,
Resources and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing)
• Policies to address the City’s housing needs and comply with State law (Section 4: Housing Policy
Program).
• Review of the City’s implementation of the 2014-2021 Housing Element (Appendix A: Review of
Past Performance of the 5th Cycle Housing Element)
• Identification of sites to accommodate the RHNA (Appendix B: Sites Analysis)
• Summary of the community engagement efforts that the City used to engage the public in the
development of the Housing Element (Appendix C: Community Engagement).
In February 2014, the Anaheim City Council adopted the Housing Element for the 2014-2021 planning
period, referred to as the Fifth Cycle. This Housing Element will guide future decision-making related to
housing for the 2021-2029 planning period, referred to as the Sixth Cycle.
Section 1: Introduction [DRAFT August 2021] Page 1-3
B. State Policy and Authorization
1. Background
As a State mandated chapter of the Anaheim General Plan, the Housing Element must meet all applicable
State law requirements. Consistent with State law, it is the City’s intent to implement the Housing
Element’s Housing Policy Program pursuant to all identified and required timelines.
2. State Requirements
California State Housing Element Law (California Government Code Article 10.6) establishes the
requirements for updating a Housing Element. State Law requires that local governments review and
revise the Housing Element once every eight years.
The California Legislature has adopted an overall housing goal for the State to ensure every resident has
a decent home and suitable living environment. Section 65580 of the California Government Code states:
a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent
housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a
priority of the highest order.
b) The early attainment of this goal requires cooperative participation of government and the private
sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of
Californians in all economic levels.
c) The provisions of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households requires the
cooperation of all levels of the government.
d) Local and State governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate
the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for housing needs of
all economic segments of the community. The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this
responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to
cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs.
The following Table 1-1: Housing Element Requirements summarizes the State Housing Element
requirements and identifies the Sections in this document that address these requirements.
Section 1: Introduction [DRAFT August 2021] Page 1-4
Table 1-1: Housing Element Requirements
Housing Element Requirement(s) Gov. Code Section Reference in
Housing Element
Analysis of employment trends. Section 65583.a Section 2.B.1 Projection and quantification of existing and projected housing
needs for all income groups. Section 65583.a Section 3.D
Analysis and documentation of the City’s housing characteristics, including cost for housing compared to ability to pay, overcrowding, and housing condition. Section 65583.a Section 2.C, D, F
An inventory of land suitable for residential development
including vacant sites and sites having redevelopment
potential.
Section 65583.a Section 3.D
Analysis of existing and potential governmental constraints
upon the maintenance, improvement or development of housing for all income levels. Section 65583.a Section 3.B
Analysis of existing and potential nongovernmental (private sector) constraints upon maintenance, improvement or development of housing for all income levels. Section 65583.a Section 3.A
Analysis concerning the needs of the homeless. Section 65583.a Section 2.E.7
Analysis of special housing needs: handicapped, elderly, large
families, farm workers, and female-headed households. Section 65583.a Section 2.E
Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect
to residential development. Section 65583.a Section 3.E.2
Identification of Publicly Assisted Housing
Developments. Section 65583.a Section 3.C.7
Identification of Units at Risk of Conversion to
Market Rate Housing. Section 65583.a Section 3.C.7
Identification of the City’s goal relative to the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing. Section 65583.a Section 4
Analysis of quantified objectives and policies relative to the
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. Section 65583.b Section 4
Identification of adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate action with required public services and facilities for a variety of housing types for all income levels. Section 65583.c(1) Appendix B
Identification of strategies to assist in the development of
adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate-income households. Section 65583.c(2) Section 3
Description of the Public Participation Program in the
formulation of Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Programs. Section 65583.d Appendix C
Description of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
prepared by the Southern California Association of
Governments.
Section 65583.e Section 3
Analysis of Fair Housing, including Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Section 8899.50 Section 3
Review of the effectiveness of the past Element, including the
City’s accomplishments during the previous planning period. Section 65583.f Appendix A
Source: State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development.
Section 1: Introduction [DRAFT August 2021] Page 1-5
3. Regional Housing Needs Assessment
Section 65583 of the California Government Code sets forth the specific content requirements of a
jurisdiction’s housing element. Included in these requirements are obligations on the part of local
jurisdictions to accommodate their “fair share” of regional housing needs. State law requires Councils of
Governments (COGs) to determine and allocate existing and future housing need to local jurisdictions
within their region. The COG submits this analysis and allocation of housing need to the State (HCD) for
approval, prior to its final distribution to the local jurisdictions. This process is the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) allocation. Anaheim is a member agency of SCAG, the COG responsible for preparing
the RHNA allocation for all jurisdictions within the SCAG region.
HCD established that the planning period for the current RHNA is from October 15, 2021 to October 15,
2029. For the 2021-2029 planning period, SCAG has allocated the City a total of 17,453 housing units,
including 3,767 units affordable to very low-income households, 2,397 units affordable to low-income,
2,945 units affordable to moderate-income, and 8,344 units affordable to above-moderate (market-rate)
income households.
4. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
The Housing Element, including its Housing Policy Program, relates to, and is consistent with, the other
Elements of the Anaheim General Plan, which the City Council last comprehensively updated in 2004. The
General Plan is a dynamic document that the City Council amends on an ongoing basis to comply with
State law requirements, reflect land use planning efforts such as individual development proposals and
specific plans, and provide consistency with other planning efforts, such as the City’s Bicycle Master Plan.
The City Council has amended the General Plan over 75 times since its comprehensive update in 2004.
The Housing Element supports and reinforces residential development policies contained in the Land Use
Element. The Land Use Element establishes the location, type, intensity, and distribution of land uses
throughout the City, and defines these land uses build-out potential. By designating residential
development, the Land Use Element identifies limits for densities and types of housing units constructed
in the City. It also identifies lands designated for a range of other land uses, including employment-
generating uses, open space, and public uses. The presence and potential for jobs can affect the current
and future local demand for housing at the various income levels in the City.
The Circulation Element of the General Plan also relates to the Housing Element. The Circulation Element
establishes a transportation plan to accommodate the movement of people and goods within and through
the City. Consequently, the Housing Element must include policies and incentives that consider the types
of infrastructure essential for residential housing units, in addition to mitigating the effects of growth in
the City.
Upon approval of the Housing Element, the City Council will initiate amendments to other elements of
the General Plan to resolve any inconsistencies and to update and/or create new elements, which State
law requires the City to update/create with the update of the Housing Element. These elements include,
but are not limited to, the Land Use, Circulation, Green, Safety and Environmental Justice Elements.
Section 1: Introduction [DRAFT August 2021] Page 1-6
5. Public Participation [Updated as we proceed]
Section 65583 of the Government Code states that, "The local government shall make diligent effort to
achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the
housing element, and the program shall describe this effort." Meaningful community participation is also
required in connection with the City's Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Below is a summary of the
opportunities that the City provided for public participation.
As part of the Housing Element Update process, the City has conducted extensive public outreach
activities beginning in 2020. These outreach efforts included City Council, Planning Commission and
Housing and Community Development Commission Workshops; Community Workshops; Housing
Element Update Committee meetings, which were open to the public; and e-mail and social media blasts.
Project materials, including summaries from community workshops and public meetings, notices, and
draft public review documents are available on the City’s website:
Outreach for the 6th Cycle Housing Element to the community, includes the following actions:
• Housing Element Update webpage with all housing materials available in English and Spanish,
located at https://www.anaheim.net/5848/2021-2029-Housing-Element-Update.
• Formation of a Housing Element Update Committee (HEUC), which held monthly meetings from
March 18, 2021-October 21, 2021. HEUC meetings were open to the public and the agenda
included time for the HEUC to receive public comments.
• Virtual Workshop #1, on March 24, 2021 and the recorded presentation posted to the City’s
website.
• Online Community Survey available from March 24, 2021 to June 13, 2021.
• Community Workshop #2, on June 13, 2021 and the presentation posted to the City’s website.
• Planning Commission Workshop, on August 16, 2021.
• Housing and Community Development Commission Workshop, on August 18, 2021
• City Council Workshop, on August 24, 2021
• Community Workshop #3, on September 2, 2021
• A Public Review Draft of the Housing Element, posted on the City’s webpage on August 26, 2021
As required by Government Code Section 65585(b)(2), all written comments regarding the
Housing Element made by the public have previously been provided to each member of the City
Council.
Appendix C contains a summary of the public comments that the City received during the Housing
Element update process.
Section 1: Introduction [DRAFT August 2021] Page 1-7
6. Data Sources
The data used for the completion of this Housing Element comes from a variety of sources. These include,
but are not limited to:
• 2010 Decennial Census (U.S. Census Bureau)
• 2020 Decennial Census (U.S. Census Bureau)
• 2019 One-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau)
• 2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau)
• Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 2020 (Orange County Regional Analysis of
Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing)
• 2019 Point-in-Time Final Report (County of Orange)
• 2020 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Lending Data - MSA/MD Aggregate Reports,
Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine, Applications by Income, Race, and Ethnicity(Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau)
• 2021-2028 Long-Term Occupational Employment Projections (California Department of
Economic Development)
• 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development)
• 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy, “Connect SoCal”
(Southern California Association of Governments)
• Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report - 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/
Sustainable Communities Strategy, “Connect SoCal” (Southern California Association of
Governments).
These data sources represent the best data available at the time this Housing Element Update was
prepared. The original source documents contain the assumptions and methods used to compile the data.
Section 2:
Community Profile
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-2
Section 2: Community Profile
The Community Profile provides an overview of City’s housing and population conditions, which are the
foundation for the Housing Element’s Housing Policy Program. The City of Anaheim strives to achieve a
balanced housing stock that meets the varied needs of all income segments of the community. To
understand the housing needs in Anaheim, the City must comprehensively evaluate the nature of the
existing housing stock and the housing market. This Section of the Housing Element discusses the major
components of the housing needs in Anaheim, including population, household, economic conditions, and
housing stock characteristics. Each of these components is presented in a regional context, and, where
relevant, in the context of other nearby communities. This assessment is an important factor in informing
and determining the City’s Housing Policy Program.
A. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Understanding the characteristics of a population is vital in the process of planning for future housing
needs. Population growth, age composition, and race/ethnicity influence the type and extent of housing
needed and the ability of the local population to afford housing costs. Issues such as population growth,
race, ethnicity, age, and employment trends are factors that combine to influence the type of housing
needed and the ability to afford housing. The following section analyzes the various population
characteristics and trends that affect housing need.
1. Population Growth
Table 2-1: Population Growth provides the actual population in 2010 from the U.S. Census Bureau
Decennial Census for Anaheim and its surrounding cities. The table then compares the estimate to
population growth projections through 2045, as calculated by the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report of “Connect SoCal,” the 2020-
2045 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy. SCAG forecasts that the City’s
population will increase by 22.9 percent from 2010 through 2045. Compared to the rest of the County,
the City’s population will grow by approximately 9.7 percent more than surrounding cities. The City’s
population growth forecast is also the greatest of the surrounding cities. SCAG projects that the City of
Buena Park will experience a similar percentage of population growth to Anaheim (18.9 percent).
Population projections are critical to the planning of housing in order to meet the needs of both current
and future Anaheim residents.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-3
Table 2-1: Population Growth
Jurisdiction
Population Percent Change
2010 Actual 2016 Projected 2045 Projected 2010-2016 Projected 2016-2045 Projected
Buena Park 80,530 83,400 96,200 3.6% 15.3%
Cypress 47,802 49,600 51,300 3.8% 3.4%
Placentia 50,533 52,300 58,900 3.5% 12.6%
Santa Ana 324,528 340,200 360,100 4.8% 5.8%
Stanton 38,186 39,300 44,200 2.9% 12.5%
Fullerton 135,161 141,900 158,300 5.0% 11.6%
Orange 136,416 140,900 154,000 3.3% 9.3%
Anaheim 336,265 356,700 416,800 6.1% 16.8% Yorba Linda 64,234 67,800 70,600 5.6% 4.1%
Garden
Grove 170,883 176,000 185,800 3.0% 5.6%
Orange
County 3,010,232 3,180,000 3,535,000 5.6% 11.2%
Source: 2010 Decennial Census (U.S. Census Bureau) and 2016-2045 Demographics and Growth Forecast Report, Connect SoCal
(Southern California Association of Governments).
2. Age Characteristics
The age composition of a community affects housing needs because the preferences of certain age groups
often influence housing demand. As individuals and families move through different stages of life, housing
is required to accommodate new or adjusted needs. To produce a well-balanced and healthy community,
a community must provide appropriate housing to accommodate needs of all ages.
In 2010, those aged 5-19 years made up the largest percentage of Anaheim residents. In 2019, those
between 20 and 34 of age made up the largest percent of the residential population. Figure 2-1: Age
Characteristics shows that between 2010 and 2019 the general age of the population has been increasing.
While Anaheim has a large young population with those under 34 years old being 50.8 percent of the
population; the percentage of children and young adults under 19 is on the decline, from 31.3 percent in
2010 to 26.6 percent in 2019. Persons over the age of 50 have increased from 23.8 percent in 2010 to
28.9 percent in 2019.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-4
Source: 2010 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey, 2015 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey, and 2019 5-
Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 2-2: Comparative Age Distribution compares the age distribution of residents in Anaheim, Orange
County, and surrounding cities. The City’s largest population cohort is between 20 and 34 years of age
(24.2 percent). The City also has a large population between 35 and 49 years of age and between 5 and
19 years of age (20.2 and 20.1 percent, respectively). 11.6 percent of the City’s population is age 65 and
over, the lowest of all the surrounding Cities except Santa Ana. The data suggests age distribution
estimates for Anaheim are similar to surrounding cities.
Table 2-2: Comparative Age Distribution
Jurisdiction Under 5 5 to 19 20 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 or Over
Buena Park 6.1% 18.4% 22.7% 20.3% 19.5% 13.0%
Cypress 4.8% 19.9% 16.7% 22.0% 21.5% 15.1%
Placentia 5.8% 20.0% 21.4% 19.2% 19.1% 14.3%
Santa Ana 7.4% 22.1% 25.3% 20.2% 15.8% 9.0%
Stanton 7.3% 20.8% 22.1% 20.8% 17.0% 12.1%
Fullerton 6.4% 18.4% 24.6% 19.1% 18.2% 13.3% Anaheim 6.5% 20.1% 24.2% 20.2% 17.3% 11.6%
Orange (City) 6.1% 18.8% 24.8% 19.5% 18.8% 12.3%
Yorba Linda 5.1% 20.1% 14.4% 18.8% 23.9% 17.9%
Garden Grove 5.1% 18.9% 21.7% 19.8% 20.3% 14.3%
County of Orange 5.9% 18.9% 21.1% 20.1% 19.6% 14.4%
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Under 5
Years 5 to 19 20 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 Years +
2010 8.0%23.3%23.0%22.0%14.7%9.1%
2015 7.2%21.2%23.6%21.0%16.7%10.2%
2019 6.5%20.1%24.2%20.2%17.3%11.6%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Figure 2-1: Age Characteristics
2010 2015 2019
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-5
3. Race/Ethnicity Characteristics
Racial and ethnic identity may contribute to housing needs due to varying household characteristics,
income levels, and cultural preferences, which may affect housing need, housing choice and housing type.
Figure 2-2: Racial and Ethnic Composition shows the percentage of residents that self-identify their racial
category and whether they additionally identify with a Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. According to the
American Community Survey, 54.3 percent of residents identify as having a Hispanic or Latino ethnic origin
in addition to a self-identified racial category. American Indian/Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiian/other
Pacific Islanders comprise the lowest percentage of residents. The proportion of residents identifying with
a Hispanic or Latino ethnicity in Anaheim is 54.3 percent compared to 34.1 percent in Orange County as a
whole. The proportion of residents that identify with the White-Alone racial category in Anaheim is 24.2
percent compared to 40.6 percent within Orange County as a whole. The proportion of residents that
identify with the Black or African American-Alone racial category represents 2.5 percent of the City’s
population compared to 1.6 percent within Orange County as a whole. Residents that identify with the
Asian-Alone racial category in Anaheim is 16.6 percent compared to 20.3 percent within Orange County
as a whole.
*Of any race.
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 2-3: Racial/Ethnic Composition describes racial and ethnic composition for Anaheim and nearby
cities. The table shows that four of the cities adjacent to Anaheim (Buena Park, Santa Ana, Stanton and
Garden Grove), and Anaheim, have a majority Hispanic or Latino population. Placentia has a population
with the same majority percentage (39.2%) of their population that is Hispanic/Latino or White. The
remaining four adjacent cities (Cypress, Orange, Fullerton and Yorba Linda) and Orange County have a
Hispanic
or Latino*
White
Alone
Asian
Alone
Black or
African
American
Alone
Two or
More
Races
Native
Hawaiian
or Other
Pacific
Islander
Alone
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
Alone
Some
Other
Race
Alone
Anaheim 54.3%24.2%16.6%2.5%1.8%0.4%0.2%0.1%
County of Orange 34.1%40.6%20.3%1.6%2.8%0.3%0.2%0.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Figure 2-2: Racial and Ehtnic Composition
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-6
majority White population. The highest population group in the City is White at 24.2 percent. The table
also shows that the City has a large population group of those who identify as having Hispanic or Latino
origin. The City has a greater concentration of Hispanic or Latino residents (54.3 percent) than Orange
County (36.4 percent) or any of the surrounding cities excluding Santa Ana (76.8 percent). American
Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islanders represent the smallest population
groups with neither exceeding one percent in any of the listed cities.
Table 2-3: Racial/Ethnic Composition
Jurisdiction White Alone
Black or African American Alone
American
Indian and Alaska Native
Alone
Asian Alone
Native
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Alone
Some Other Race Alone
Two or More
Races
Hispanic or
Latino*
Buena Park 23.6% 2.9% 0.3% 32.0% 0.9% 0.1% 2.3% 37.9%
Cypress 36.3% 3.8% 0.2% 34.9% 0.3% 0.5% 3.9% 20.2%
Placentia 39.2% 1.9% 0.0% 16.9% 0.1% 0.2% 2.5% 39.2%
Santa Ana 9.4% 1.0% 0.1% 11.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.8% 76.8%
Stanton 18.1% 1.1% 0.7% 29.3% 0.8% 0.2% 2.0% 47.8%
Fullerton 32.8% 2.3% 0.2% 24.1% 0.2% 0.1% 3.1% 31.5% Anaheim 24.2% 2.5% 0.2% 16.6% 0.4% 0.1% 1.8% 54.3%
Orange (City) 44.6% 1.6% 0.2% 11.8% 0.4% 0.1% 2.4% 38.9%
Yorba Linda 58.4% 1.3% 0.1% 20.6% 0.1% 0.1% 3.0% 16.5%
Garden Grove 19.5% 0.9% 0.3% 41.1% 0.3% 0.1% 1.5% 36.4%
County of
Orange 40.6% 1.6% 0.2% 20.3% 0.3% 0.2% 2.8% 34.1%
* Of any race.
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 2-4 and Figure 2-3: Changes in Racial and Ethnic Composition show changes to racial and ethnic
composition of Anaheim residents between 2010 and 2019. The population who self-identified as White
experienced the greatest population loss between 2010 and 2015 (2.2 percent), and the White population
decreased again between 2015 and 2019 (2.5 percent). The City’s population who identify as Hispanic or
Latino increased by 2.5 percent from 2010 to 2019; this was the greatest population increase of any
population group. The population identifying as Asian increased by 1.9 percent between these three
survey years. Overall, majority of the different racial and ethnic populations within the City remained
stable in population from 2010 to 2019.
Table 2-4: Changes in Racial and Ethnic Composition
Race/Ethnicity 2010 2015 2019 Percent Change Percent
Change
2010 to 2015 2015 to
2019
White Alone 28.8% 26.7% 24.2% -2.2% -2.5% Black or African American
Alone 2.4% 2.2% 2.5% -0.3% 0.3%
American Indian and
Alaska Native Alone 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-7
Table 2-4: Changes in Racial and Ethnic Composition
Race/Ethnicity 2010 2015 2019
Percent Change Percent
Change
2010 to 2015 2015 to
2019
Asian Alone 14.7% 15.8% 16.6% 1.1% 0.8% Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander Alone 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Some Other Race Alone 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% -0.1% 0.0%
Two or More Races 1.6% 1.7% 1.8% 0.2% 0.1% Hispanic or Latino* 51.8% 53.1% 54.3% 1.3% 1.2%
*Of any race.
Source: 2010 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey, 2015 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey, and
2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
*Of any race.
Source: 2010 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey, 2015 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey, and 2019 5-
Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
White
Alone
Black or
African
American
Alone
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
Alone
Asian
Alone
Native
Hawaiian
or Other
Pacific
Islander
Alone
Some
Other
Race
Alone
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic
or Latino*
2010 28.8%2.6%0.4%14.8%0.4%18.7%2.7%51.8%
2015 26.7%2.3%0.3%16.0%0.4%9.6%3.2%53.1%
2019 24.2%2.5%0.2%16.6%0.4%0.1%1.8%54.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Figure 2-3: Changes in Racial and Ethnic Composition
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-8
B. Employment Characteristics
Reporting and analyzing the employment characteristics of a community provides valuable information
on the City’s workforce to access the housing market. Incomes associated with different types of
employment, and the number of workers in a household, affect housing affordability and choice.
Therefore, to consider a healthy balance between jobs and housing, the Housing Element considers the
City’s employment characteristics. The paper, “Job Creation and Housing Construction: Constraints on
Metropolitan Area Employment Growth,” by Raven Saks (2005), has shown a link between local
employment growth and local housing demand.
1. Employment and Wage Scale
Employment characteristics within a city can directly affect housing need and trends. Employment and
income affect the ability of the population to purchase housing and may influence the types of housing
they are able to purchase. Table 2-5: Employment Growth Trends summarizes employment growth
forecasts for Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions in Orange County from 2016 to 2045. This data is
from SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2016-2045 Demographics and Growth Forecast.
SCAG forecasts that Anaheim will experience an employment growth of 27 percent (53,300 new jobs)
between 2016 and 2045. Anaheim’s employment growth rate is higher than what SCAG has forecast for
Orange County, and most of the surrounding cities, and less than the growth that SCAG has forecast for
Fullerton (35.1 percent).
Table 2-5: Employment Growth Trends
Jurisdiction 2016 2045 % Change Numeric Change
2016-2045 2016-2045
Buena Park 33,600 38,200 13.7% 4,600
Cypress 27,500 30,600 11.3% 3,100
Placentia 19,900 21,500 8.0% 1,600
Santa Ana 162,900 172,400 5.8% 9,500
Stanton 9,100 10,300 13.2% 1,200
Fullerton 63,200 85,400 35.1% 22,200
Anaheim 197,200 250,500 27.0% 53,300
Orange (City) 123,000 131,300 6.7% 8,300
Yorba Linda 17,400 19,300 10.9% 1,900
Garden Grove 57,800 68,200 18.0% 10,400
County of Orange 1,710,000 1,980,000 15.8% 270,000
Source: 2016-2045 Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Connect SoCal (Southern California Association of Governments).
Analyzing trends in employment by industry helps to understand income wages and housing needs. The
2015-2019 5-Year American Community Survey (5-year ACS) estimated that the number of employed
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-9
people in Anaheim was 175,838 in 2019. Table 2-6: Employment by Sector shows 2015-2019 ACS
employment data for Anaheim by sector. The industry with the highest percentage of employment in
Anaheim in 2019 was the Education Services, Health Care, and Social Assistance industry at 18.2 percent.
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services industry also employed a
relatively high percentage of the City at 13.6 percent.
Table 2-6: Employment by Sector in Anaheim
Industry People Employed
Percent of City Employed
Population 16 Years and Over
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 848 0.5%
Construction 13,783 7.8%
Manufacturing 22,167 12.6%
Wholesale trade 6825 3.9%
Retail trade 18,731 10.7%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 7,407 4.2%
Information 3202 1.8%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and
leasing 11343 6.5%
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 22,224 12.6%
Educational services, and health care and social assistance 32,079 18.2%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation
and food services 23,853 13.6%
Other services, except public administration 8,613 4.9%
Public administration 4,763 2.7%
Total Employed 175,838 100.0%
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Analyzing the unemployment rate helps the City to determine current and future housing affordability
and needs. According to 5-year ACS, Anaheim shares the second largest unemployment (5.2 percent) rate
with the City of Buena Park, when compared to neighboring cities and Orange County, both trailing
Fullerton (6.5 percent). The City of Yorba Linda has the lowest unemployment rate (3.6 percent) listed in
Table 2-7: Unemployment Rate.
Table 2-7: Unemployment Rate
Jurisdiction Total Unemployment Rate
Buena Park 5.2%
Cypress 4.2%
Placentia 4.1%
Santa Ana 5.1%
Stanton 4.6% Fullerton 6.5%
Anaheim 5.2%
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-10
Table 2-7: Unemployment Rate
Jurisdiction Total Unemployment Rate
Orange (City) 4.4%
Yorba Linda 3.6%
Garden Grove 4.5%
County of Orange 4.6%
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census
Bureau).
Orange County’s median income for 2021 is $106,700, according to the Housing and Community
Development State Income Limits for 2021. Table 2-8: Average Salary by Occupation in Anaheim 2018-
2028 shows the occupations in Anaheim that fall below 50 percent of this amount. These occupations
include Protective Service Occupations; Office and Administrative Support Occupations; Transportation
and Material Moving Occupations; Production Occupations Sales and Related Occupations; Building and
Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations; Personal Care and Service Occupations; Healthcare
Support Occupations; Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations; Farming, Fishing, and Forestry
Occupations. Therefore, in order for these employees to live in Anaheim, the City would need to facilitate
housing for moderate and lower income households.
Table 2-8: Average Salary by Occupation in Anaheim 2018-2028
Occupation Annual Salary
Occupational Therapists $96,676
Management Occupations $ 124,158
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $92,080
Legal Occupations $111,887
Architecture and Engineering Occupations $91,796
Computer and Mathematical Occupations $ 91,533
Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $82,951
Occupational Therapy Assistants $75,190
Business and Financial Operations Occupations $72,759
Education, Training, and Library Occupations $60,130
Construction and Extraction Occupations $58,307
Community and Social Service Occupations $51,921
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $52,114
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations $55,157
Protective Service Occupations $38,388
Office and Administrative Support Occupations $42,964
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $31,774
Production Occupations $35,768
Sales and Related Occupations $34,774
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $31,603
Personal Care and Service Occupations $29,613
Healthcare Support Occupations $30,171
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $27,895
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-11
Table 2-8: Average Salary by Occupation in Anaheim 2018-2028
Occupation Annual Salary
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $31,978
Source: 2018-2028 Long-Term Occupational Employment Projections (California Employment Development
Department)
C. Household Characteristics
This section analyzes household trends for Anaheim and provides useful information for planning the
future housing needs of the City. A household consists of a house and its occupants. This could include
single occupants, families, or unrelated people sharing a housing unit. The analysis in this section
measures financial housing statistics such as income, affordability, and special needs groups at the
household level. Special needs groups may include large families, single parent households, or low and
extremely low-income households. These groups often present unique housing conditions and relate to
certain policies within Section 4: Housing Plan.
1. Household Type and Size
Table 2-9 and Figure 2-4: Household Characteristics display 2015-2019 5-year ACS data on household
characteristics for Anaheim and neighboring cities. The ACS reported 101,658 households in Anaheim as
of 2019. Of these households, just over half are married-couple family households (51.9 percent) and 26.1
percent are non-family households. Non-family households include persons living alone and persons living
with roommates. Female-headed households without a spouse present also represent just under 16
percent of the Anaheim households.
In comparison to nearby cities, the City of Anaheim has the second lowest percent of Married-Couple
Family households (51.9 percent) behind the City of Stanton (48.0 percent). Orange County has an
estimated 54.9 percent Married-Couple Family households. Anaheim’s percentage of Female headed
households without a spouse present is higher than the average of the surrounding cities at 15.6 percent.
This is approximately 1.5 percent less than Santa Ana, which has the highest at 17.1 percent and 8.2
percent more than Yorba Linda which has the lowest at 7.4 percent.
Table 2-9: Household Characteristics
Jurisdiction
Married-Couple Family Households
% of Total Households
Female HH, No Spouse Present
% of Total Households Non-Family Households % of Total Households Total Households
Buena Park 14,050 59.3% 3,818 16.1% 4,286 18.1% 23,680
Cypress 9,686 61.8% 2,392 15.3% 2,993 19.1% 15,684
Placentia 9,663 58.3% 2,014 12.1% 3,930 23.7% 16,583
Santa Ana 42,486 55.4% 13,137 17.1% 14,031 18.3% 76,624
Stanton 5,413 48.0% 1,897 16.8% 3,049 27.0% 11,282
Fullerton 23,855 52.1% 5,588 12.2% 13,818 30.2% 45,814
Anaheim 52,747 51.9% 15,889 15.6% 26,539 26.1% 101,658
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-12
Table 2-9: Household Characteristics
Jurisdiction
Married-Couple Family
Households
% of Total Households
Female HH, No Spouse
Present
% of Total Households Non-Family Households % of Total Households Total Households
Orange
(City) 24,227 56.2% 5,114 11.9% 11,555 26.8% 43,075
Yorba Linda 16,142 71.3% 1,687 7.4% 3,907 17.3% 22,649
Garden Grove 26,255 55.0% 7,074 14.8% 10,396 21.8% 47,761
County of
Orange 569,260 54.9% 119,719 11.5% 293,481 28.3% 1,037,492
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 2-10: Changes in Household Type summarizes household changes from 2010 through 2019.
Married-Couple Family Households experienced the only decrease (0.6 percent). All other household
types increased, with Householders 65 Years and Older experiencing the largest increase (25.9 percent).
Table 2-10: Changes in Household Type
Household Type 2010 Percent 2015 Percent 2019 Percent
Percent Change 2010-2019
Married-Couple
Family Households 53,078 53.5% 52,902 53.1% 52,747 51.9% -0.6%
Female Households, No Spouse Present 15,717 15.8% 15,679 15.7% 15,889 15.6% 1.1%
Non-Family Households 24,251 24.4% 24,508 24.6% 26,539 26.1% 9.4%
Married-Couple
Family HH
Female
Household, No
Spouse Present
Non-Family
Household
Householder 65
Years or Older
Anaheim 51.9%15.6%26.1%8.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Figure 2-4: Household Characteristics
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-13
Table 2-10: Changes in Household Type
Household Type 2010 Percent 2015 Percent 2019 Percent
Percent Change 2010-2019
Householders 65 Years and Older 7,049 7.1% 5,980 6.0% 8,878 8.7% 25.9%
Total Households 99,283 -- 99,670 -- 101,658 -- --
Source: 2010 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey, 2015 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey, and 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
The SCAG Connect SoCal 2016-2045 Demographics and Growth Forecast provides estimated household
figures by jurisdiction between 2016 and 2045, as shown in Table 2-11: Household Growth Forecast by
Jurisdiction. According to this forecast, the City of Anaheim will have a household growth higher than that
of Orange County, and larger than any surrounding cities. Yorba Linda households are estimated to
increase the least at four percent, which is approximately 17 percent less than households in Anaheim are
estimated to increase.
Table 2-11: Household Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction 2016 2045 % Change Numeric Change
2016-2045 2016-2045
Buena Park 24,200 28,600 18.2% 4,400
Cypress 15,800 16,600 5.1% 800
Placentia 16,600 18,800 13.3% 2,200
Santa Ana 73,900 80,100 8.4% 6,200
Stanton 10,800 12,300 13.9% 1,500
Fullerton 46,400 52,900 14.0% 6,500
Anaheim 101,100 122,700 21.4% 21,600
Orange (City) 43,700 48,700 11.4% 5,000
Yorba Linda 22,400 23,300 4.0% 900
Garden Grove 46,300 49,200 6.3% 2,900
County of Orange 1,025,000 1,154,000 12.6% 129,000
Source: 2016-2045 Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report,Connect SoCal (Southern California Association of
Governments).
Table 2-12: Average Household Size by Jurisdiction displays average household size for Anaheim
compared to nearby cities. Anaheim has an average household size of 3.39 in 2019. Anaheim’s average
household size is the fourth largest of neighboring cities. Santa Ana has the highest average household
size at 4.28 persons per household. More persons per household require larger housing units; additionally,
there are affordability and overcrowding factors to consider for larger households.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-14
Table 2-12: Average Household Size by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Average Persons per Household
Buena Park 3.45
Cypress 3.11
Placentia 3.09
Santa Ana 4.28
Stanton 3.38 Fullerton 2.97
Anaheim 3.39
Orange (City) 3.08
Yorba Linda 2.98
Garden Grove 3.58
County of Orange 3.01
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census
Bureau).
2. Household Income
There is a direct connection between household income and housing affordability. The ability to afford a
housing unit typically increases as household income increases. This may include increased access to a
larger sized unit and/or the ability to move from a rental to an ownership opportunity. However, lower
income households are more likely to require a disproportionate amount of their income toward housing
costs. This may influence other housing challenges such as overcrowding or substandard living conditions.
The California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) identifies the following
income categories, based on the Median Family Income (MFI). For Anaheim, State law bases the MFI on
the MFI for Orange County:
• Very Low-Income: households earning between 0 and 50 percent of the MFI
• Low-Income: households earning between 51 percent and 80 percent of the MFI
• Moderate Income: households earning between 81 percent and 120 percent of the MFI
• Above Moderate Income: households earning over 120 percent of the MFI
State law also defines extremely low-income as households earning 30 percent or less of the MFI and
considers this income group a subset of the very low-income category. Combined, State law and this
Housing Element refer to the extremely low, very low, and low-income groups as lower income.
Anaheim’s household income characteristics directly inform the housing types that would be most
beneficial to the City’s population. Income characteristics assist in determining to what degree affordable
housing is required to meet the needs of a population. Further, above average income levels allow for the
occupancy of larger housing units. Table 2-13: Households by Income Category in Anaheim shows the
lower income categories represent 57 percent of households in Anaheim and moderate to above
moderate-income category represents 43 percent.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-15
Table 2-13: Households by Income Category in Anaheim
Income Category
(Percent of County MFI) Households Percent
Extremely Low (30% MFI or less) 19,105 19.1%
Very Low (30% to 50% MFI) 16,680 16.6%
Low (50% to 80% MFI) 21,345 21.3%
Moderate or Above (Over 80% MFI) 43,145 43.0%
Total 100,280 100%
Source: 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data (Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD)).
The median household income in Anaheim is $18,471 lower than Orange County’s median household
income of $90,234. Anaheim’s median household income is $71,763, making it the fourth lowest median
household income, when compared to its surrounding cities, with Stanton having the lowest at $57,598.
Figure 2-5: Median Household Income by City illustrates this difference with comparisons to surrounding
cities and Orange County’s median income. Therefore, a significant number of households in Anaheim
have a lower income and, depending on housing prices in the City, may not be able to afford housing
within the immediate area.
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 2-14: Median Household Income below shows that the median household income in Anaheim
($71,763) is lower than the County median ($90,234). Stanton has the lowest median income in the area,
followed by Santa Ana. The cities of Cypress, Placentia, Orange, and Yorba Linda have a median income
above Orange County’s median income with $93,137, $95,757, $91,793, and $129,995 respectively.
Figure 2-6: Anaheim Income Ranges of Total Population illustrates that that about 35 percent of
$78,932
$93,137 $95,757
$66,145 $57,598
$79,978 $71,763
$91,793
$129,995
$69,278
$90,234
$-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
Buena
Park
Cypress Placentia Santa
Ana
Stanton Fullerton Anaheim Orange
(City)
Yorba
Linda
Garden
Grove
Figure 2-5: Median Household Income by City
Cities Orange County
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-16
Anaheim’s residents earn an annual income over $100,000, and 17 percent earn over $150,000. On the
other hand, 34 percent earn below $49,999 and less than the City’s median household income.
Table 2-14: Median Household Income
Jurisdiction Median Income Percent Above/Below
County Median
Buena Park $78,932 -12.5%
Cypress $93,137 3.2%
Placentia $95,757 6.1%
Santa Ana $66,145 -26.7%
Stanton $57,598 -36.2%
Fullerton $79,978 -11.4%
Anaheim $71,763 -20.5%
Orange (City) $91,793 1.7%
Yorba Linda $129,995 44.1%
Garden Grove $69,278 -23.2%
County of Orange $90,234 --
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Less than
$25,000
15%
$25,000 to
$34,999
8%
$35,000 to $49,999
11%
$50,000 to $74,999
18%
$75,000 tp $99,999
14%
$100,000 to $149,999
18%
$150,000 or
more
17%
Figure 2-6: Anaheim Income Ranges of Total Population
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-17
D. Housing Issues
The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the U.S. Census Bureau provides
detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Anaheim. The
U.S. Census Bureau published the most recent CHAS data for in August 2020 and based this information
on 2013-2017 5-year ACS data (Table 2-15: Housing Assistance Needs of Lower Income Households). The
CHAS refers to the following housing issues, discussed in this section, as housing problems:
• Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom);
• Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room);
• Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; or
• Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.
Table 2-15: Housing Assistance Needs of Lower Income Households shows that a greater percentage of
renters have housing assistance needs than homeowners. Approximately 67.6 percent of renters in
Anaheim have at least one of the four housing issues identified by Consolidated Planning CHAS Data and
about 47.4 percent have at least one of the four severe housing issues identified by Consolidated Planning
CHAS Data. Conversely, 36.8 percent of homeowner households have a housing issue and about 19.6
percent have at least one severe housing issue. In total, a little over half of households in Anaheim live
with at least one housing issue and 34.9 percent live with at least one severe housing issue.
Table 2-15: Housing Assistance Needs of Lower Income Households
Housing Issue*
Overview** Owner Percent of
Owner HH Renter Percent of
Renter HH Total Percent of
Total HH
Household has at least
1 of 4 Housing Issues* 16,590 36.8% 37,325 67.6% 53,915 53.8%
Household has none of
4 Housing Issues* 28,265 62.7% 17,160 31.1% 45,425 45.3%
Cost Burden not
available, no other Issues* 195 0.4% 745 1.3% 940 0.9%
Total 45,050 100% 55,230 100% 100,280 100%
Severe Housing Issue* Overview*** Owner Percent of Total HH Renter Percent of Total HH Total Percent of Total HH
Household has at least 1 of 4 Severe Housing Issues* 8,810 19.6% 26,195 47.4% 35,005 34.9%
Household has none of
4 Severe Housing Issues* 36,050 80.0% 28,285 51.2% 64,335 64.2%
Cost Burden not
available, no other
issues*
195 0.4% 745 1.3% 940 0.9%
Total 45,050 100% 55,230 100% 100,280 100%
* The CHAS refers to the above housing issues as housing problems.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-18
Table 2-15: Housing Assistance Needs of Lower Income Households
Housing Issue*
Overview** Owner Percent of
Owner HH Renter Percent of
Renter HH Total Percent of
Total HH
** The four housing issues* are incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room,
and cost burden greater than 30%.
*** The four severe housing issues* are incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons
per room, and cost burden greater than 50%.
Source: 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)).
1. Overcrowding
The U.S. Census defines overcrowded households as more than one occupant per room (excluding
bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches). Severely overcrowded households have more than 1.5
persons per room. According to HCD’s Housing Element Building Blocks, a number of factors may cause
overcrowding, including a lack of affordable housing (which forces more than one household to live
together) and/or a lack of available housing units of adequate size.
Overcrowding in households may lead to neighborhood deterioration, due to the intensive use of
individual housing units which results in excessive wear and tear, and the potential cumulative
overburdening of community infrastructure and service capacity. According to the article, “Can your
neighborhood make you sick?” published by the Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul University (2016),
overcrowding in neighborhoods may lead to an overall decline in social cohesion and environmental
quality. Such decline may spread geographically and affect the quality of life, the economic value of
property, and the vitality of commerce within a city. The combination of lower incomes and high housing
costs may result in households living in overcrowded housing conditions.
Table 2-16: Overcrowding by Tenure, Anaheim shows that overcrowding disproportionately affects
renters than owner occupied households. Five percent of households are renter occupied and severely
overcrowded, while approximately one percent is owner occupied and severely overcrowded. In total,
about 16 percent of Anaheim households experience overcrowding conditions, with renters representing
13.2 percent of that amount.
Table 2-16: Overcrowding by Tenure, Anaheim
Tenure
Overcrowded Units
(1.01 to 1.50 persons/room)
Severely Overcrowded Units (>1.51 persons/room) Total Overcrowded Occupied Units
Count Percent1 Count Percent1 Count Percent1
Owner Occupied 2,357 2.3% 661 0.7% 3,018 3.0%
Renter Occupied 8,284 8.1% 5,086 5.0% 13,370 13.2%
Total 10,641 10.5% 5,747 5.7% 16,388 16.1%
1. Percent of total occupied housing units.
Note: The term overcrowded refers to both overcrowded (1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room) and severely overcrowded (1.51
or more occupants per room) units as defined by HCD.
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
When compared to neighboring cities , the City of Anaheim has the second greatest total percentage of
overcrowded units at 16.1 percent, with Santa Ana having the greatest at 29.9 percent, as shown in Table
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-19
2-17: Overcrowded Housing Units by Tenure. The City has more overcrowded units at about 16.1 percent
of total housing units compared with Orange County (8.8 percent). Yorba Linda has lowest percentage of
total of overcrowded units at 1.5 percent.
Table 2-17: Total Overcrowded Housing Units by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Owner Occupied Overcrowded* Units Renter Occupied Overcrowded* Units Total Overcrowded* Units (>1.00 persons/room) (>1.00 persons/room)
Count Percent1 Count Percent1 Count Percent2
Buena Park 844 31.8% 1,813 68.2% 2,657 11.2%
Cypress 346 42.1% 476 57.9% 822 5.2%
Placentia 270 23.3% 891 76.7% 1,161 7.0%
Santa Ana 6,103 26.6% 16,839 73.4% 22,942 29.9% Stanton 511 30.0% 1,192 70.0% 1,703 15.1%
Fullerton 866 19.7% 3,523 80.3% 4,389 9.6%
Anaheim 3,018 18.4% 13,370 81.6% 16,388 16.1%
Orange (City) 536 16.9% 2,639 83.1% 3,175 7.4%
Yorba Linda 143 42.7% 192 57.3% 335 1.5%
Garden Grove 2,261 31.8% 4,838 68.2% 7,099 14.9%
County of Orange 21,886 23.9% 69,796 76.1% 91,682 8.8%
1. Percent of total overcrowded units.
2. Percent of total occupied units.
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
2. Overpayment (Cost Burden) in Relation to Income
State and federal standards indicate that a household paying more than 30 percent of its income for
housing is overpaying. A household that allocates greater than 50 percent of total income toward housing
costs is subject to severe overpayment. Overpayment for housing can cause an imbalance on the
remainder of a household’s budget. Overpayment (also referred to as cost burden) provides an indicator
of the ability to sustain a household budget in consideration of other factors beyond housing costs
(utilities, food, maintenance, etc.). Whenever households pay an excessive amount of their income on
costs directly related to housing, it decreases the amount of income available for other needs. This
indicator is an important measurement of local housing market conditions as it reflects the affordability
of housing in the community. Federal and state agencies utilize overpayment indicators to determine the
amount of funding allocated to a community to assist with housing opportunities.
Table 2-18: Summary of Housing Overpayment below summarizes Anaheim’s households in context of
overpayment and household income. The majority of homeowners with a cost burden greater than 30
percent are those who have a household income between 50 and 80 percent of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Median Family Income (MFI). This HUD MFI is the median family
income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits
for HUD programs. MFI will not necessarily be the same as other calculations of median incomes (such as
a simple Census number), due to a series of adjustments that HUD makes to these numbers. Of owner
households with a cost burden over 50 percent, most have earned below 30 percent of the MFI. As Table
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-20
2-18: Summary of Housing Overpayment shows, renters have higher percentages of overpayment than
owners do. About 13.3 percent of renter households who earn below 30 percent of the MFI experience a
cost burden over 30 percent and 11.8 percent of those households experience a cost burden over 50
percent. Renters with lower incomes in Anaheim experience cost burdens at greater rates than
homeowners do.
Table 2-18: Summary of Housing Overpayment
Income by Cost Burden1
Homeowners Renters
Cost Burden > 30% Percent2 Cost Burden > 50% Percent2 Cost Burden > 30% Percent2 Cost Burden > 50% Percent2
Household
Income less-than or = 30% 2,840 2.8% 2,350 2.3% 13,375 13.3% 11,830 11.8%
Household Income >30% to less-than or = 50% MFI3
2,790 2.8% 1,740 1.7% 10,665 10.6% 4,000 4.0%
Household
Income >50% to
less-than or =
80% MFI3
4,395 4.4% 1,330 1.3% 5,940 5.9% 575 0.6%
Household Income >80% to
less-than or = 100% MFI3
1,865 1.9% 355 0.4% 1,235 1.2% 40 0.0%
Household Income >100% MFI3 2,470 2.5% 185 0.2% 575 0.6% 40 0.0%
Total 14,360 14.3% 5,960 5.9% 31,790 31.7% 16,485 16.4%
1. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus
utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs", which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association
fees, insurance, and real estate taxes.
2. Percent of total households in Anaheim
3. MFI refers to the HUD Area Median Family Income – this is the median family income calculated by HUD for each
jurisdiction, to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. MFI will not necessarily be the
same as other calculations of median incomes (such as a simple Census number), due to a series of adjustments that HUD
makes to these numbers.
Source: 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data (Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)).
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-21
E. Underserved, Vulnerable, and Special Needs
Populations
Individuals and families that may require accommodations or are more vulnerable than the rest of the
population to limiting conditions, may encounter added difficulty in procuring adequate and affordable
housing. According to HCD, special needs populations include seniors, persons with disabilities, large
households, single parent households, students, and farm workers. Special needs groups may have lower
incomes or may be homeless.
Table 2-19: Special Needs Groups
Special Needs Groups Count Percent of Total Households Percent of Total Population
Total Senior Population 40,694 -- 11.6%
Senior Headed Households1 20,212 19.2% --
Seniors Living Alone2 7,660 7.3% -- Persons with Disabilities 29,688 -- 8.5%
Persons with 25,613 -- -- Developmental Disabilities3
Large Households 20,995 20.7% --
Single-Parent Households 24,187 23% --
Single-Parent, Female Headed
Households with Children (under 18 years) 16,585 15.8% --
People Living in Poverty 15,539 -- 20.8%
Farmworkers4 1,772 -- --
Migrant Farmworkers 340 -- --
Seasonal Farmworkers 40 -- --
Permanent Farmworkers 699 --
Unpaid Workers 176 -- --
Persons Experiencing Homelessness 1,202 -- --
1. Seniors age 60 or older.
2. Seniors age 65 or older.
3. Total persons who received service from the Regional Center of Orange County for FY 2019-2020.
4. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining industry. Farmworker data is of the population 16 years and over.
Data taken at the County level and provided by USDA Statistics Services.
5. Total results from County of Orange 2019 Point in Time Count Report.
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau); 2019-2020 Total Annual Expenditures and
Authorized Services by Ethnicity and Race Report (Regional Center of Orange County); 2017 National Agriculture Statistics – Hired Farm Labor (United States Department of Agriculture); 2019 Point in Time Count Report, Everyone Counts (County of
Orange).
1. Seniors
The U.S. Census defines individuals 65 years old or older as seniors. Seniors may have limited income tied
to retirement payments and high healthcare costs. Due in part to age, seniors are also more susceptible
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-22
to mobility issues and self-care limitations. The specific housing needs of the senior population include
affordable housing, supportive housing with medical and/or non-medical services, group homes, and
other housing that includes a planned service component. Table 2-20: Persons Age 65 and Over
summarizes the senior population of Anaheim, and neighboring cities and the County are included for
reference. Anaheim has the second lowest proportion of senior populations at 11.6 percent compared to
14.4 percent within Orange County as a whole. In the area, Yorba Linda has the highest senior population
with 6.4 percent more than Anaheim and Santa Ana has the lowest senior population with 2.6 percent
less than Anaheim.
Table 2-20: Persons Age 65 and Over
Jurisdiction Population Count Percent of Population
Buena Park 10,743 13.0%
Cypress 7,393 15.1%
Placentia 7,438 14.4%
Santa Ana 29,918 9.0%
Stanton 4,649 12.1%
Fullerton 18,561 13.3%
Anaheim 40,694 11.6%
Orange (City) 17,076 12.2%
Yorba Linda 12,165 18.0%
Garden Grove 24,700 14.3%
County of Orange 455,105 14.4%
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Federal housing data defines a household type as 'elderly family' if it consists of two persons with either
or both age 62 or over. Table 2-21: Elderly Households by Income and Tenure in Anaheim, 2012-2016
summarizes the income and tenure of elderly family households in Anaheim. Of elderly family households
in Anaheim, 27.7 percent earn less than 30 percent of the surrounding area income, 46.7 percent earn
less than 50 percent of the surrounding area.
Table 2-21: Elderly Households by Income and Tenure in Anaheim, 2012-2016
Income category, relative to
surrounding area Owner Renter Total Percent of Total
Elderly Households
Extremely Low (30% MFI or less) 1,715 3,635 5,350 27.7%
Very Low (30% to 50% MFI) 2,080 1,585 3,665 19.0%
Low (50% to 80% MFI) 2,520 1,180 3,700 19.2%
Moderate (80% to 100% MFI) 1,115 305 1,420 7.4%
Above (100% MFI or more) 4,370 775 5,145 26.7%
Total 11,800 7,480 19,280 100.0%
MFI refers to Median Family Income.
Source: HUD CHAS, 2012-2016, Elderly Households by Income and Tenure (Reported by the Southern California
Association of Governments Per-Certified Housing Data for 2021).
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-23
The senior and elderly household population may benefit from affordable housing as they often have fixed
incomes that may not allow for the financial flexibility necessary to acquire suitable housing. Seniors may
also face various disabilities. Smaller, more affordable housing units allow for a greater accommodation
of senior lifestyles.
2. Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities
Physical and developmental disabilities can hinder access to traditional housing units and may limit the
ability to earn adequate income. Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities may deprive a person
from earning income, restrict one’s mobility, or make self-care difficult. Persons with disabilities often
have special housing needs related to limited earning capacity, a lack of accessible and affordable housing,
and higher health costs associated with a disability. Some residents may also have disabilities that require
living in a supportive or assisted-living setting.
Ambulatory difficulty, having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, is the most widespread disability
in Anaheim. Ambulatory difficulties relate to issues with walking and movement. Approximately 56
percent of Anaheim’s disabled population has ambulatory difficulty. This represents 4.7 percent of the
total population of Anaheim. Vision Difficulty, Hearing Difficulty, and Self-care Difficulty were the least
common as shown in Table 2-22: Disability Status. Disabilities require different living conditions that
inform housing needs for Anaheim. Those with ambulatory difficulties may require smaller single-story
spaces due to a lack of ability to walk long distances.
Table 2-22: Disability Status
Disability Type Under 18 18 to 64 65 and Over Total
Percent of
Population with a Disability
Percent of
Total
Population1
Hearing Difficulty 367 2,571 5,182 8,120 27.4% 2.3%
Vision Difficulty 373 2,510 2,063 4,946 16.7% 1.4%
Cognitive Difficulty 1,311 5,934 4,424 11,669 39.3% 3.4%
Ambulatory Difficulty 314 6,568 9,626 16,508 55.6% 4.7%
Self-care Difficulty 558 2,985 4,574 8,117 27.3% 2.3%
Independent Living Difficulty -- 5539 7,673 13,212 44.5% 3.8%
Total2 2,923 26,107 33,542 29,688 -- 8.5%
1. Total noninstitutionalized population.
2. This number represents the total number of disabilities and may double count persons having one or more disabilities, as
people may report having more than one of the six types of disabilities defined by the U.S. Census.
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Affordable and barrier-free housing may provide adequate housing opportunities for persons with
disabilities. Rehabilitation assistance can target renters and homeowners with disabilities to modify and
improve unit accessibility.
State law requires that the Housing Element discuss the housing needs of persons with developmental
disabilities. As defined by federal law, “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an
individual that:
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-24
• Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical
impairments;
• Is manifested before the individual attains age 22;
• Is likely to continue indefinitely;
• Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life
activity: a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d) mobility; e) self-
direction; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self- sufficiency; and
• Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or
generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or
extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.
According to the Regional Center of Orange County Total Annual Expenditures and Authorized Services
Report for 2019 to 2020, 25,163 individuals from the region with developmental disabilities received
services. Of the 25,163 individuals, the majority have a cognitive disability diagnosis (37.6 percent). The
rest were diagnosed with autism (31 percent), Cerebral Palsy (2.5 percent), Epilepsy (1 percent), Category
5 (3.8 percent), and 23.6 percent with some other disability. Of those who received services, 31.1 percent
were White, 16 percent were Asian, 1.9 percent was Black or African American, 0.02 percent was
American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.01 percent was Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 16.1
percent were Some Other Race. At 34 percent, over one third of those who received services identified as
Hispanic or Latino. The largest age group who received services were age 3 years to 21 years (39.9
percent), the rest were age 22 years and older (38.9 percent) and under the age of 2 (21.1 percent). Over
80 percent of individuals who received services lived at home with a parent or guardian.
According to the California Department of Developmental Services consumer count by CA zip code, age
group and residence type for the end of June 2019, Anaheim has 8,043 individuals with developmental
disabilities.
Many people with developmental disabilities can live and work independently within a conventional
housing environment. Individuals with more severe developmental disabilities may require a group living
environment that provides supervision. The most severely affected individuals may require an
institutional environment that provides medical attention and physical therapy. Typically, the first issue
in supportive housing for persons with developmental disabilities is the transition from the person’s living
situation as a child with development disabilities to an appropriate level of independence as an adult with
developmental disabilities.
There are several housing types appropriate for people living with a development disability: rent-
subsidized homes, State licensed (group home) and unlicensed single-family homes (living with family
members), inclusionary housing, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing,
and SB 962 (veterans) homes. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services
and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations
that are important in serving the needs of this group. Incorporating ‘barrier-free’ design in all, new multi-
family housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-25
the widest range of choices for residents with disabilities. The City should also give special consideration
to the affordability of the housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.
3. Large Households
The HCD defines large households as households of five or more individuals. Procuring resources for a
large household requires a greater portion of income. This may lead households to find smaller, more
affordable housing units. Such units may not be large enough to accommodate a large household and
may lead to overcrowding. It may be more challenging for renters to secure larger housing units as multi-
family rental units are typically smaller than single-family ownership units are. Many apartment
complexes do not typically have 4- or 5-bedroom units. As bedroom count increases, the affordability of
a housing unit typically decreases.
In Anaheim, large households represent about 21 percent of all households as shown in Table 2-23: Large
Households by Tenure. Of this amount, renters represent a higher percentage of large households at 58.8
percent. Five-person households are more common for both owners and renters. In total, 6- person
households represent a larger portion of large households than 7-or-more-person households do. The
provision of affordable housing may alleviate potential overcrowding burdens experienced by these
households.
Table 2-23: Large Households by Tenure
Household Size Owner Renter Total
Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent
5-Person Household 4,459 21.2% 6,715 32.0% 11,174 11.0%
6-Person Household 2,310 11.0% 3,369 16.0% 5,679 5.6%
7-or-More Person
Household 1,877 8.9% 2,265 10.8% 4,142 4.1%
Total 8,646 41.2%1 12,349 58.8%1 20,995 20.7%2
1. Percent of large households.
2. Percent of total households.
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
4. Single-Parent Households
Single parent households face different challenges due to the greater need for daycare services, health
care services, and other services. It may be common that female-headed households, specifically with no
spouse present, have a lower average income due to income inequalities present in workplaces. Table 2-
24: Single-Parent Households estimates that single-parent female households with no spouse present
more than double, compared to the number of single-parent male households with no spouse present
(12.9 percent and 6.1 percent, respectively). The proportion of both types of households are greater than
that of Orange County. Compared to the County, the City’s single-parents female households living in
poverty represent a higher proportion compared to the proportion within Orange County as a whole (10.3
percent and 6.1 percent, respectively).
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-26
Table 2-24: Single-Parent Households
Jurisdictions
Single Parent-Male, No Spouse Present
Single Parent-Male
Household Living in Poverty
Single Parent-
Female, No Spouse Present
Single Parent-
Female Household Living in Poverty
Count Percent1 Count Percent1 Count Percent1 Count Percent1
Anaheim 5,069 6.1% 1,672 2.0% 10,645 12.9% 8,473 10.3% Orange County 40,404 5.8% 8,282 1.2% 78,192 11.3% 42,189 6.1%
1. Percent of total households.
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
5. Farmworkers
HCD defines farmworkers as persons that earn their primary income through permanent or seasonal
agricultural labor. Permanent farm laborers work in the fields, processing plants, or support activities on
a generally year-round basis. Seasonal workers may supplement the labor force when workload increases
during harvest periods. Certain farms may hire migrant workers. Migrant workers have unique housing
needs as their travel may prevent them from returning to their primary residence every evening. Farm
workers also have special housing needs because they earn lower incomes than many other workers and
move throughout the year from one harvest location to the next.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agriculture Statistics Service provides data
on hired farm labor across the United States. The USDA compiles this data at both a State and County
level. Within Orange County, there were 1,772 hired farmworkers in 2017. The USDA considered 699 of
these workers permanent workers (working 150 days or more per year), 40 were seasonal workers
(working less than 150 days per year), 340 were migrant workers farmworkers, and 176 were unpaid
workers.
According to the California Employment Development Department, the average farm worker (Farming,
Fishing, and Forestry Occupation) in Orange County earned a median annual income of $31,978. This
annual income would place each individual or household in the very low-income bracket for Anaheim. The
farmworker’s tenuous and/or seasonal employment status may further exacerbate their limited income.
These employees and their households may reside in severely overcrowded dwellings, in packing
buildings, or in storage sheds. Future housing in Anaheim may need to consider the needs of farm workers
employed in and near the City.
6. Extremely Low-Income Households and Poverty Status
The 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data indicates there were
approximately 34,850 households with very low-income living in Anaheim. Households with very-low
income earn 50 percent or less of the median family income (MFI) for Orange County. Households with
extremely low income earn less than 30 percent of the MFI. There are approximately 18,170 households
with extremely low income in Anaheim (renters and owners). Table 2-25: Housing Problems for all
Households by Tenure below includes data on the number of households experiencing housing issues
based on family income.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-27
In Anaheim, there are 2,870 households with extremely low-income that live in owner-occupied housing
units with at least one of the four housing problems. The housing problems identified by CHAS include the
following:
• Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom);
• Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room);
• Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; or
• Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.
Moderate-income households also occupy the smallest amount of owner households with at least one of
the four housing problems. For owner occupied units, households with low-income levels occupy the most
housing units with at least one housing problem (10,810 households). In contrast, renters earning an
extremely low income have the most housing units with at least one housing problem (13,640). As the
income goes up for renters, the number of housing units with a housing problem goes down.
Table 2-25: Housing Problems for all Households by Tenure
Income by Housing Problem
Owner Household has at
least 1 of 4 Housing Problems
Household has none
of 4 Housing Problems
Cost Burden not
available, no other Housing Problem
Less-than or = 30% 2,870 610 195
>30% to less-than or = 50% MFI 3,015 1,680 0
>50% to less-than or = 80% MFI 4,925 3,495 0
>80% to less-than or = 100% MFI 2,350 3,035 0 >100% MFI 3,435 19,450 0
Total 16,595 28,270 195
Income by Housing Problem
Renter
Household has at
least 1 of 4 Housing
Problems
Household has none
of 4 Housing
Problems
Cost Burden not
available, no other
Housing Problem
Less-than or = 30% 13,640 1,050 745
>30% to less-than or = 50% MFI 11,325 660 0
>50% to less-than or = 80% MFI 8,590 4,335 0
>80% to less-than or = 100% MFI 1,910 3,530 0
>100% MFI 1,855 7,585 0
Total 37,320 17,160 745
* The four housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per
room, and cost burden greater than 30%.
** The four severe housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room, and cost burden greater than 50%.
Note: MFI = HUD Median Family Income, this is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, to
determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. MFI will not necessarily be the same as other
calculations of median incomes (such as a simple Census number), due to a series of adjustments that are made.
Source: 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)).
Table 2-26: Anaheim Poverty Statistics illustrates the number and percent of Anaheim’s population that
live below the poverty level, across several demographic characteristics. Of Anaheim’s population, 14.8
percent of persons are below the poverty level and more than half of those persons are female (27,864).
Persons that are between 35 and 64 years of age have the highest count of persons below poverty level
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-28
for all age groups identified (14,912). Additionally, renter occupied households make up a larger
percentage of households below the poverty level than owner-occupied households do (18.9 percent and
3.0 percent, respectively). Similarly, Female householders without a spouse present represent the largest
household type below the poverty level at 25.9 percent of households, which is 16.7 percent greater than
married-couple households, which are the least represented household type below the poverty level (9.2
percent).
Table 2-26: Statistics for Anaheim Population Below Poverty Level
Gender Below Poverty Level
Count Percent
Male 23,358 13.7%
Female 27,864 15.9%
Age Group Count Percent
18-34 years of age 12,731 13.7%
35-64 years of age 14,912 11.4%
66 and over years of age 5,224 13.2%
Household Characteristics Count* Percent*
Owner NA 3.0% Renter NA 18.9%
Family Households1 NA 13.5%
Married-Couple Households1 NA 9.2%
Female householder, no
Spouse Present1 NA
25.9%
Other Living Arrangements1 NA 24.5%
*of Households.
1. Determined at less than 100% of the poverty level.
Note: The percentages are based on the total population for whom poverty status could be determined, not the total
population of the City.
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
According to 2015-2019 5-Year ACS data, despite representing only 2.7 percent of the City’s population,
the Black or African American population has one of the highest rates of poverty in Anaheim in 2019 (15.7
percent). The case is the same for those identifying as “American Indian and Alaska Native Alone” and
“Some Other Race Alone.” Conversely, the White population represents one quarter of the City’s residents
yet has a poverty level of 10.5 percent. The values shown in Figure 2-7: Percent of Population Living
below the Poverty Line, by Race and Ethnicity outline potential differences in housing needs based on
poverty status for different racial and ethnic groups within the City.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-29
*Of any race.
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
7. Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Homelessness is an important issue within California. Several factors contribute to the rise in
homelessness including increased unemployment and underemployment, a lack of housing affordable to
people with lower and moderate-incomes (especially extremely low-incomes), reductions in public
subsidies to the poor, a lack of assistance for those struggling with addiction, and the de-
institutionalization of the mentally ill.
Federal and State law mandates that jurisdictions quantify and address the special needs of persons
experiencing homelessness within their jurisdictional boundaries. The U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) defines “homelessness” as the following:
• Literally Homeless: Individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime
residence, meaning:
o Has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not meant for human
habitation;
o Is living in a publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living
arrangements (including congregate shelters, transitional housing, and hotels and motels
White
Alone
Black or
African
American
Alone
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
Alone
Asian
Alone
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
Alone
Some
other race
Alone
Two or
more
races
Hispanic
or Latino*
Below Poverty Level 10.5%15.7%11.9%10.1%5.8%19.2%10.1%18.4%
Race/Ethnicity 24.1%2.7%0.5%16.8%0.4%9.9%3.3%54.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Figure 2-7: Percent of Population Living below the Poverty Line, by Race and
Ethnicity
Below Poverty Level Race/Ethnicity
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-30
paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state and local government programs);
or
o Is exiting an institution where (s)he has resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an
emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering
that institution.
• Imminent Risk of Homelessness: Individual or family who will imminently lose their primary
nighttime residence, provided that:
o Residence will be lost within 14 days of the date of application for homeless assistance;
o No subsequent residence has been identified; and
o The individual or family lacks the resources or support networks needed to obtain other
permanent housing.
• Homeless under other Federal Statutes: Unaccompanied youth under 25 years of age, or families
with children and youth, who do not otherwise qualify as homeless under this definition, but who:
o Are defined as homeless under the other listed federal statutes;
o Have not had a lease, ownership interest, or occupancy agreement in permanent housing
during the 60 days prior to the homeless assistance application;
o Have experienced persistent instability as measured by two moves or more during in the
preceding 60 days; and
o Can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time due to special
needs or barriers
• Fleeing/Attempting to Flee Domestic Violence: Any individual or family who:
o Is fleeing, or is attempting to flee, domestic violence;
o Has no other residence; and
o Lacks the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing
This definition does not include persons living in substandard or overcrowded housing units, persons being
discharged from mental health facilities (unless the person was homeless when entering and is considered
to be homeless at discharge), or persons who may be at-risk of homelessness (for example, living
temporarily with family or friends).
The Point in Time Count is an effort to track the number and location (sheltered or unsheltered) of
individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness. The Orange County Continuum of Care (CoC)
conducts this count in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
guidelines. In January 2019, 1,167 volunteers across Orange County counted 6,860 individuals
experiencing homelessness; of those, 2,899 were sheltered and 3,961 were unsheltered. Table 2-27:
People Experiencing Homelessness Count by Jurisdiction – 2019 Data shows the individual city results
for cities surrounding and including Anaheim and the County of Orange. Anaheim reported a total of 1,202
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-31
individuals experiencing homelessness; this represents 17.5 percent of the total homeless population for
Orange County. This percentage is the second largest population of individuals experiencing
homelessness. Santa Ana reported the largest population of people experiencing homelessness, as a
quarter of the total number of people experiencing homelessness in Orange County, reside in Santa Ana
(8.3 percent more than Anaheim).
Table 2-27: People Experiencing Homelessness Count by Jurisdiction - 2019 Data
Jurisdiction Unsheltered Sheltered Total % of County
Buena Park 142 145 287 4.2%
Cypress 39 0 39 0.6%
Placentia 55 108 163 2.4%
Santa Ana 830 939 1,769 25.8%
Stanton 71 45 116 1.7% Fullerton 308 165 473 6.9%
Anaheim 694 508 1,202 17.5%
Orange (City) 193 148 341 5.0%
Yorba Linda 1 0 1 0.01%
Garden Grove 163 62 225 3.3%
County of Orange 2,899 3,961 6,860 100.0%
Source: 2019 Point in Time Count Report, Everyone Counts (County of Orange).
8. Students
Student housing is another need affecting housing demand. Student housing often only produces a
temporary housing need based on the duration of the educational institution enrolled in. The impact on
housing demand often increases in areas surrounding universities and colleges. According to the 2019 5-
Year ACS data, there are approximately 29,491 Anaheim residents enrolled in college or graduate school.
Students may seek shared housing situations to decrease expenses and assistance through roommate
referral services offered on and off campus. College graduates provide a specialized pool of skilled labor
that is vital to the economy. However, a lack of affordable housing may lead to their departure post-
graduation.
F. Housing Stock Characteristics
Anaheim’s housing stock includes all housing units located within its jurisdiction. Housing stock growth,
type, age and condition, tenure, vacancy rates, costs, and affordability are all important factors in
determining the housing needs of the community. This section details the housing stock characteristics of
Anaheim to identify how well the current housing stock meets the needs of current and future residents
of the City.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-32
1. Housing Growth
Table 2-28: Housing Unit Growth Trends shows growth trends for housing units in Anaheim and
surrounding cities. The data shown in the table reflects 2015-2019 5-year American Community Survey
(ACS) estimates, not the actual number of units reported by the local jurisdiction. Section 3: Housing
Constraints, Resources, and AFFH, evaluates the City’s existing housing development and future
development opportunities. The number of housing units that the ACS estimated for Anaheim slightly
decreased between 2010 and 2015 but increased 1.8 percent from 2015 to 2019. The net gain from 2015
to 2019 is 1.6 percent lower than the regional average of 3.4 percent.
Table 2-28: Housing Unit Growth Trends
Jurisdiction 2010 2015 2019
Percent
Change 2010 to 2015
Percent
Change
2015 to
2019
Buena Park 23,895 24,007 24,578 0.5% 2.4%
Cypress 16,335 16,109 16,256 -1.4% 0.9%
Placentia 16,679 16,553 16,964 -0.8% 2.5%
Santa Ana 77,796 77,192 79,024 -0.8% 2.4%
Stanton 12,111 11,972 11,640 -1.1% -2.8%
Fullerton 47,956 47,319 48,120 -1.3% 1.7%
Anaheim 105,050 104,812 106,708 -0.2% 1.8%
Orange (City) 44,217 44,229 44,664 0.0% 1.0%
Yorba Linda 21,665 22,592 23,452 4.3% 3.8% Garden Grove 47,454 48,385 49,061 2.0% 1.4%
County of Orange 1,042,254 1,064,642 1,100,449 2.1% 3.4%
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
2. Housing Unit Types
Table 2-29: Total Housing Units by Type summarizes the available housing units in Anaheim and Orange
County by housing type. As of 2019, multi-unit homes made up the majority of the housing stock in
Anaheim (48.3 percent). Single-unit detached homes made up 41.4 percent. Single-unit attached homes,
which include townhomes and condominiums, made up 8.5 percent of the housing stock and 3.3 percent
were mobile homes. In comparison to the rest of the County, Anaheim has a higher percentage of Multi-
unit homes and a lower percentage of single-unit attached and detached homes.
Table 2-29: Total Housing Units by Type
Jurisdiction
Single-Unit Detached Single-Unit Attached Multi-Unit Mobile Homes Total Units
Count % Count % Count % Count %
Anaheim 43,483 41.4% 8,901 8.5% 50,763 48.3% 3,498 3.3% 106,708
Orange
County 556,681 53.4% 134,920 12.9% 378,043 36.3% 30,189 2.9% 1,100,449
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-33
3. Housing Availability and Tenure
Household size differs between renter and owner-occupied housing units. Larger households typically live
in owner-occupied units in comparison to renter-occupied units. Homeowners typically have a greater
income than those that rent. In addition, family households generally occupy larger housing units such as
single-unit homes. The City’s housing stock includes 45,616 owner occupied housing units and 56,042
renter occupied housing units, as shown in Table 2-30: Occupied Housing Units by Type and Tenure. The
large majority of owner-occupied homes are single-unit detached structures, while for renters the
majority of the housing units are multi-unit developments.
Table 2-30: Occupied Housing Units by Type and Tenure
Tenure Single-Unit Detached Single-Unit Attached Multi-Unit Mobile Homes
Total
Occupied Units
Owner Occupied 34,441 6349 2697 2,094 45,616
Renter Occupied 7,929 2318 44,551 1,216 56,042
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
As Table 2-31: Average Household Size by Tenure shows, the City trends towards larger household size
when compared to neighboring cities, having the fourth largest average household size (3.39). An average
household size of 3.39, typically points towards a need for large housing units. The average household
size for owner and renter households in Anaheim are similar (3.38 and 3.41, respectively). The City of
Santa Ana has the highest average household size at 4.28 and a renter occupied household size of 4.32.
Orange County’s overall household size of 3.01 reflects a moderate difference in household size compared
to Anaheim.
Table 2-31: Average Household Size by Tenure
Jurisdiction Owner Occupied
Household Size
Renter Occupied
Household Size
Average Household
Size
Buena Park 3.45 3.44 3.45
Cypress 3.06 3.20 3.11
Placentia 3.05 3.18 3.09
Santa Ana 4.25 4.32 4.28
Stanton 3.24 3.52 3.38
Fullerton 2.93 3.02 2.97
Anaheim 3.38 3.41 3.39
Orange (City) 3.00 3.18 3.08 Yorba Linda 3.02 2.78 2.98
Garden Grove 3.57 3.60 3.58
County of Orange 2.98 3.05 3.01
Source: 2019 5-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Anaheim has one of the highest vacancy rates of the neighboring cities (Figure 2-8: Vacancy Rates by
Jurisdiction). At 4.7 percent, Anaheim’s vacancy rate is about .1 percent below Fullerton. Placentia has
the lowest vacancy rate at 2.5 percent below Anaheim’s (2.2 percent). Of the City’s vacant units, the
majority are rental units, followed by units that are vacant for unknown reasons according to ACS data
(51.3 and 17 percent, respectively). This could be due to the number of apartment developments recently
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-34
constructed in Anaheim, which may not have completed the initial lease-up of units. Table 2-32: Vacant
Housing Units by Type in 2019 shows that just under 11 percent of vacant units are rented but unoccupied
and 9.2 percent are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use.
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 2-32: Vacant Housing Units by Type in 2019 Type of Housing Estimate Percentage
For rent 2,590 51.3%
Rented, not occupied 532 10.5%
For sale only 402 8.0%
Sold, not occupied 205 4.1%
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 465 9.2%
For migrant workers 0 0.0%
Other vacant 856 17.0%
Total 5,050 100%
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
4. Housing Age and Condition
Housing age may affect the structural integrity of a house and can be an indicator of overall housing quality
within a community. Housing that is over 30 years old is typically in need of some major rehabilitation,
such as a new roof, foundation, plumbing, etc. Many federal and state programs also use the age of
housing as one factor in determining housing rehabilitation needs. A large proportion of older housing
Buena
Park Cypress Placentia Santa
Ana Stanton Fullerton Anaheim Orange
(City)
Yorba
Linda
Garden
Grove
County
of
Orange
Vacancy Rate 3.7%3.5%2.2%3.0%3.1%4.8%4.7%3.6%3.4%2.6%5.7%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
Figure 2-8: Vacancy Rates by Jurisdiction
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-35
stock would typically indicate that most of the City’s housing stock could require major rehabilitation. This
does not include historical districts, which are generally well preserved.
Figure 2-9: Housing Stock describes the age of the City’s housing stock. The figure reflects ACS survey
data, which is based on estimates and not recorded true figures. The data shows that the majority of the
City’s housing stock is the result of housing construction that occurred between 1950 and 1979
(approximately 40-70 years ago). Housing units that are over 30 years old typically benefit from upgrades
or renovations, which is why it is important to check for the age of the housing stock.
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Figure 2-10: Tenure by Year Housing Unit Built below illustrates housing tenure by year of construction.
This shows whether homeowner or renters occupy newer or older housing units. In Anaheim’s case,
renters occupy more units that are newer than the units homeowners occupy. Given the higher
percentage of renters in multi-family units, this may point towards the addition of new multi-family rental
developments versus older, single-unit homes occupied by more homeowners.
Built
1939 or
earlier
Built
1940 to
1949
Built
1950 to
1959
Built
1960 to
1969
Built
1970 to
1979
Built
1980 to
1989
Built
1990 to
1999
Built
2000 to
2009
Built
2010 to
2013
Built
2014 or
later
Housing Stock 2.4%1.9%23.2%17.4%25.4%11.5%9.3%5.6%1.4%1.9%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Figure 2-9: Housing Stock Age
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-36
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Figure 2-11: Housing Units by Year Built and Tenure displays 2019 ACS data for housing units by the year
they were built and who occupies them – homeowners (left) and renters (right). The figure shows that
12.6 percent of homeowners occupy housing units built between 1950 and 1959 and are more
concentrated in older housing units, while renters are broadly spread out throughout the housing stock.
Figure 2-11: Housing Units by Year Built and Tenure
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Built
1939 or
earlier
Built
1940 to
1949
Built
1950 to
1959
Built
1960 to
1969
Built
1970 to
1979
Built
1980 to
1989
Built
1990 to
1999
Built
2000 to
2009
Built
2010 to
2013
Built
2014 or
later
Renter 1.2%1.0%10.8%10.6%14.7%7.0%4.4%3.4%1.0%1.0%
Owner 1.2%0.9%12.6%7.0%10.5%4.6%5.1%2.1%0.4%0.4%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Figure 2-10: Tenure by Year Housing Unit Built
1.2%
0.9%
12.6%
7.0%
10.5%
4.6%
5.1%
2.1%
0.4%
0.4%
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%
Built 1939 or…
Built 1940 to 1949
Built 1950 to 1959
Built 1960 to 1969
Built 1970 to 1979
Built 1980 to 1989
Built 1990 to 1999
Built 2000 to 2009
Built 2010 to 2013
Built 2014 or later
Owners
1.2%
1.0%
10.8%
10.6%
14.7%
7.0%
4.4%
3.4%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%
Built 1939 or earlier
Built 1940 to 1949
Built 1950 to 1959
Built 1960 to 1969
Built 1970 to 1979
Built 1980 to 1989
Built 1990 to 1999
Built 2000 to 2009
Built 2010 to 2013
Built 2014 or later
Renters
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-37
5. Housing Costs and Availability
The ACS estimates that the median home value in Anaheim, for the 2015-2019 U.S. Census Bureau’s
survey period, is $575,600. As Table 2-33: Median Home Value by Jurisdiction shows, this is the fourth
lowest value compared to nearby cities . Anaheim’s median home value is approximately $282,700 less
than Yorba Linda, which has the highest value. Larger homes with higher prices are generally affordable
to persons or households with moderate or above moderate incomes.
Table 2-33: Median Home Value by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Median Home Value
Buena Park $579,100
Cypress $632,900
Placentia $630,500
Santa Ana $491,300 Stanton $386,400
Fullerton $650,000
Anaheim $575,600
Orange (City) $656,100
Yorba Linda $858,300
Garden Grove $554,400
County of Orange $679,300
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
As shown in Table 3-34: Median Gross Rent by Bedroom Size, the monthly rent for a one bedroom in
Anaheim increased from $1,131 to $1,367 (20.9 percent) between 2015 and 2019; experiencing the
second largest price increase of unit types, based on the number of bedrooms. Studios saw the largest
price increase in monthly rent during the same period, at 26.7 percent. In general, all rental units saw an
increase in prices over these five years, with the median gross rent increasing by 20.2 percent from $1,374
to $1,651.
Table 2-34: Median Gross Rent by Bedroom Size
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Percent
Change 2015 - 2019
Studio $1,108 $1,131 $1,209 $1,302 $1,404 26.7%
1 Bedroom $1,131 $1,161 $1,212 $1,288 $1,367 20.9%
2 Bedrooms $1,434 $1,464 $1,557 $1,657 $1,719 19.9%
3 Bedrooms $1,835 $1,888 $1,939 $2,034 $2,117 15.4%
4 Bedrooms $2,218 $2,231 $2,325 $2,380 $2,484 12.0%
5 or More Bedrooms $2,136 $2,053 $2,291 $2,186 $2,311 8.2%
Median Gross Rent $1,374 $1,402 $1,469 $1,569 $1,651 20.2%
Source: 2015 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey, 2016 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey, 2017 5-
Year Estimates American Community Survey, 2018 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey, and 2019 5-Year
Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Housing affordability analysis includes comparing the cost of renting or owning a home in the City with
the maximum affordable housing costs for households at different income levels. The analysis informs the
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-38
affordability of different housing sizes and types and indicates the type of households most likely to
experience overcrowding and overpayment.
The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) conducts annual household income
surveys nationwide to determine a household’s eligibility for federal housing assistance. Based on this
survey, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) developed income
limits, based on the Median Family Income (MFI), which local jurisdictions can use to determine the
maximum price that could be affordable to households in the upper range of their respective income
category. Households in the lower end of each category can afford less expensive housing than those at
the upper end. Table 2-35: Affordable Housing Costs in Orange County shows the maximum affordable
home prices without overpayment for residents in Orange County. Table 2-33: Median Home Value by
Jurisdiction shows the median asking price for homes in each jurisdiction for comparison. Table 2-36:
Affordable Monthly Housing Cost for Renters in Orange County (2020) shows the maximum affordable
monthly rental amount that a household can pay for each month without overpayment.
Extremely Low-Income
Household(s) with extremely low-income, earning less than 30 percent of the County MFI, the maximum
affordable home price for ownership is up to $93,900 for a one-person household and up to $104,400 for
a five-person household in 2020. Extremely low-income households cannot afford market-rate rental or
ownership housing in Anaheim without a substantial cost burden.
Very Low-Income
The very low-income limits are the basis for all other income limits. Household(s) with Very low-income,
earning between 31 percent and 50 percent of the County MFI, the maximum affordable home price for
ownership is up to $181,800 for a one-person household and up to $239,700 for a five-person household
in 2020. Very low-income households cannot afford market-rate rental or ownership housing in Anaheim
without a substantial cost burden.
Low-Income
Household(s) with Low-income, earning between 51 percent and 80 percent of the County’s MFI, the
maximum affordable home price for ownership is up to $313,200 for a one-person household and up to
$442,600 for a five-person household in 2020. Given the cost of housing in Anaheim, low-income
households could afford market-rate rental units. Low-income households would not be able to afford to
own a home.
Moderate Income
Household(s) with moderate-income earn between 81 percent and 120 percent of the County’s MFI. The
maximum affordable home price for a moderate-income household is $380,000 for a one-person
household and $545,800 for a five-person family. Moderate-income households can generally find affordable market-rate rental units in the City. Ownership housing in Anaheim is generally affordable to
5-person households but remain generally unattainable to smaller household sizes.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-39
Table 2-35: Affordable Housing Costs in Orange County
Annual Income Mortgage Utilities1 Tax and Insurance
Total Affordable
Monthly Housing Cost
Affordable Purchase Price
Extremely Low-income (30% of MFI) 1-Person $28,250 $428 $172 $106 $706 $93,900
2-Person $32,300 $453 $233 $121 $808 $99,400
3-Person $36,350 $469 $303 $136 $909 $102,800
4-Person $40,350 $482 $375 $151 $1,009 $105,700
5-Person $43,600 $476 $451 $164 $1,090 $104,400
Very Low-Income (50% of MFI)
1-Person $47,100 $829 $172 $177 $1,178 $181,800
2-Person $53,800 $910 $233 $202 $1,345 $199,600
3-Person $60,550 $984 $303 $227 $1,514 $215,800
4-Person $67,250 $1,054 $375 $252 $1,681 $231,200
5-Person $72,650 $1,093 $451 $272 $1,816 $239,700
Low-income (80% MFI)
1-Person $75,300 $1,428 $172 $282 $1,883 $313,200
2-Person $86,050 $1,596 $233 $323 $2,151 $350,000
3-Person $96,800 $1,754 $303 $363 $2,420 $384,700
4-Person $107,550 $1,910 $375 $403 $2,689 $419,000
5-Person $116,200 $2,018 $451 $436 $2,905 $442,600 Moderate Income (120% MFI)
1-Person $89,650 $1,733 $172 $336 $2,241 $380,000
2-Person $102,450 $1,944 $233 $384 $2,561 $426,300
3-Person $115,250 $2,146 $303 $432 $2,881 $470,600
4-Person $128,050 $2,346 $375 $480 $3,201 $514,500
5-Person $138,300 $2,488 $451 $519 $3,458 $545,600
1. Utilities includes electric cooking, heating, water heating; basic electric; water; trash; air conditioning; refrigerator.
Source: 2020 OCHA Utility Allowance Schedule (Orange County housing Authority) and 2021 State Income Limits
(California Department of Housing and Community Development).
Notes: Kimley Horn and Associates Assumptions: 2021 HCD income limits; 30% gross household income as affordable
housing cost; 15% of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance; 10% down payment; and 4.5% interest rate for a
30-year fixed-rate mortgage loan. Utilities based on Housing Authority of the County of Orange Utility Allowance.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT August 2021] Page 2-40
Table 2-36 Affordable Monthly Housing Cost for Renters in Orange County (2020)
Annual Income Rent Utilities1
Total Affordable
Monthly Housing
Cost
Extremely Low-income (30% of AMFI)
1-Person $28,250 $534 $172 $706
2-Person $32,300 $575 $233 $808 3-Person $36,350 $606 $303 $909
4-Person $40,350 $634 $375 $1,009
5-Person $43,600 $639 $451 $1,090
Very Low-income (50% of AMFI)
1-Person $47,100 $1,006 $172 $1,178
2-Person $53,800 $1,112 $233 $1,345
3-Person $60,550 $1,211 $303 $1,514
4-Person $67,250 $1,306 $375 $1,681
5-Person $72,650 $1,365 $451 $1,816 Low-income (80% AMFI)
1-Person $75,300 $1,711 $172 $1,883
2-Person $86,050 $1,918 $233 $2,151
3-Person $96,800 $2,117 $303 $2,420
4-Person $107,550 $2,314 $375 $2,689
5-Person $116,200 $2,454 $451 $2,905
Moderate Income (120% AMFI)
1-Person $89,650 $2,069 $172 $2,241
2-Person $102,450 $2,328 $233 $2,561 3-Person $115,250 $2,578 $303 $2,881
4-Person $128,050 $2,826 $375 $3,201
5-Person $138,300 $3,007 $451 $3,458
1. Utilities includes electric cooking, heating, water heating; basic electric; water; trash; air conditioning; refrigerator.
Source: 2020 OCHA Utility Allowance Schedule (Orange County housing Authority) and 2021 State Income Limits
(California Department of Housing and Community Development).
Notes: Kimley Horn and Associates Assumptions: 2021 HCD income limits; 30% gross household income as affordable
housing cost; 15% of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance; 10% down payment; and 4.5% interest rate for a
30-year fixed-rate mortgage loan. Utilities based on Housing Authority of the County of Orange Utility Allowance.
City of Anaheim Housing Element
6thCycle: 2021-2029
DRAFT August 2021
Table of Contents [DRAFT August 2021] Page TOC-2
A. Table of Contents
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
A. Role of the Housing Element ...........................................................................................1-2
B. State Policy and Authorization .........................................................................................1-3
1. Background ..................................................................................................................1-3
2. State Requirements .......................................................................................................1-3
3. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) .....................................................................1-5
4. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements.....................................................................1-5
5. Public Participation ........................................................................................................1-6
6. Data Sources.................................................................................................................1-7
SECTION 2: COMMUNITY PROFILE
A. Population Characteristics ..............................................................................................2-2
1. Population Growth .....................................................................................................2-2
2. Age Characteristics .....................................................................................................2-3
3. Race/Ethnicity Characteristics ......................................................................................2-5
B. Employment Characteristics ............................................................................................2-8
1. Employment and Wage Scale .......................................................................................2-8
C. Economic Characteristics .............................................................................................. 2-11
1. Household Type and Size........................................................................................... 2-11
2. Household Income ................................................................................................... 2-14
D. Housing Issues ............................................................................................................ 2-17
1. Overcrowding.......................................................................................................... 2-18
2. Overpayment (Cost Burden) In Relation to Income........................................................ 2-19
E. Underserved, Vulnerable, and Special Needs Populations.................................................. 2-21
Table of Contents [DRAFT August 2021] Page TOC-3
1. Seniors ................................................................................................................... 2-21
2. Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities ................................................... 2-23
3. Large Households..................................................................................................... 2-25
4. Single-Parent Households.......................................................................................... 2-25
5. Farmworkers ........................................................................................................... 2-26
6. Extremely Low-income Households and Poverty Status ................................................. 2-26
7. Persons Experiencing Homelessness .......................................................................... 2-29
8. Students ................................................................................................................ 2-31
F. Housing Stock Characteristics ........................................................................................ 2-31
1. Housing Growth....................................................................................................... 2-32
2. Housing Unit Types .................................................................................................. 2-32
3. Housing Availability and Tenure ................................................................................. 2-33
4. Housing Age and Condition........................................................................................ 2-34
5. Housing Cost and Availability ..................................................................................... 2-37
SECTION 3: HOUSING CONSTRAINTS, RESOURCES, AND AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
A. Nongovernmental Constraints .........................................................................................3-2
1. Land Costs and Construction Costs ...............................................................................3-2
2. Availability of Financing ..............................................................................................3-3
3. Economic Constraints .................................................................................................3-5
B. Governmental Constraints ..............................................................................................3-5
1. Land Use Controls ......................................................................................................3-6
2. Residential Zones .......................................................................................................3-9
3. Variety of Housing Types Permitted ............................................................................ 3-13
4. Residential Planned Unit Development ....................................................................... 3-18
Table of Contents [DRAFT August 2021] Page TOC-4
5. Growth Management Measures................................................................................. 3-19
6. Specific Plans........................................................................................................... 3-19
7. Housing for Persons with Disabilities .......................................................................... 3-22
8. Development Fees ................................................................................................... 3-24
9. State Density Bonus Law ........................................................................................... 3-29
10. On-/Off-Site Improvements ...................................................................................... 3-32
11. Local Processing and Permit Procedures ..................................................................... 3-32
12. Infrastructure Constraints ......................................................................................... 3-34
13. Environmental Constraints ........................................................................................ 3-37
C. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) ................................................................... 3-40
1. Needs Assessment ................................................................................................... 3-41
2. Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Knowledge ........................................................... 3-43
3. Discussion of Disproportionate Housing Needs............................................................. 3-58
4. Assessment of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing in Anaheim ..................................... 3-72
5. Analysis of Sites (Pursuant to AB 686) ......................................................................... 3-73
6. Summary of Programs to Support Fair Housing............................................................. 3-80
D. Housing Resources....................................................................................................... 3-80
1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation ............................................................................. 3-80
E. Financial Resources...................................................................................................... 3-91
1. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher .............................................................................. 3-91
2. Energy Conservation................................................................................................. 3-93
SECTION 4: HOUSING PLAN
A. Housing Policy Program ..................................................................................................4-1
B. Key Policy Considerations ...............................................................................................4-3
Table of Contents [DRAFT August 2021] Page TOC-5
C. Housing Policy Strategy Areas..........................................................................................4-6
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance ………….……………………………………………………………………………...A-1
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis
1. Adequate Sites Analysis Background ............................................................................ B-1
2. Pipeline Projects ....................................................................................................... B-6
3. Accessory Dwelling Units...........................................................................................B-11
4. Candidate Sites ........................................................................................................B-12
Appendix C: Community Outreach and Engagement …………………….……………………….……………………………C-1
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-1
Section 4
Housing Policy Program
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-2
A. Housing Policy Program
This section of the Housing Element describes the Policy Program for the 2021-2029 Planning Period. The
Policy Program identifies the specific policy actions necessary to address present and future housing needs,
meet the specific requirements of State law, and consider the input by residents and stakeholders. The
emphasis of the 2021-2029 Policy Program is on actions enabling the City to maintain and increase housing
opportunities affordable to extremely-low, very-low, low and moderate income households.
In developing this Policy Program, the City assessed its housing needs, evaluated the performance of existing
programs, considered the availability of existing and projected funding resources and received input from the
community through extensive outreach efforts.
A number of the policy actions identified in the policy program are dependent upon the availability of external
funding sources, including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership
(HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) and State and Federal Development and Planning Grants. The
City intends to use these funds for specific policy actions stated in this Policy Program. It is the intent of the
City to leverage funding opportunities to further enhance program viability and maximize local benefit.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-3
B. KEY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
In order to develop a comprehensive strategy to preserve and expand housing opportunities for extremely-
low, very-low, low, and moderate income households and address the development challenges unique to the
City of Anaheim, it is important to understand the needs of local stakeholders, the current real estate market
and the type and condition of existing housing stock. Section 3 of this Element provides a complete overview
of these factors.
Through the City’s efforts to engage its citizenry and stakeholders in the planning process, the City identified
a number of housing challenges, opportunities and resources. The Housing Element Update Committee
further identified and refined important areas to consider in policy development. Appendix A provides a
summary of the community outreach process and its results.
The input from the community and the Housing Element Update Committee, in conjunction with the needs
analysis provided in Section 2 and 3, resulted in identifying a series of Policy Considerations, which form the
primary guidance for the 2021-2029 Planning Period.
Policy Consideration 1.0: Financing and Funding for Housing Development
A variety of factors can influence the development of affordable housing. More stringent qualification
guidelines for pre-development and construction financing can make it challenging for private sector
financing. On the local government front, local jurisdiction continue to feel the effects of the loss of
redevelopment funds as a replacement funding source of that size and scale has not yet emerged. There is
limited opportunities for local governments to create funding streams to assist with the production of housing
that addresses the needs of persons at the very low and extremely income ranges.
Additionally, while both the State and Federal government have introduced new affordable housing
production programs, the programs award funding on a competitive basis and often, the priorities ascribed
not do not align well with the Orange County region (Transit Oriented Development). These factors have
resulted in significant impacts on the City’s ability to assist in creating and maintaining affordable housing.
The City must now focus on the development of alternative funding and financing sources and better align
policy and programmatic strategies with short-term and long-term funding resources. Additionally, the City
must better align available housing sites with available state and federal housing programs to maximize the
potential for funding and financing of affordable housing.
Policy Consideration 2.0: Growth Needs
The City of Anaheim’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation for the 2021-2029 Housing Element is
17,453 units. Anaheim’s allocation represents a significant increase in forecasted housing needs compared to
prior cycles. The City continues to have the challenges of limited land resources, funding and financing
constraints that have a direct influence on the City’s ability to assist and facilitate the private market to provide
a variety of housing choices that meet the needs of Anaheim residents.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-4
Policy Consideration 3.0: Utilization and Prioritization of Existing Resources for Housing
The available funding and staffing to address projected housing need is limited. Therefore, the City must
anticipate and pursue comprehensive and strategic utilization of funding sources, prioritize programs and
maximize coordinated participation between public, private and non-profit entities. As new funding streams
have emerged, particularly at the State level, the City has adjusted priorities to and become more strategic
in its selection of affordable housing sites, acquiring sites that are near transit, amenities, school and hospitals
to become more competitive. Sites that are located near transit and other amenities are more competitive
and have a better likelihood of getting funded.
Policy Consideration 4.0: Community Design and Sustainability
Anaheim’s community members and stakeholder groups have identified the maintenance and enhancement
of quality of life as an important factor to address when planning for the City’s future housing needs. The
preservation and enhancement of that quality of life can be accomplished through community design and
sustainability concepts that consider the function and livability of Anaheim’s existing and planned
neighborhoods. Establishment of a holistic approach to community design and sustainability can have a
positive effect on the quality of life in Anaheim.
Policy Consideration 5.0: Equitable and Fair Housing Opportunities for Anaheim’s Residents
The City has identified that programs providing fair housing counseling, education, and enforcement are a
means to provide affordable housing opportunities for Anaheim’s residents. The City of Anaheim should
strategically address the specific needs of Anaheim residents through utilization of new and existing resources
in collaboration with County, State, Federal, and private and non-profit resources. Specifically, the
consideration of homelessness, the needs of residents with special needs, housing access, affordability issues,
and rental and for-sale housing opportunities can be best addressed at the local level through targeted policies
and programs sponsored and/or administered by the City.
Policy Consideration 6.0: Community Education and Outreach
The City is committed to ensuring that the community is aware of new and existing programs that are in place
to address their housing needs. Through education and outreach, particularly non-traditional means, the City
can ensure that housing information is available to interested community members. It is the City’s goal to
ensure that education and outreach efforts are effective and reach a broad audience. To that end, the City
provides materials in multiple languages and seeks to place information at locations that are widely used by
community members such as libraries, family resource centers and city offices. The City also utilizes all
available platforms as appropriate including its website, social media and printed materials. The City will
continue to measure and enhance its community outreach efforts on an ongoing basis.
Policy Consideration 7.0: Housing Availability and Affordability
Housing opportunity in Anaheim remains high due to employment opportunities, a desirable location and local
amenities. Housing costs in Anaheim and the surrounding region continue to remain higher than what is
affordable for many households, especially the lower-income segments of the population. The City’s pro-
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-5
housing policies and planning efforts have results in significant housing opportunities in the City. Anaheim has
been a leader in Orange County housing production. However, challenges remain in providing adequate
opportunities for lower-income households.
Policy Consideration 8.0: Infill and Redevelopment
The City of Anaheim is a built-out community, with very limited vacant land for new housing. Therefore, the
majority of growth will occur as infill development on currently developed sites. Policies should allow and
encourage creative solutions to challenges such as land assemblage, infrastructure, environmental cleanup,
and construction costs in order to maximize the potential of redeveloping areas of Anaheim.
Policy Consideration 9.0: Fair Housing
State law requires the City of Anaheim to affirmatively, further, Fair Housing by taking meaningful actions to
resist discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster inclusive communities free from barriers
that restrict access to opportunity based on protected classes.
Policy Consideration 10.0: Special Needs
The City’s policies and programs should address the diverse range of housing types for all segments of the
population, including current and future residents with Special Needs or physical and developmental
disabilities.
Policy Consideration 11.0: Regulatory Reform and Process Incentives
The City should continue to pursue regulatory reform and process streamlining efforts to address barriers to
timely and predictable development review processes.
Policy Consideration 12.0: Regional Partnership and Collaboration
To maximize the impact of providing affordable housing opportunities, the City must align local, regional, state
and federal programs through partnership and collaboration. Emerging partnerships at the regional level,
such as the Orange County Housing Trust, provide regional collaboration opportunities for gap financing for
the acquisition, development or construction of affordable housing. By increasing the supply and housing
options through regional partnerships, the City can address housing needs at a regional level and enhance the
quality of life for all Orange County residents.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-6
C. HOUSING POLICY STRATEGY AREAS
The Housing Policy Program organizes the Policy Strategies for the 2021-2029 Housing Element into five,
core, policy strategy areas:
Housing Production – establishes policy actions for the production of a range of rental and for-sale
housing units in the City.
Housing Conservation and Preservation – establishes policy actions for the conservation of
the existing housing stock and preservation of housing opportunities for Anaheim’s residents.
Housing Quality and Design – establishes policy actions for providing high quality, well-designed
living environments for Anaheim residents.
Housing Rehabilitation – establishes policy actions for the rehabilitation and improvement of
existing housing.
Affordable Housing Opportunities – establishes policy actions for the establishment of
affordable housing opportunities.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-7
Policy Strategy #1: Housing Production
Housing Production Strategy 1A: Affordable Housing Production Program
The City has a substantial need for affordable housing that will be a challenge to accommodate within the
2021-2029 planning period. Due to prevailing project development costs including high land values and
other factors, the ability of the private market to develop affordable housing without some level of subsidy
is a continuing challenge. Therefore, the City will evaluate a variety of policy prescriptions that will
encourage and facilitate the construction of below market-rate housing.
The City will evaluate affordable housing production options as an additional strategy to provide a variety
of housing types and opportunities for very low, low- and moderate-income households. The City will
assess and analyze affordable housing production policy options, standards, requirements and regulations
to determine an appropriate program, with the goal of generating local revenue for use in affordable
housing production.
Objective: Evaluate an appropriate affordable housing production program for the City
Responsible Party: Community Development/ Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Within 36 months of Housing Element adoption.
Housing Production Strategy 1B: Evaluate Alternative Funding and Financing Mechanisms
The loss of Redevelopment in 2011 has had a lingering effect on the ability of local agencies to provide
funding and financing resources for the development of affordable housing. However, the City of
Anaheim has made every effort to pursue all available, alternative funding sources and methods of
funding and financing to bridge the gap created by the loss of Redevelopment. The City of Anaheim applied for and obtained state Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds to assist with the
development of affordable housing. PLHA is a permanent source of funds approved by the state
legislature in 2019, and will vary from year to year since the State generates PLHA from real estate
transaction fees. The City has applied for and received funding from Orange County Housing Trust Fund
(OCHTF) and the Orange County Housing Finance Trust Fund (OCHFTF) for the development of three
affordable housing rental projects. The City continues to leverage grants and/or other funding sources
as they become available for the development of affordable housing, including collaborating with the
County of Orange to compete for funds such as No Place Like Home (NPLH) and Mental Health Services
Act Funding, (MHSA) to assist Anaheim affordable housing projects.
Anaheim will continue to collaborate with private, non-profit, state and federal entities to investigate
alternative methods for funding and financing the construction of new housing units and rehabilitation
and preservation of exiting units citywide. The City will also establish continued communication with
local, state and federal legislators to encourage the establishment of alternative funding and financing
mechanisms.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-8
Objective: Increase use of County, State and Federal funding and financing mechanisms
Responsible Party: Community Development/ Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: On-going monitoring of alternative funding and financing sources with
review on at least an annual basis
Housing Production Strategy 1C: Expedited Processing for Extremely-Low, Very-Low, Low- and
Moderate Income Housing Developments
The City shall continue to offer expedited discretionary entitlement and plan check processing for lower
income housing developments across all City reviewing Departments. Expedited processing provides an
incentive to encourage development of affordable housing projects as shorter development timeframes
results in lower housing production costs. The City will evaluate the effectiveness of the expedited
processing program and modify as needed to encourage affordable housing development. As part of this
evaluation, the City will analyze and monitor the effectiveness of inter-departmental coordination to
ensure that expedited reviews are occurring in a consistent and coordinated manner.
Objective: Expedited processing for affordable housing developments to reduce housing production
costs.
Responsible Party: Community Development/ Planning & Building /Public Works/Public Utilities/Fire
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: TBD
Housing Production Strategy 1D: Affordable Senior Housing Programs
The City recognizes the unique needs of its senior population. Seniors typically have fixed incomes and
unique housing needs that market rate housing does not generally address.
The City currently provides incentives for affordable senior housing through the Senior Citizens’
Apartment Project and Density Bonuses chapters of its Municipal Code. The City will continue to
encourage the development of quality senior housing that, when feasible, includes transportation and
other appropriate supportive services specific to this population. The City will evaluate existing programs
and adjust them accordingly to serve the needs of seniors.
The Housing Authority has utilized the Project-Based component of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
program to preserve and/or create new senior housing. The Housing Authority will continue to work with
affordable housing developers to build on these efforts. The tenant-based component of the Housing
Choice Voucher program will also continue to serve as a vehicle to help low income seniors afford units
of their choice available in the private market.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-9
In addition to the programs detailed above, the City recently launched the Senior Safety Net program that
provides case management, emergency rental assistance and a short-term rental assistance. While this
program is not a production program, it is an important tool that helps to provide support to the senior
population and is part of the City’s homeless prevention strategy.
Objective: Senior housing development and Section 8 financial assistance
Responsible Party: Planning & Building /Community Development /Community Services
Source of Funds: General Fund/HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Production Strategy 1E: Encourage the Development of Housing for Extremely-Low Income (ELI)
Households
The City encourages and facilitates the development of housing units for extremely-low income
households earning less than 30 percent of the Median Family Income for Orange County. To further
these efforts the Housing Authority provides gap financing and/ or Project-Based vouchers to achieve
deeper affordability levels for more units in planned affordable housing developments.
The City has also looked to adopt land use policies that support the development of housing at ELI levels.
In 2018, ahead of the State’s Homekey Program. The City implemented the Anaheim Motel Conversion
Ordinance to allow the conversion of Motels to Permanent Supportive Housing for extremely-low income
households providing another tool to increase the amount of extremely-low income units.
In addition, the City continues to provide an expedited review process for developers applying for Federal
and State Tax Credits, which require a designation of a percentage of the units for extremely low-income
households. The City will place specific emphasis on housing for extremely low-income households by
encouraging the development of transitional living facilities, permanent special needs housing, and senior
housing. The City currently has a number of tools that developers can utilize to create opportunities for
affordable housing development such as the Density Bonus and Senior Citizens' Apartment Housing
ordinances; down payment assistance programs; Section 8 programs; deferral of City development fees;
exemption of Transportation and Impact Fees for Affordable Housing Developments; and expedited
processing for tax credit projects. The City will continue to investigate additional incentives and seek
funding opportunities to encourage development of housing for extremely low-income households.
Objective: Production of extremely low-income units.
Responsible Party: Community Development/ Planning & Building /Housing Authority
Source of Funds: General Fund/HOME/ Section 8 Project-Based Program/ PLHA Funds/Various State and
Federal Funding programs
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing monitoring of the development of extremely low-income units
with review of incentives and potential funding on at least an annual basis
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-10
Housing Production Strategy 1F: Encourage the Development of Housing for Special Needs Households
The City understands the need for housing to accommodate Special Needs households, including persons
with developmental disabilities. Historically, the City has assisted in the development of housing projects
for special needs households by providing technical assistance with tax credit applications, and public
funds, including, ESG, CDBG, and HOME.
Under the umbrella of the Housing Authority, the City has also utilized the provision of Project-based
vouchers and other federal funds such as HOME to support development of housing for special needs
populations. Generally, developments that utilize this type of financing structure are affordable for a
minimum of 55 years.
The City will continue to utilize available incentives to encourage and support the development of rental
housing for special needs families within future affordable housing projects. Developers and builders of
such projects will be required to incorporate specialized social services to assist the special needs
households, in exchange for these incentives.
The City will coordinate with local developers and non-profit entities specializing in housing for Special
Needs residents to meet existing and future housing needs.
Objective: Maintain existing and develop new units for special needs households.
Responsible Party: Community Development/ Planning & Building /Housing Authority
Source of Funds: Housing Authority/General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Housing Production Strategy 1G: Implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
During the sixth Cycle Planning Period, the City will continue to implement The Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan and coordinate with developers proposing projects in this area in an effort to further
encourage the production of high-density housing.
The City will also explore potential expansion opportunities for the Platinum Triangle area, to include
additional areas for the accommodation of housing.
The Platinum Triangle replaces an older industrial area with a dynamic mixed-use development district
including higher density housing, residential-serving retail and amenities and employment-generating
commercial/office uses. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan was developed in conjunction with
the General Plan Update in 2004 and originally allowed for development of up to 9,825 residential units
within the 393 acres of the Platinum Triangle that are designated for mixed-use residential development.
The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan provides opportunity for development of up to 17,501 units
at densities of up to 100 units per acre.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-11
Prior to the adoption of the master land use plan, no residential development was permitted within this
area. The City allocates development intensities to individual properties on a first come basis through the
approval of a development agreement. Since the creation of the Master Land Use Plan, 12,642 residential
units have been entitled for development. Of these entitled units, developers have built 5,232 units and
there is a remaining capacity for the development of up to 4,859 units.
For the sixth Cycle, the City will prioritize and encourage the development of affordable housing units
affordable to moderate, and lower-income households. The City will encourage the maximization of all
of the City’s current and future programs that encourage affordable housing within the Platinum Triangle.
The programs include, but are not limited to, the Housing incentives and Senior Citizens' Apartment
Housing ordinances; down payment assistance programs; Section 8 programs; deferral of City
development fees; exemption of Transportation and Impact Fees for Affordable Housing Developments;
and expedited processing for tax credit projects. The City will explore additional housing options, through
mixed used and higher density development standards and incentives to facilitate opportunities for lower
income households.
Objective: Implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan.
Responsible Party: Community Development/ Planning & Building /Housing Authority
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Housing Production Strategy 1H: Center City Corridors Specific Plan
The City is currently developing the Center City Corridors Specific Plan (C3SP). The Specific Plan will
provide a vision for the future of the Center City Corridors area and contain guiding principles and themes
to inform the evolution of the Study Area over time. The C3SP study area is comprised of approximately
2,600 acres and is centrally located within the City of Anaheim. The C3SP area boundaries are the SR-91
Freeway to the north, Interstate 5 and Platinum Triangle to the south, East Street and the Metrolink
Railroad to the east, and Interstate 5 and West Street to the west.
The Specific Plan will provide opportunities for residential and mixed-use housing development within the
Specific Plan’s four planning areas. A core Guiding Principle of the plan is to “Provide a wider range of
new housing options.” The Specific Plan will consider the permitting of different housing typologies based
on the context and appropriateness to the area.
Timeframe: Within 36 months of adoption of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element
Responsible Agency: Community Development/ Planning & Building
Funding Sources: Grant Funded Project
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-12
Housing Production Strategy 1I: Facilitate Housing Co-Located with Religious and Community Facilities
Religious and Community Facilities provides a unique opportunity to provide affordable housing on
properties that may have surplus land available. Additionally, these sites may support affordable housing
options that could provide additional support services on site.
AB 1851 (Wicks, 2020) allows faith-based organizations like churches and other places of worship to
reduce or eliminate parking requirements when they seek to build affordable housing on land they own
or lease. AB 1851 allows faith-based organizations to build housing on their parking lots, and prohibits
cities from requiring the replacement of those parking spaces.
The City will evaluate opportunities to facilitate co-location of housing on Religious and Community
Facilities sites and collaborate with faith-based organizations to support viable, voluntary opportunities.
Objective: Affordable housing of Religious and Community Facility Sites
Responsible Party: Community Development/ Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Production Strategy 1J: Residential Opportunities Overlay Zone
The City established a Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone in 2011. The RO Overlay Zone has the
following major objectives:
• Create “by-right” opportunities for residential development on sites throughout the City,
consistent with the density allowed by their current General Plan designation.
• To implement state laws that require cities to demonstrate available land capacity and zoning
tools to accommodate the City’s projected need for housing;
• Provide a mix of housing types; and
• Stimulate market-driven development investment.
The City will identify additional sites to apply the RO Overlay Zone to enhance the ability to provide
additional affordable housing opportunities citywide.
Objective: Affordable housing on Residential Opportunity Overlay Zone sites.
Responsible Party: Community Development/Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-13
Housing Production Strategy 1K : Use of Sites from Previous Housing Element Cycles
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c), any non-vacant sites identified in the prior 5th Cycle
or vacant sites identified two or more consecutive planning periods, shall be provided by-right
development when at least 20% of the units in the proposed development are affordable to lower-income
households.
Appendix B identifies vacant and non-vacant sites that the City used in previous Housing Elements to meet
the current RHNA need. To comply with State law, the City will amend the Zoning Code to permit
residential uses by-right for housing development in which at least 20-percent of the units are affordable
to lower-income households for sites that:
• Are non-vacant and identified in the prior planning period; and
• Vacant sites included in two or more consecutive planning periods
Pursuant to the text on page 12 of HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, “Sites where zoning
already permits residential “use by right” as set forth in Government Code section 65583.2 (i) at the
beginning of the planning period would be considered to meet this requirement.” On such sites, the City
would not require, but would be encourage the development of units affordable to lower-income
households.
Objective: Compliance with state law
Responsible Party: Community Development/ Planning & Building /Housing Authority
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Upon adoption of Housing Element
Housing Production Strategy 1L: Development of Housing Information
The City continues to refer persons interested in homeownership to Neighborhood Housing Services of
Orange County, a non-profit agency that assists families with housing opportunities. To disseminate
affordable housing information to a wider audience, the City also established information accessible to
the public that provides a “one stop” location for comprehensive information about Anaheim’s housing
projects, programs, policies, available funding, technical assistance, and other applicable items. In
addition to consolidating information, the City will provide information in easily accessible locations
including the City’s website, public facilities, at public events and at locations community members
frequent. The City shall continue to maintain and update public information as needed and make
improvement that will increase the accessibility and usability of the program.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-14
The City will update the City’s website, provide updates to outreach collateral in various languages and
target specific outreach activities to the segments of the community in need of assistance.
Objective: Facilitate dissemination of housing information
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Housing Production Strategy 1M: Developer Incentives Program
The incentives and concessions that can be offered to developers to offset increased costs associated with
the production of affordable housing include: funding of development fees; write downs of land costs;
long-term ground leases of public property; pre-development loans/grants; funding of off-site
improvements; bond financing; density bonus incentives; fee deferrals; and assistance with tax credit
applications.
For non-Housing Authority sites, the City will support and seek to utilize any emerging State and Federal
and private funding sources.
Objective: Financial incentives for developers (based on available funds) to help facilitate the construction
of new and rehabilitated affordable housing units by 2029
Responsible Party: Community Development/Housing Authority/Orange County Housing Trust Funds
Source of Funds: HUD Funds/Others TBD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-15
Housing Production Strategy 1N: First Time Homebuyer Program
Current first time homebuyer programs include deferred payment second mortgage loans to assist low-
income households in purchasing a home. This loan program offers a 3% simple interest rate and defers
monthly loan payments for up to 30 years. Homebuyers are required to provide a minimum 3% down
payment. To promote the availability of the Down Payment Assistance Program, the City will include
information, including application requirements.
There are limited funding options for the provision of first time down payment assistance programs at
this time; however, the City will explore opportunities to enhance current offerings.
Objective: Mortgage assistance, subject to federal funding availability and local allocation of funds
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: BEGIN/Other State and Federal Funds
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Housing Production Strategy 1O: Police Residence Assistance
This existing program encourages local homeownership for Anaheim police officers who wish to reside in
Anaheim. Through this program, the City provides one-time, no interest forgivable loans of up to $10,000
to Anaheim police officers for purchase of an owner-occupied home within the City.
Objective: Two (2) households
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: 2021-2029
Housing Production Strategy 1P: Review of Entitlement Processes, Development Standards, and
Development Fees
The City understands that overly restrictive development standards, burdensome entitlement processes
and unreasonable development fees can pose a significant barrier to future residential development. In
order to ensure that such conditions do not pose a local barrier to future housing production, the City will
continuously examine its residential development standards, entitlement processes and fees during the
2021-2029 Planning Period to ensure their reasonableness and effectiveness in support of future
residential development.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-16
The City will continue to conduct an annual evaluation of standards, processes and fees to ensure the
continued reasonableness.
Objective: Continued evaluation of reasonableness of development fees, standards and processes.
Responsible Party: Planning & Building /Public Works
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing, Annual Review
Housing Production Strategy 1Q: Promoting Availability of Housing Opportunity Sites
Appendix B Housing Sites Analysis provides a detailed listing of properties that the City has designated
and/or planned for residential land use in the future. The sites identified in Appendix B demonstrate the
City’s ability to accommodate its projected housing need by income category for the 2021-2029 Planning
Period. The City intends for these sites to be available for residential development. The City will continue
to market these available sites by making them available on the City’s website and providing access to all
required development standards and entitlement provisions governing these sites. The City will re-
evaluate its Housing Opportunity site inventory half way through the 2021-2029 Planning Period to
determine if the program has been effective in providing housing opportunities for a variety of income
levels, including lower income and if the City should apply other strategies as a means to encourage
housing development for a variety of income levels.
Objective: Promotion of Housing Opportunity Sites
Responsible Party: Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing, Mid 6th Cycle Review of Sites Inventory
Housing Production Strategy 1R: Multifamily Rezoning in High Resource Area
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) has created opportunity maps identifying areas in
Anaheim 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. To
capitalize on the opportunities within these areas, the City will identify candidate sites within these High
Resource Areas for rezoning to Multiple Family residential use.
Objective: Multiple Family Housing in High Resource Areas
Responsible Party: Community Development/ Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Amend Zoning Code within 36 months of Housing Element adoption.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-17
Housing Program 1S: Accessory Dwelling Units
The City will continue to accommodate and promote the construction of affordable ADUs by increasing
the public awareness of the ADU and Junior ADU permit requirements and new provisions in State law
expanding opportunities for ADU development. The City will develop outreach material for public
dissemination, including updates to the City’s website, information at City Hall and via other appropriate
print and digital media. To promote the development of Accessory Dwelling Units, the City will:
• Update relevant Codes to reflect state law.
• Partner with OCCOG and surrounding jurisdictions in support of creating “pre-approved” ADU
Plans.
• Proactively outreach to property owners in Anaheim to provide greater awareness of program
components by utilizing a variety of print and electronic media.
• Explore additional incentives and/or program components that will further support the
development ADU’s and Junior ADU’s in
• City to maintain an ADU monitoring program during the planning period that tracks ADU
development, including affordability levels and deed-restricted affordable units.
• Conduct a mid-cycle review of ADU development within the 2021-2029 planning period to
evaluate if the City is achieving its production estimates.
Objective: Promotion of Accessory Dwelling Units
Responsible Party: Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing, Mid 6th Cycle Review of Sites Inventory
Housing Production Strategy 1T: Consideration of New Zoning Tools
AB 73 (Chiu, 2017, Government Code Section 65582.1, 66200 through 66210 and Public Resources Code
21155.10 and 21155.11) authorizes localities to create “Housing Sustainability Districts” as a method to
streamline the development of housing. The legislation provides a pathway for state financial incentives
to cities and counties. This law allows for the creation of housing on infill sites around public
transportation by incentivizing local governments to complete upfront zoning and environmental review
and rewarding them when they permit housing.
SB 540 (Roth, 2017, authorizes cities and counties to establish a “Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone”
by preparing a policy and regulatory plan and certifying an environmental impact report (EIR). The plan
should be similar to that described in existing planning law, but must include the planned location of 100
to 1,500 housing units at specified minimum densities and must be consistent with an applicable SB 375
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-18
Sustainable Communities Strategy. The plan must include additional details, including design review
criteria and additional public hearing requirements that the local jurisdiction has added to the plan
adoption process. Some housing projects will not require additional CEQA review and will require approval
within 60 days after the City has deemed the application complete, including projects that:
• Comply with the policy and regulatory plan(s);
• Include a prescribed amount of very-low, low-, moderate-, and medium-income housing units;
and
• Would be constructed using prevailing wage rules.
The City is currently planning to apply its Residential Opportunity (RO) and Mixed-Use (MU) Overlay Zones
to sites that the City has identified to meet its RHNA allocation and are not already within residential or
mixed-use zones. However, as part of this rezoning effort, which will also include amendments to the
General Plan Land Use Element, the City will consider the possibility of utilizing either a “Housing
Sustainability District” or a “Workforce Opportunity Zone.” The City will complete the environmental
clearance for these sites in conjunction with the programmatic EIR addressing comprehensive review of
rezoned housing sites in the City, implementing this Housing Element.
Objective: Consideration of New Zoning Tools
Responsible Party: Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: within 36 months of the adoption of the Housing Element.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-19
Policy Strategy #2: Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2A: Monitoring and Preservation of “At-Risk” Units
To ensure the continued provision of affordable units, the City will regularly monitor the over 3,805 deed-
restricted, affordable housing units that exist citywide. Of these units, the City has identified 524 units as
having the potential of converting to market-rate units during the planning period because of expiring
deed restrictions. The City will provide targeted outreach to owners of these units to encourage the
extension and/or renewal of deed restrictions and/or covenants that ensure affordability. In order to
address units at-risk of conversion proactively, the City shall develop a program to collaborate with non-
profit housing providers and develop a preservation strategy. The preservation strategy will allow the City
to act quickly if, and when, it receives notice of conversion. As part of the strategy, the City shall ensure
compliance with noticing requirements; conduct tenant education and pursue funding to preserve the
units.
Objective: Continual monitoring of all assisted units with focused effort on the identified 524 at-risk units.
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: HUD/State/Federal/Qualified Preservation Entities
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2B: Conservation of Existing Historic Resources
The City is currently home to 381 historic homes that maintain valid Mills Act contracts. These contracts
provide a powerful incentive aimed at maintaining and preserving the cultural resources that add
tremendous value to many of the City’s neighborhoods, including its established Historic Districts. The
City shall continue to provide opportunities for the conservation of existing historic resources through the
Mills Act Program. The City shall also continue to provide outreach to residents within the City’s Historic
Districts and owners of historic properties outside of these districts via print media, the City’s website and
social media to inform them of the program benefits.
Objective: Continued conservation of Historic Resources
Responsible Party: Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing, 2021-2029
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-20
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2C: Community-Based Neighborhood Enhancement
Continue to encourage the involvement of neighborhood-based groups in the conservation, preservation
and enhancement of neighborhood quality of life. Efforts will focus on community participation related
to planning activities, strategies and programs that directly address quality of life in Anaheim’s
neighborhoods. The City will continue focused outreach efforts, through a variety of marketing techniques
(e.g., website, informational flyers, facilitating pre-development community meetings, providing regular
development updates to established neighborhood organizations, etc.) to encourage additional public
participation in ongoing neighborhood improvement efforts.
Objective: Enhanced community participation in neighborhood enhancement efforts
Responsible Party: Planning & Building /Community Development/Police/Community Services
Source of Funds: General Fund/Other Sources TBD
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing, 2021-2029
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2D: Neighborhood Improvement
The City shall continue the identification and mitigation of substandard units and properties exhibiting
deferred maintenance through continued implementation of the Neighborhood Improvement Program,
and enhanced Code Enforcement efforts. The City shall continue to focus efforts on neighborhoods
exhibiting significant blight and on those “borderline” neighborhoods that have the potential for blight
absent focused attention. The City shall also continue to facilitate private efforts to acquire substandard
rental properties, rehabilitate the buildings and establish long-term affordability covenants. During the
planning period, the City will re-assess its list of Priority Level III and IV neighborhoods to ensure that these
neighborhoods remain properly classified. In addition, the City will seek to identify other neighborhoods
that are exhibiting blight, or that have the potential for blight, for potential inclusion on the priority lists
associated with the Neighborhood Improvement Program.
The City has facilitated private efforts in priority neighborhoods such as the Hermosa Village, Paseo Village
and the Avon Dakota neighborhoods to acquire substandard rental properties, rehabilitate the buildings
and establish long-term affordability covenants. The City has rehabilitated and entered into covenants
for over 734 units in these neighborhoods. The City will continue to conduct additional acquisitions of
substandard rental properties, rehabilitate the buildings and establish long-term affordability covenants
in the following neighborhoods and others as the City identifies such neighborhoods:
• Ariel/Olinda • ABC
• Glen/Neighbors • Rose/Bush/Vine
• Avon/Dakota • Jeffrey/Lynne
• Guinida Lane • Haster/Orangewood
• Balsam/Curtis • Park Lane
• Anna Drive • Benmore/Canfield
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-21
Objective: Expedited processing for affordable housing developments to reduce housing production
costs.
Responsible Party: Planning & Building /Community Development/Community Services
Source of Funds: General Fund/HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing, 2021-2029
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2E: Residential Uses Not Defined as Single
Housekeeping Unit.
Section 18.92.220 of the Anaheim Municipal Code defines a "Single Housekeeping Unit" as follows: “A
non-transient group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the use of common
areas, for the purpose of sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores and
expenses. If the dwelling is rented, each adult resident is named on and is a party to a single written lease
that gives each resident joint use and responsibility for the premises. The membership of the household
is determined by the residents, not by a landlord, property manager or other third party. Other typical
factors that indicate a household operating as a Single Housekeeping Unit may include, but not limited to,
the following: the residents do not have separate and private entrances from other residents; the
residents do not have a separate secured food facilities such as separate refrigerators or food-prep areas;
the household is strictly resident-run; there is no care or supervision provided by a third-party or a paid
resident/house manager at the dwelling unit or on the property.”
Section 18.26.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code describes a “Boarding House” as follows: “A building,
or portion thereof, where lodging is provided for persons, with or without meals for monetary or non-
monetary compensation, on a commercial basis, for typical stays of more than seven (7) consecutive
nights with no cooking facilities in the guest rooms. The total number of people living at the property,
including permanent residents, live-in operators, and guests, shall not exceed fifteen (15) people. This use
class shall not include a Hotel, Motel, Bed and Breakfast Inn, Convalescent & Rest Homes, Alcoholism or
Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities, Community Care Facilities–Licensed, Community Care
Facilities - Unlicensed, Sober Living Homes, or any other uses defined in this Section.”
Staff will continue to review State Law to verify that it meets all State law requirements for uses that fall
between the categories of a Single Housekeeping Unit and a Boarding House. The purpose of this review
will be to ensure that these uses, where State law requires the City to treat said uses as a residential use,
do not create any impacts to residential neighborhoods that are not typical of a Single Housekeeping Unit.
Objective: Compliance with State Law Requirements for Residential Uses that do not meet the definition
of Single Housekeeping Unit
Responsible Party: Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing, 2021-2029
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-22
Policy Strategy #3: Housing Quality and Design Strategy
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3A: Efficient use of Energy Resources in Residential Development
Encourage residential developers to maximize energy conservation through proactive site, building and
systems design that exceed the provisions of Title 24 of the California Building Code. To further promote
efficient use of energy resources, the City shall investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of offering
incentives or other strategies to further encourage energy conservation in new and existing housing.
Objective: Increased sustainable building practices/energy conservation
Responsible Party: Public Utilities/ Planning & Building
Source of Funds: Public Utilities/General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Annually, as funds are available
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3B: Monitoring of Adopted Reasonable Accommodation
Procedures
The City understands the importance of providing equal housing opportunity for persons with special
needs. Persons with disabilities may require reasonable accommodations to meet their particular housing
needs. To comply with federal and state housing laws, the City adopted reasonable accommodation
procedures to provide exceptions and/or relief from Code regulations and permitting procedures that
may have a discriminatory effect on housing for individuals with disabilities. The policy shall include
procedures for requesting accommodation, timeline for processing and appeals, criteria for determining
whether a requested accommodation is reasonable, and ministerial approval for minor requests.
The City shall continue to monitor to ensure the effectiveness of reasonable accommodation standards
and procedures.
Objective: Monitoring of adopted reasonable accommodation procedures
Responsible Party: Planning & Building/City Attorney
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-23
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3C: Universal Design
The City recognizes that all people have varying physical abilities and that many people will encounter
temporary or permanent changes in ability to conduct the tasks necessary for daily living throughout their
lives. The City adopted its Universal Design Principles in 2012. The Principles are available on the City’s
Website to guide the design and construction of homes to incorporate features that are usable by people
of all abilities. These features help to create housing that can allow residents to stay in their homes over
their lifetime and create living environments that are safer and more accessible for everyone. The
Universal Design program intends to provide development incentives, which will facilitate the building of
residential spaces that include products and technology to accommodate families of all ages and
backgrounds. The City shall continue to monitor over time to ensure implementation of Universal Design
features in housing.
Objective: Monitoring of Universal Design Principles
Responsible Party: Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3D: Parks and Open Space
The Green Element of Anaheim’s General Plan is a comprehensive plan to ensure that the City is meeting
the community’s recreational needs. Parks and open space are important factors that contribute to
Anaheim residents’ quality of life. As the housing stock and population grows in the City, and vacant land
becomes scarcer, the City will need to continue to explore creative opportunities to provide quality parks,
open space and recreational amenities for Anaheim residents. The City will ensure consistency between
the goals of the Green Element and Housing Element to ensure a balance between the provision of
additional housing and additional recreational amenities that support the growing population of the City.
Objective: Ensure consistency with the goals of the Green Element
Responsible Party: Planning & Building/Community Services
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3E: Community Design
The Community Design Element of Anaheim’s General Plan provides policy guidance to ensure quality
design of the City’s built environment. This element addresses community-wide design features such as
gateways, landscaping, streets and public signage, as well as special policies for specific districts within
the City. Many of these policies are also reflected in the City’s Zoning Code (Title 18 of the Municipal
Code), as well the City’s other design guidelines/plans such as the Affordable Housing Design Guidelines;
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-24
The Anaheim Colony, Vision Principles and Design Guidelines; The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use
Plan; and, the Greater Downtown of Anaheim Guide for Development.
In order to ensure quality design of the City’s neighborhoods, the City will ensure that it continues to use
and reference the Community Design Element during the review of proposed housing developments. The
City will also update the Element to address current development trends, as necessary.
Objective: Ensure quality design of future residential projects
Responsible Party: Planning & Building /Public Works/Fire
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3F: Provision of Infrastructure to Serve Housing
The City understands the need to provide adequate infrastructure to support existing and future housing
needs. To address future demand on infrastructure facilities proactively, the City will work collaboratively
to ensure future housing demand is coordinated with future capital planning for the City’s potable water,
electrical, storm drain and sewer infrastructure systems.
The City shall continue to identify existing deficiencies to the water, electrical, storm drain and sewer
systems in those areas where the City expects future residential development to occur, and balance those
needs with public safety, economics, efficiencies, regulatory requirements and other Capital Improvement
Plan objectives.
Objective: Provision of infrastructure to support future housing growth
Responsible Party: Public Works/Public Utilities/ Planning & Building /Community Development
Source of Funds: General Fund/Impact Fees/Grants/Utility Rates/User Fees
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-25
Housing Production Strategy 3G: Affordable Housing Design Guidelines
The City’s Affordable Housing Design Guidelines provide summary broad level design guidance for the
design of affordable housing units. To further the effectiveness of these Design Guidelines, the City will
evaluate their content and effectiveness. Based upon this review, the City will adopt additional design
guidance and/or converting appropriate sections into objective development standards within the City’s
Zoning Code.
Objective: Effective Affordable Housing Design Guidance.
Responsible Party: Community Development/ Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Amend Affordable Housing Design Guidelines within 36 months of Housing
Element adoption.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-26
Policy Strategy #4: Housing Rehabilitation
Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4A: Affordable Housing Development through Acquisition and
Conversion
The elimination of Redevelopment has diminished the City’s ability to maintain prior levels of acquisition
and rehabilitation, which the City had previously used to create affordable housing units. As a result, the
City will primarily focus the use of its limited resources in neighborhoods previously identified as Level III
and Level IV priority neighborhoods through the Neighborhood Improvement Program. To support such
efforts, the City shall continue to provide, through regulatory incentives such as expedited processing,
financial incentives and development concessions, for the acquisition and rehabilitation of blighted
apartment housing units. The City will focus efforts on the acquisition, rehabilitation, conversion and
accessibility of existing market-rate units to long-term affordable units.
The City Council has also continued to support the continued acquisition and rehabilitation of apartment
buildings in the Hermosa Village, Paseo Village and Avon Dakota neighborhoods in order to create and
expand long-term affordability. The City has rehabilitated and entered into covenants for over 734 units
in these two neighborhoods and will continue to implement an aggressive acquisitions program within
these neighborhoods. The City will continue to conduct additional acquisitions of substandard rental
properties, rehabilitate the buildings and establish long-term affordability covenants in the following
neighborhoods and others as the City identifies such neighborhoods:
• Ariel/Olinda • ABC
• Glen/Neighbors • Rose/Bush/Vine
• Avon/Dakota • Jeffrey/Lynne
• Guinida Lane • Haster/Orangewood
• Balsam/Curtis • Park Lane
• Anna Drive • Benmore/Canfield
In addition, pursuant to AMC 18.38.215, the City encourages the conversion of existing motels, and other
commercial and office structures, to Supportive, Transitional and Multiple-Family Housing for low-income
persons, for a defined period of time or until the City achieves a maximum unit threshold. This Code
section established the regulatory framework to achieve a high level of livability for residents and ensure
compatibility with surrounding uses in support of City Council policies to develop a continuum of care that
assists individuals in transitioning from homelessness and Emergency Shelters to Transitional and
Supportive Housing. During the fifth cycle, the City used this Code section to convert a former motel into
69 units of Permanent Supportive Housing. The City will continue to encourage the use of this Code section
in the sixth cycle.
Objective: Very-low income units and low-income units
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: HOME, PLHA
Timeline for Implementation: 2021-2029
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-27
Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4B: Rehabilitation of Single Family Homes
The City of Anaheim has a Residential Rehabilitation Program to assist low-income families in Anaheim to
improve their living conditions by focusing efforts on health, safety, and accessibility through critical home
repairs. The City provides financial assistance for needed repairs as a forgivable loan and completed by
our non-profit partner Habitat for Humanity of Orange County. The goal of this program is to correct
hazardous structural conditions; to make improvements considered necessary to eliminate blight; and, to
correct building and health code violations.
To supplement this program, the City shall seek local, State and Federal funding resources to provide
additional rehabilitation loans for appropriate exterior and interior improvements that enhance the
quality, safety, accessibility and livability of existing single-family homes.
Objective: Rehabilitation of Single Family Homes
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: CDBG/HOME
Timeline for Implementation: 2021-2029
Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4C: Relocation Assistance
As and when required by law, the City shall provide financial relocation assistance, such as payment of
moving costs, for qualified tenants during City-assisted substantial rehabilitation of residential units.
Relocation can be temporary or permanent.
Objective: Relocation assistance, as needed
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: HOME/Low-Mod Set-Aside/Various State, Federal Sources to be Determined
Timeline for Implementation: 2021-2029, as needed
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-28
Policy Strategy #5: Affordable Housing Strategy
Affordable Housing Strategy 5A: Supportive Housing and Low Barrier Navigation Centers:
State law provisions have recently been modified to require approval 'by right' of supportive and low
barrier navigation centers that meet the requirements of State law. Low barrier navigation centers are
generally defined as service-enriched shelters focused on moving people into permanent housing. Low
barrier navigation centers provide temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals
experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. If the City
receives applications for these uses, it will process them as required by California Government Code Section
65660-65688..
Objective: The City will review its zoning code for compliance with statutory requirements.
Responsible Agency: Planning & Building
Funding Sources: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Within 24 months of adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element
Affordable Housing Strategy 5B: Permanent Supportive Housing
The City of shall amend its Zoning Code, pursuant to Government Code Section 65651, to permit
Supportive housing as a use by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including
nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, subject to the requirements of state law.
Objective: Permanent Supportive Housing
Responsible Party: Community Development/ Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Amend Zoning Code within 24 months of Housing Element adoption.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-29
Affordable Housing Strategy 5C: Zoning Incentives for Special Needs Housing
The City understands Special Needs groups may have unique housing needs that developers do not
typically address in traditional housing development. To encourage private development to address
special needs design features the City will incorporate design features and facilities considerations for
Special Needs populations and will evaluate and adopt a variety of zoning incentives to encourage the
inclusion of these features in housing development.
Objective: Incentives for Special Needs Housing
Responsible Party: Community Development/ Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Amend Zoning Code within 24 months of Housing Element adoption.
Affordable Housing Strategy 5D: Compliance with SB 35 Permit Streamlining Provisions
The City of Anaheim will establish written procedures to comply with California Government Code Section
65913.4 and publish those procedures for the public, as appropriate, to comply with the requirements of
SB 35. These provisions apply when the City does not meet the State mandated requirements for Housing
Element progress and reporting on Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Currently, the City of
Anaheim is subject to SB 35 and is required to process development projects with at least 50% affordable
units through a streamlined permit process (i.e., 90 days for projects with up to 150 units). All projects
covered by SB 35 are still subject to the objective development standards of the City of Anaheim Municipal
Code and Building Code. However, qualifying projects cannot be subject to Design Review or public
hearings; and in many cases, the City cannot require parking. Per SB 35 requirements, the City cannot
impose parking requirements on a SB 35 qualified streamlining project if it is located:
• Within a half-mile of public transit;
• Within an architecturally and historically significant historic district;
• In an area where on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupants of the
development; or
• Where there is a car-share vehicle located within one block of the proposed project.
One parking space per unit may be required of all other SB 35 projects. The City’s status with regard to
SB 35 can change over time with a record of good progress towards RHNA and timely reporting to the
State.
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2021-2029
Responsible Agency: Planning & Building / Community Development
Funding Sources: General Fund
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-30
Affordable Housing Strategy 5E: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
Pursuant to AB 686, the City will affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions in addition
to resisting discrimination, that overcomes patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free
from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected classes, as defined by State law.
The City will collaborate with appropriate capable organizations to review housing discrimination
complaints, assist in the facilitation of equitable dispute resolution, and, where necessary, refer
complainants to appropriate state or federal agencies for further investigation, action and resolution.
Section 3 of the Housing Element contains an analysis of Anaheim’s existing conditions. The analysis found
that:
• There are no racially or ethnically concentrated census tracts (RECAPs) within Anaheim as
identified by HUD. This indicates that there are no census tracts within the City with a non-white
population of 50 percent or more or any census tracts that have a poverty rate that exceeds 40%
or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area. However, there
are two census tracts, which HUD identifies as areas of high segregation and experiencing poverty.
• The UC Davis Regional Opportunity Index shows that the majority of residents within Anaheim
have a moderate to low level of access to opportunity throughout the City. Additionally, analysis
of the TCAC/HCD opportunity Area Maps show that those maps classify some census tracts in
Anaheim with the “Low to Moderate Resource” designation. This indicates that these census
tracts may lack essential mobility, retail/food, economic, housing or civic resource that may
promote upward mobility and result in healthier neighborhoods. East Anaheim shows some
census tracts some areas as high resource and high opportunity.
• The City provides moderate transit trip opportunity, additionally, about 97% of all city jobs are
within ½ mile of transit but just about 3 percent of the working population uses public transit as
a primary source of transportation.
• The City has demonstrated the ability to meet the anticipated future affordable housing needs of
the community through the designation of sites to meet the very low and low-income RHNA need
(Appendix B) These sites are dispersed throughout the community.
• There are 524 current units with affordable covenants at risk of converting to market rate before
the year 2029 in the City.
• The CalEnviro Screen mapping tool (2018) identified most of the City as moderate to high scoring,
indicating high pollution levels, some of which overlap with identified R/ECAPs in the City.
The City will continue to work with the community to address potential constraints to fair housing
Anaheim. This may include actions such as an analysis of barriers to entry into homeownership or rental,
review of historic policies or restrictions that may have prevented or may still prevent disadvantaged
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-31
groups from locating in Anaheim, or specific actions that contribute to Anaheim being a more inclusive to
all racial, social and economic groups.
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2021-2029
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Funding Sources: General Fund/CDBG
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5F: Local Support of Regional Fair Housing Efforts
The Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC) and similar agencies provide community education,
individual counseling, mediation, and low-cost advocacy with the expressed goal of eliminating housing
discrimination and guaranteeing the rights of all people irrespective of race religion, sex, marital status,
ancestry, national origin, color, age, family size or disability to freely choose the housing for which they
qualify in the area they desire. The City provides ongoing fair housing training for front lime staff assigned
to the delivery of housing services. Additionally, City staff refers inquiries for fair housing services to the
FHCOC and similar agencies and maintains literature and informational brochures at City Hall available for
public distribution.
To further outreach to the community, the City shall provide fair housing information in multiple
languages and through print and electronic media that may include the City’s website, brochures and
newsletters.
Objective: Allocate annual financial allocation, based on program funding availability. Estimated annual
allocation of $100,000
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: CDBG
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-32
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5G: Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
The Anaheim Housing Authority provides rental assistance through the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program. Under this program, families/individuals whose annual income is below 50 percent of the HUD
Area Median Income a can apply to receive a housing subsidy. Participants pay approximately 30 percent
of their adjusted gross monthly income for rent. The Authority pays the remainder of the rent directly to
the property owner. The City bases its funding for the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program on
Congressional appropriations and is subject to available funds.
Objective: Estimated 6,500 Vouchers annually, subject to federal funding availability
Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5H: Section 8 Mainstream Housing Program Vouchers for
Persons with Disabilities
This program provides Section 8 rental assistance to very-low-income persons with disabilities to enable
them to access rental housing available on the open market in a community of their choice. The Housing
Authority screens its current Section 8 waiting list for disabled persons who meet the eligibility
requirements for this program. Once the City has identified and assisted all of the disabled applicants on
the Section 8 waiting list, the Housing Authority seeks disabled referrals from various local service
providers. Housing Authority staff works closely with these local service providers to ensure that Section
8 tenants are receiving the supportive services they require in order to live independently.
Objective: Estimated 225 Vouchers annually, subject to federal funding availability
Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5I: Section 8 Homeless Preference
The City of Anaheim has developed a number of programs to address the immediate needs of persons
experiencing homelessness. In support of these efforts, the Housing Authority has adopted policies that
allow for the provision of preferences for persons in a homeless status in the Section 8 program
admissions policies. The following is a list of local preferences offered in their order of selection.
1. Special Needs Populations
• a. [Mainstream].
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-33
• b. The Housing Authority will commit up to 50% of annual new admission vouchers to assist
Anaheim-based homeless families who are either:
o Referred by an approved local service provider because they are participating in a local
transitional housing program or are receiving other supportive and shelter services from
that provider. Providers may be required to verify that applicants had ties to Anaheim
prior to entering the shelter and commit to providing appropriate services to the client;
or
o Participating in a city-funded homeless program and have been referred by the connected
service agency.
Applicants must meet all eligibility requirements. Admissions will be on a first come, first served basis and
is subject to funding availability. Additionally, the Housing Authority must verify any preferences claimed
by an applicant that determined their placement on the waiting list.
The homeless preference policies listed above provide the tools necessary to address the immediate
needs of persons experiencing homeless more effectively, as the average waiting time to receive a Section
8 Housing Choice Vouchers is seven to eight years and often longer.
Objective: Housing Choice vouchers, subject to federal funding availability
Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5J: Project Based Voucher Program
Federal regulations allow the Housing Authority to take a portion of its Housing Choice Voucher allocation
and convert it to Project Based assistance for the purposes of expanding housing opportunities for very-
low income individual and families. Under the PBV option, the Housing Authority can commitment rental
assistance vouchers for a period of up to 20 years to a property in exchange for the owner’s agreement
to rent predetermined units in the selected property to families coming from the Section 8 Waiting list
exclusively during the commitment period. New construction units, rehabilitated units and existing
housing units qualify under this program.
Objective: Provision of Project-Based vouchers to facilitate the preservation and production of affordable
housing, subject to federal funding availability.
Responsible Party: Community Development/Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: 2021-2029
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-34
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5K: Emergency Solutions Grant Program
The City shall utilize federal Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds to assist people that are homeless or
those who are at-risk of becoming homeless. The City shall distribute ESG funds to non-profit
organizations that provide emergency or transitional shelter and supportive services to people that are
homeless. ESG funds are contingent upon program funding availability.
Objective: Estimated $380,000 year in ESG Grants, subject to federal funding availability
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5L: Homeless and At Risk for Homelessness
The City of Anaheim understands the unique needs of persons at risk for homeless as well as those
currently experiencing homelessness and has made a substantial investment to provide services and
shelter to address current needs. Through the City’s Pathway Home, Pathway to Healing and Pathway to
Work programs, Anaheim has employed a comprehensive approach to Homelessness and Homeless
prevention. Developed with a “housing first” model, the City prioritizes getting people into housing with
supportive services. The “pathways” seek to bridge the gap between homelessness and safe, affordable
and stable housing.
The City has also made significant efforts and prioritized funding for innovative street outreach programs,
shelter support activities, and the creation of permanent supportive housing.
To address the unique needs of individuals at risk of or already experiencing homelessness, the City has
and will continue to collaborate with local advocacy groups, motel owners, police and human service
agencies and other interested parties to enhance strategies and actions to transition the chronically
homeless, temporary homeless and into permanent housing.
Objective: The City shall continue to identify permanent housing opportunities for homeless individuals
and families.
Responsible Party: Community Services/Community Development/ Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund/ State Homeless funds/ Federal HOME Funds
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT August 2021] Page 4-35
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Table 4-1 summarizes the quantifiable objectives that the City reasonably expects to meet based on the
Policy Program. The New Construction quantified objectives address the growth needs in the City. The
Rehabilitation, Conservation and Assistance Programs objectives address the existing needs in the City
identified in Chapter 2.
Table 4-1: Quantified Objective Summary
2021-2029 Planning Period
Program Quantified Objective New Construction
Extremely Low 372
Very Low 352
Low 332
Moderate 75
Above-moderate 7,000
Total 8,131
Rehabilitation
Multifamily Rehabilitation Very Low 90
Multifamily Rehabilitation Low 42
Total 112
Conservation
At-Risk Units Extremely Low 0
At-Risk Units Very Low 139
At-Risk Units Low 385
At-Risk Units Moderate 0
Total 524
Assistance Programs
Police Residence Assistance 2
Section 8 Rental Assistance 6,200
Section 8 Mainstream 397
NED Vouchers 175
VASH Vouchers 94
Emergency Housing Vouchers 274
Tenant Protection Vouchers 26
HOPWA Vouchers 75
Section 8 Homeless Program 91
Project Based Voucher Program 720
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance
Page A-1
Appendix A
Review of Past Performance
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-2
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance
The following matrix provides a review of the City of Anaheim Housing Policy Program for the 2014-2021 Planning Period. The City has reviewed
its Fifth Cycle Housing Policy Program for accomplishments and/or progress in implementation throughout the 2014-2021 planning period.
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
Housing Strategy Area #1: Housing Production – establishes policy actions for the production of a range of rental and for-sale housing units
in the City.
1.A Evaluate
Alternative Funding and
Financing Mechanisms
The City must pursue
alternative funding and
financing tools that will
contribute to the development
of additional affordable
housing opportunities citywide.
The objective of this program is
to explore alternative funding
and financing mechanisms.
• In July 2018, the Anaheim City Council
adopted an Affordable Housing Policy
Statement encouraging the development of
affordable housing.
• The Policy Statement was not an absolute
requirement to produce affordable housing
units; however, it provides a framework for
staff to engage in conversation with
developers about available City resources for proposed projects that could result the
creation of affordable housing to the extent
feasible.
• Resources include offering rental incentive
or assistance programs; down payment
assistance programs to assist income-
qualified first-time homebuyers; partnering
with and assisting non-profit organization(s)
pursuing affordable housing projects in the
City, including the provision of “in-kind”
services; and/or other options that City
deems in furtherance of its affordable
needs, goals, and objectives.
Continued. The City will
continue to research
funding opportunities
into the 6th Cycle to
expand affordable
housing options.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-3
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
• In addition, the City pursued alternative
funding and financing tools that contributed
to the development of additional affordable
housing opportunities citywide.
1.B
Expedited Processing
for Extremely-Low,
Very-Low, Low and
Moderate Income Housing Developments
Expedited processing is
provided as an incentive to
encourage development of
affordable housing projects as
shorter development timeframes results in lower
housing production costs. The
objective of this program is to
expedite processing for affordable housing
developments to reduce
housing production costs.
• The City continues to provide expedited
discretionary entitlement and plan check
processing for extremely-low, very-low, low- and moderate income affordable housing
developments for a total of at least 1,954
units with at least 331 extremely-low
income units during the planning period.
Continued the City will
continue to implement
this program in the 6th
Cycle.
1.C Affordable Senior
Housing Program
Seniors typically have fixed
incomes and unique housing
needs that are not generally
addressed in market rate
housing. The objective of this program is to improve Senior
housing development and
Section 8 financial assistance.
• (2014) The Housing Authority continues to
assist Senior Housing Development as
resources become available, including the
following efforts:
• The City approved several extensions of its Section 8 Project Based Vouchers for
Tyrol Plaza, a 60 unit Senior Housing
Project.
• The City/Authority assisted the Village
Center Senior Apartments a 100-unit at-
risk project through the issuance of Tax-
Exempt Bonds for the rehabilitation of
the project and preserving an affordable
Continued. The City has
identified senior housing
as a key priority; the City
will continue the
implementation of this program into the 6th
Cycle.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-4
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
project from being lost to market rate
housing.
• The Housing Authority also assisted The
Miracle Terrace Senior Apartments by
converting 128 Tenant-Protection
Vouchers from HUD to Section 8 Project-
based Vouchers to help preserve 128
extremely low-income senior rental-
housing units.
• (2015) No projects were assisted in 2015,
however, the City/Authority continues to
work with developers to identify senior
rental affordable housing opportunities and
issued a HOME/CHDO Funds RFP in 2015,
and subsequently re-issued the RFP in 2016
in the amount of $3,050,000. One of the priorities of the RFP is for the development
of senior rental housing.
• (2016) The City/Authority issued a
Preliminary Funding Award Letter for
HOME/CHDO Funds in 2016 for $3,050,000
for the development of a 54-unit senior
rental housing project.
• The Housing Authority did not provide
funding assistance for new construction of
senior rental housing in 2018-2020.
However, the Housing Authority funded the
El Verano senior housing project, which
completed construction in November 2020.
The El Verano Senior Rental Housing Project
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-5
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
will set aside 50% of the units for homeless
seniors.
1.D Encourage the
Development of
Housing for Extremely Low-Income
Households
The City currently has a
number of incentives that
developers can utilize to create opportunities for affordable
housing development such as
the Density Bonus and Senior
Citizens' Apartment Housing
ordinances; down payment assistance programs; Section 8
programs; deferral of City
development fees; exemption
of Transportation and Impact
Fees for Affordable Housing Developments; and expedited
processing for tax credit
projects. The objective of this
program is to encourage production of a minimum of 50
extremely low-income units.
• The City continues to work with developers
for the creation of extremely low income units. Since 2014, 331 were completed or
were in the development pipeline. The City
assisted some of the projects listed using the
City’s incentive programs such as Density
Bonus, expedited review, fee waivers, fee deferrals, Section 8, and other funding
programs.
Continued. The Program
will continue into the 6th
Cycle and will explore additional opportunities
to facilitate the
development of housing
for extremely low-income
households through funding, financing,
regulatory concessions,
or other methods.
1.E
Encourage the
Development of
Housing for Special
Needs Households
The City shall continue to
utilize available incentives to
encourage and support the
development of rental housing
for special needs families
within future affordable housing projects. The objective
of this program is to maintain
existing and develop new units
for special needs households.
• The Rockwood Apartments (Lincoln Avenue)
project completed construction, which
includes 48 special needs units for extremely
low and very-low income persons who are
homeless and 15 Special Needs units for
extremely low-income persons who are
homeless and have a mental illness.
• Community & Economic Development
Department completed construction on the
Continued. The City will
continue the
implementation of this
program in the 6th Cycle.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-6
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
El Verano 54 –unit senior special needs
rental housing project, which includes 27
units for homeless seniors.
• Construction on the
Manchester/Orangewood Apartment
project was started a 100% affordable 102-
unit workforce rental housing project. The
development will make available 20 of the
102 units to homeless families. The project
is currently under construction and developer expects to complete the project
in 2021.
• The Econo Lodge Permanent Supportive
Housing (PSH) apartment community a
100% affordable 70-unit motel conversion
project started construction in 2020. The project held its grand opening on August 23,
2021.
• The City approved the Salvation Army's
Center of Hope Permanent Supportive
Housing Phase I project (PSH project) in
early 2021.
• The Anaheim Midway Apartments, an 86
unit 100% affordable workforce family
project will designate eight units in the
project to homeless households.
1.F Implementation of
The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use
The City will continue to
implement The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
• Implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan continues with 5,322
residential units completed to date; 430
Continued. The City will
continue to support the development of a range
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-7
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
Plan and coordinate with developers
proposing projects in this area
in an effort to encourage the
production of high-density
housing. The objective of this
program is to implement The
Platinum Triangle Master Land
Use Plan.
residential units are currently under
construction; and, an additional 6,880 units
are entitled through development
agreements, but not yet under construction.
of housing types and
affordability levels in the
Platinum Triangle during
the 6th cycle.
1.G Development of
Housing Information
Clearinghouse
The City will place information
in easily accessible locations
including the City’s website,
public facilities, at public events and at locations
community members frequent.
The objective of this program is
to facilitate dissemination of
housing information.
• The Community & Economic Development
Department/Housing Authority updated and
improved the Department’s website to provide access to affordable housing
programs and information.
Continued. The
Community & Economic
Development
Department/Housing Authority will continue to
update and improve the
Department’s website in
the 6th Cycle.
1.H Support for
Community Housing
Development Organizations (CHDOs)
Per the HOME program
regulations, the City must
allocate a minimum of 15 percent of HOME funds to
qualified Community Housing
Development Organization
(CHDO). A CHDO is a non-
profit, community-based
organization with the capacity
to develop affordable housing
within the community it serves.
The objective of this program is
to continue to provide funds to
qualified CHDOs for affordable
unit production.
• The Community Development Department
committed 48 Section 8 Project-based
Vouchers and a loan in the amount of
$2,500,000 to Jamboree Housing and Innovative Housing Opportunities (both
qualified CHDO’s) for an affordable housing
project located 1256-1290 East Lincoln
Avenue.
• The City/Authority issued a HOME/CHDO
Funds RFP in 2015 and 2016 making $2,500,000 in HOME funds and $550,000 in
HOME CHDO funds available to affordable
Continued. Although
HUD no longer requires
the City to continue to provide funds to CHDOs,
the City will continue to
work with CHDOs to
create affordable housing
opportunities.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-8
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
housing developers and CHDO’s for the
creation of affordable housing.
• The HOME CHDO funds were awarded to a
developer for the construction of a 54-unit
senior housing development located at 1248
East Lincoln Ave
• The Community & Economic Development
worked with the developer of the El Verano
senior housing project, which obtained a Tax
Credit allocation in 2018 from the California
Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC).
The developer for this project is a certified
CHDO. The El Verano project will set aside
50% of the units for homeless seniors
• The Community & Economic Development
entered into a Preliminary Funding Award
Letter with Jamboree Housing Corporation, who is also a certified CHDO to develop a
Housing Authority-owned parcel with a 102-
unit workforce housing project
(Manchester/Orangewood Apartments).
Twenty of the 102 units will be available to
homeless families and individuals. The
Project is under construction and the City
anticipates its completion in 2021.
1.I Developer Incentives
Program
The objective of this program is
to provide financial incentives for developers (based on
available funds) to help
facilitate the construction of
• The Community & Economic Development Department assisted affordable housing
developers by providing subsidy loans,
down-payment assistance, Section 8 Project
Based vouchers, long-term ground leases
Continued. The City will
continue this Program into the 6th Cycle and will
require the City to
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-9
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
710 new and rehabilitated
affordable housing units by
2021.
and miscellaneous rebates and fee credits to
help offset total development costs. In 2020,
the Community & Economic Development
Department commenced negotiations on
the following projects and are expected to
be finalized or underway in 2021:
• Anaheim Midway Apartments – 85
units, plus 1 manager’s unit.
• 39 Commons Affordable Workforce Apartments – 100 units, plus 1
manager’s unit.
• 39 Commons Homeownership
Townhomes – 134 units (14
Affordable)
• Center of Hope PSH – 70 units, plus
2 manager’s units.
• Finamore Place – 101 units, plus 1
manager’s unit.
research additional
funding sources.
1.J HOME Homebuyer
Program
The HOME Homebuyer
Program provides deferred
payment second mortgage
loans to assist low-income households in purchasing a
home. The objective of this
program is to provide mortgage
assistance, subject to federal funding availability and local
allocation of funds.
• This program assisted 108 household in the
planning period.
• The Community & Economic Development Department did not provide any mortgage
assistance in 2016-2020 due to lack of
federal funding availability and local
allocation of funds.
Modified. The City will
continue this program
into the 6th Cycle, subject
to federal funding availability, PLHA funds
and other available State
down payment assistance
funding.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-10
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
1.K Police Residence
Assistance
This objective of this program is
to encourage local
homeownership (2 households)
for Anaheim police officers
who wish to reside in Anaheim.
Through this program, the City
provides one-time, no interest
forgivable loans of up to
$10,000 to Anaheim police officers for purchase of an
owner-occupied home within
the City.
• This program assisted five households in the
planning period.
Continued. The City will
continue this program
into the 6th Cycle.
1.L Development of
Emergency
Shelters/Transitional
and Supportive Housing
in Compliance with SB-2
The City understands the
importance of addressing the
needs of the temporary and
chronically homeless. To
address this issue, it will work collaboratively with service
providers, advocacy groups and
other entities to define any
challenges in providing for the
temporary and long-term needs of Anaheim’s homeless.
The objective of this program is
to streamline development of
emergency shelters, transitional and supportive
housing.
• In 2012 and 2013, the City Council approved
code amendments to permit emergency
shelters in the City’s Industrial Zone and
relating to the siting of supportive and transitional housing uses in residential zones
in compliance with SB 2.
• In 2015, the Orange County Board of
Supervisors approved the purchase of a site
in Anaheim to serve as the County’s year-round, permanent emergency shelter with
200 beds. The County completed the shelter
in 2018.
• In 2017, the City Council declared a public
health/safety state of emergency for the
homelessness to address encampments
along the Santa Ana River.
• In 2018, Council approved a resolution for
“Housing First Model,” which outlines the
Continued. This City will
continue to support the
construction of these
types of development in
collaboration with adopted code
amendments in support
of Emergency Shelters,
Transitional and
Supportive Housing.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-11
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
necessary steps for people experiencing
homelessness to move from Emergency
Shelters to longer-term housing
• In 2018, the Council declared a “Shelter
Crisis” pursuant to Government Code
Section 8698.2 to participate in the State’s
Homeless Emergency Aid Program.
• In 2018 and 2019, the City amended its
Emergency Shelter regulations to facilitate
Emergency Shelters within Anaheim during a
Shelter Crisis. This amendment gave the City
Manager the approval authority for first 425
shelter beds and 100 permanent supportive
housing units. The City Manager used this
authority to approve the Salvation Army’s
224-bed temporary shelter and the 101-bed
La Mesa Shelter.
• In April 2020, Anaheim leased a local motel
for two months, with wrap around services
for those experiencing homelessness in our
shelters needing quarantine or isolation
during the pandemic. In addition, Anaheim
opened a temporary emergency shelter at a
Salvation Army Thrift Store to provide
additional shelter capacity during the
pandemic. The City decommissioned both
shelter options in June 2020.
• In June 2020, the Salvation Army Shelter
Expansion Project was completed. There are
now a total of 325 shelter beds at the
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-12
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
Salvation Army Shelter along with the 28
isolation trailers and the 101 shelter beds at
the La Mesa Shelter.
1.M
Re-examination of Development Standards, Entitlement
Processes and
Development Fees
The City understands that
overly restrictive development standards, burdensome
entitlement processes and
unreasonable development
fees can pose a significant
barrier to future residential development. The objective of
this program is to ensure
reasonable development fees,
standards, and processes.
• The City continues to implement the City Council adopted action plan that outlines
several action items aimed at increasing the
supply of affordable housing in Anaheim.
These include facilitating creative housing
solutions, regulatory relief efforts, process improvements and incentives, programs to
increase middle-income housing, and
identifying funding sources. Staff continues
to work towards implementation of the action items. In 2020, the City Council
amended the City's Zoning Code to comply
with the recently updated State law related
to Density Bonus. The City's amended
ordinance includes some provisions that went beyond the minimum State law
requirements to encourage affordable
housing. In addition, the City Council
adopted an updated Affordable Housing
Action Plan, which the Council had previously adopted in 2018. The updated
plan includes a broad spectrum of items that
affirms the City's commitment to being
"housing friendly."
Continued. The City
recognizes that overly restrictive development
standards can be
burdensome on
affordable housing
development. On an on-going basis, the City
reviews its standards,
processes and fees. At
this time, the City has
deemed them reasonable; however, on
an annual basis, the City
will include any necessary
revisions as part of, or in addition to, the City’s
Code Streamlining and
Improvement Program.
1.N Promoting Availability of Housing
Opportunity Sites
Housing Opportunity Sites identify properties that the
General Plan designates for
residential land uses and have
• In 2013, sites were re-zoned to include a
Residential Opportunities Overlay Zone that
allows by-right residential development on
these properties at densities consistent with
Continued. The City will continue to promote
these sites to potential
housing developers to
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-13
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
strong potential to
accommodate future
affordable or market rate
housing. The objective of this
program is to promote
development in Housing
Opportunity Sites.
their underlying General Plan designations.
The City’s outreach efforts to promote these
sites to potential housing developers include
providing information related to these sites
via the City’s website, conducting
interdepartmental workshops for the
building industry and taking advantage of
CEQA streamlining provisions for infill
housing. The City will continue to promote these sites to potential housing developers
as a means to help ensure that the City
meets its Quantified Objectives.
create increased housing
opportunity for residents
at all income levels and to
continue to work towards
the quantified objectives
1.O Accommodating
Transitional and
Supportive Housing
The City will amend
the Municipal Code in
accordance with Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) to
consider transitional housing
and supportive housing as a
residential use of property, subject only to those
development standards that
apply to other residential
dwellings of the same type in
the same zone. The objective of this program is to
accommodate transitional and
supportive housing in
compliance with State law.
• The City updated definitions for target population, transitional housing, and
supportive housing in the Municipal Code to
be consistent with Government Code
Section 65582. In addition, the Municipal
Code was amended in accordance with Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) to
consider transitional housing and supportive
housing as a residential use of property,
subject only to those development
standards that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same
zone. Finally, the City reviewed existing
separation requirements and spacing criteria
for emergency shelters and did not identify
any necessary revisions.
Continued. The City will
continue this program in
the 6th Cycle to coordinate with service
providers, advocacy
groups and other entities
to define any challenges in providing for the
temporary and long-term
needs within Transitional
and Supportive Housing.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-14
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
Housing Strategy Area #2: Housing Conservation and Preservation – establishes policy actions for the conservation of the existing housing
stock and preservation of housing opportunities for Anaheim’s residents.
2.A Monitoring and
Preservation of “At-
Risk” Units
In order to address units at-risk
of conversion proactively, the
City shall develop a program to
collaborate with nonprofit housing providers and develop
a preservation strategy. The
preservation strategy will allow
the City to act quickly if, and
when, the City receives notice
of the conversion of such units.
The objective of this program is
continual monitoring of all
assisted units with focused effort on the identified 516 at-
risk units.
• The Community & Economic Development
Department continues its ongoing
monitoring of At-Risk units to preserve affordable housing units from property
owners or developers converting said units
to market rate units. The Housing Authority
did not assist at-risk projects in 2020. However, Community & Economic
Development continues to monitor and
reach out to property owners of At-Risk
projects to explore opportunities to
preserve affordable units from property owners or developers converting said units
to market rate units and extend the
affordability term for a longer period. The
City has preserved and rehabilitated 1,146
affordable rental units since 2014. No projects were completed in 2020, however
the Housing Authority approved the
Hermosa Village Phase II Apartments
rehabilitation project to extend the affordability of 13 extremely low, 88 very
low, and 10 low income units for 55 years.
Continued. The City will
continue the program in
the 6th Cycle and seek
funding opportunities to preserve “at risk”
affordable units identified
in the 6th Cycle Housing
Element.
2.B Conservation of
Existing Historic
Resources
The City shall continue to
provide opportunities for the
conservation of existing historic
resources through the Mills Act
Program.
• The City awards approximately eight Mills
Act Contracts on average per year. The City
currently has 381 properties with Mills Act
Contracts. In 2021, the City received
requests for nine additional contracts.
Continued. The City will
continue the program in
the 6th Cycle.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-15
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
2.C Community-Based
Neighborhood
Enhancement
The City will continue focused
outreach efforts, through a
variety of marketing techniques
to encourage additional public
participation in ongoing
neighborhood improvement
efforts. The objective of this
program is to enhance
community participation in neighborhood enhancement
efforts.
• The following projects have been completed
during calendar year 2020 through the
Neighborhood Improvement Program:
Sidewalk improvements; Street light repairs
and lighting upgrades; neighborhood tree
trimming and replacement; Manzanita Park
and John Marshall Park planter wall and
landscaping improvements; replacement
and installation of “No Littering or Dumping”
signage; Traffic related projects; neighborhood alley lighting, street light
upgrades and infill street light projects;
Coordinated 49 Neighborhood Clean-Up
Events.
• The City provided the following quality of
life services:
• Held 6 in person District Community Meetings in February, connecting with
over 200 stakeholders to provide
important neighborhood and City
information.
• Transitioned remaining scheduled
District Community Meetings to
informational videos that the City
produced in June and October of 2020
reaching hundreds of residents
throughout the City.
• Provided neighborhood-based assistance
to over 11,800 community stakeholders.
Continued. The City will
continue this program in
the 6th Cycle to promote
community participation
in neighborhood
enhancement efforts.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-16
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
• Provided support for logistical needs for
WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood
Development) community events,
including annual Holiday Tree Lighting.
2.D Neighborhood Improvement The objective of this program is to identify and improve
blighted and borderline
blighted neighborhoods. The
City shall continue the
identification and mitigation of substandard units and
properties exhibiting deferred
maintenance through the
Neighborhood Improvement
Program and enhanced Code Enforcement efforts.
• The City established Neighborhood
Improvement Teams to identify and improve
deteriorated neighborhoods by ensuring
active participation by all neighborhood
stakeholders and working with them to create a vision of what the neighborhood
can achieve in becoming a quality place to
live. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has
brought forth unique challenges to connect with stakeholders, city staff and
Neighborhood Improvement Teams were
able to pivot quickly and provide alternative
opportunities for input and engagement to
be able to continue working with neighborhoods and address housing and
other quality of life issues.
Continued. The City will continue this program in
the 6th Cycle to promote
neighborhood
improvement to create a
quality place to live.
2.E Relocation and
Preservation of Historic
Homes
The City will pursue alternative
incentives or potential sources
of funding/financing to
encourage the relocation and
preservation of historic homes
citywide.
• The City continues to utilize the “Citywide
Historic Preservation Plan” guidelines to encourage the preservation and
rehabilitation of existing historic homes.
• The City continues to pursue alternative
sources of funding to encourage the
relocation and preservation of historic
homes citywide.
Modified. The City will
continue to pursue
alternative sources of
funding in the 6th Cycle to
encourage the relocation
and preservation of
historic homes citywide.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-17
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
Housing Strategy Area #3: Housing Quality and Design – establishes policy actions for providing high quality, well-designed living
environments for Anaheim residents.
3.A Sustainable
Development/Green
Building/Efficient use of
Energy Resources in Residential
Development
To encourage “green building”
practices in new and existing
residential development, the
City shall continue its efforts in providing financial assistance
to projects meeting
sustainability standards and
third-party green building
program guidelines. The
objective of this program is to
promote increased sustainable
building practices/energy
conservation.
• The City offers energy and water incentives
for affordable and standard multi-family
housing projects through a rebate to help reduce developer costs associated with
these projects. These high efficiency
measures ultimately decrease tenant utility
costs, help promote sustainability, and lower Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) emissions. To
encourage quality of living practices in new
and existing residential development, the
City will continue its efforts in providing
financial assistance to projects meeting sustainability standards and resources
efficiency.
• In 2016, the Rockwood Apartments received $105,000 for the implementation of energy
efficient measures in the project.
• In 2019, the City provided over $55,000 in
rebate funding for two multi-family residential projects that installed LED
lighting and Energy Star appliances such as
refrigerators and washing machines. These
two projects helped save over 128,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) annually, enough to
power 20 Anaheim homes.
• In 2020, the City provided $1,800 in rebate
funding to one multifamily project that installed ENERGY STAR appliances such as
refrigerators, room AC’s and dish washers.
Modified. Due to the
impacts caused by
COVID-19, the City has
closed this program in order to support
customers through
alternative financial
assistance programs.
In the 6th Cycle, The City
will continue to promote
green and sustainable
building practices, as well as continue to identify
local partnerships and
educate the City’s
residents to promote
sustainability. The City will continue this
program to encourage
homeowners and
developers to utilize
sustainable practices. The
City will research funding
sources for the program.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-18
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
This project helped save 576 annual
kilowatt-hours (kWh).
• Due to the impacts caused by COVID-19, the City has closed this program in order to
support customers through alternative
financial assistance programs.
• The City will continue to find new ways of
providing incentives for energy and water
efficiency for residential development in the
future.
3.B Monitoring of
Adopted Reasonable
Accommodation
Procedures
The City understands the
importance of providing equal
housing opportunity for
persons with special needs. Persons with disabilities may
require reasonable
accommodations to meet their
particular housing needs. The
objective of this program is to continue monitoring of
adopted reasonable
accommodation procedures.
• To comply with federal and state housing
laws, the City adopted reasonable
accommodation procedures in 2013 to provide exceptions and/or relief from Code
regulations and permitting procedures that
may have a discriminatory effect on housing
for individuals with disabilities. The City will
continue to monitor the effectiveness of reasonable accommodation standards and
procedures and implement revisions as
necessary.
Continued. The City will
continue this program in
the 6th Cycle.
3.C
Universal Design
The Universal Design program
intends to provide
development incentives, which
will facilitate the building of
residential spaces that include products and technology to
accommodate families of all
ages and backgrounds. The
objective of the program is to
• The City implemented provisions of the
Universal Design Principles during the
planning period. The Universal Design
Principles are available on the City’s Website
to guide the design and construction of
homes to incorporate features that are
usable by people of all abilities. These
features help to create housing that can allow residents to stay in their homes over
Continued. The City
approved its Universal
Design Principles in 2012;
these procedures are
available on the City’s Website. Therefore, the
City will continue this
program in the 6th Cycle.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-19
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
continue monitoring of
universal design principles.
their lifetime and create living environments
that are safer and more accessible for
everyone. The City will continue to monitor
this program over time to ensure
implementation of Universal Design features
in housing.
3.D
Parks and Open Space
As the City’s housing stock and
population grow and vacant land becomes scarcer, the City
will need to continue to
explore creative opportunities
to provide quality parks, open space, and recreational
amenities for Anaheim
residents. The objective of the
program is to ensure
consistency with the goals of the Green Element
• The City implements and amends the Green
Element of the General Plan through an
ongoing planning process. Since the
adoption of the Housing Element, the City
has added new parks, identified new park areas, and continued to work on programs
to improve access and availability to
recreational areas.
Continued. The City will
continue this program in the 6th Cycle.
3.E
Community Design
The Community Design
Element of Anaheim’s General Plan provides policy guidance
to ensure quality design of the
City’s built environment. This
element addresses community-
wide design features. The
objective of the program is to
ensure quality design of future
residential projects.
• The City reviewed the Community Design Element of the General Plan and determined
that amendments were not necessary.
• In order to ensure quality design of the
City’s neighborhoods, the City will continue
to reference the Community Design Element
during the review of proposed housing
developments. The City will continue to
update the Element to address current
development trends, as necessary.
Continued. The City will
review this program again during the 6th Housing
Cycle to verify that the
Element’s goals and
policies remain relevant
will update the Element
as needed. The City will
continue to reference the
Community Design
Element during the
review of proposed
housing developments.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-20
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
3.F Provision of
Infrastructure to Serve
Housing
To address future demand on
infrastructure facilities
proactively, the City will work
collaboratively to ensure future
housing demand is coordinated
with future capital planning for
the City’s potable water,
electrical, storm drain and
sewer infrastructure systems. The objective of this program is
the provision of infrastructure
to support future housing
growth.
• The City understands the need to provide
adequate infrastructure to support existing
and future housing needs. The City continues to implement an aggressive
Capital Improvement Plan in support of
housing development projects. The City will
also continue to identify existing deficiencies
to the water, electrical, storm drain and sewer systems in those areas where the City
expects future residential development to
occur, and balance those needs with public
safety, economics, efficiencies, regulatory
requirements, and other Capital
Improvement Plan objectives.
Continued. The City will
continue this program in
the 6th Cycle.
Housing Strategy Area #4: Housing Rehabilitation – establishes policy actions for the rehabilitation and improvement of existing housing.
4.A Affordable Housing Acquisition and
Rehabilitation
The City will focus the use of its scarce resources in
neighborhoods previously
identified as Level III and Level
IV priority neighborhoods
through the Neighborhood
Improvement Program. To
support such efforts, the City
shall continue to provide,
through regulatory incentives
such as expedited processing,
financial incentives, and
development concessions, for
the acquisition and
rehabilitation of affordable
• Since 2014, 1,146 acquisition/rehabilitation
units were completed or were in the
development pipeline. The following
projects were completed or are underway:
• Paseo Village Apartments – 174
affordable units (including 2 manager
units)
• Village Center Apartments – 100
affordable units (including 1 manager unit)
• Miracle Terrace Apartments – 179
affordable units (Including 1 manager
unit)
Continued. The Housing Authority continues to
work with developers for
the acquisition and
rehabilitation of
properties in the priority
neighborhoods. The City
will continue this
program in the 6th Cycle.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-21
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
housing. The objective of the
program is to allow for a
minimum of 209 very-low
income units and 11 low-
income units.
• Pebble Cove Apartments - 111 affordable
units (including 1 manager unit)
• Cobblestone Apartments – 64 Units
(Including 1 manager unit)
• Sea Wind Apartments - 91 Units
(Including 1 manager unit)
• Avon Dakota Phase II - 21 Units
• Hermosa Village Phase I Apartments –
297 Units (Including 2 manager units)
• Hermosa Village Phase II Apartments –
112 Units (Including 1 manager units)
4.B Rehabilitation of Single-Family Homes The City shall seek local, State and Federal funding resources
to provide rehabilitation loans
for appropriate exterior and
interior improvements that
enhance the quality, safety, accessibility, and livability of
existing single-family homes.
The objective of this program is
to provide funds for
rehabilitation of Single-Family Homes.
• The Community and Economic Development
Department implemented a single-family
rehabilitation loan program for income-
qualified households to assist with home
improvements. Habitat for Humanity, an affordable housing non-profit organization,
administers this program in partnership with
the City.
• 13 homes were rehabilitated during the
planning periods and the Community and Economic Development Department
anticipates rehabilitating 8 homes in 2021.
Continued. The City will continue this program in
the 6th Cycle.
4.C Relocation
Assistance
The objective of this program is
to provide financial relocation
assistance, such as payment of
moving costs, for qualified tenants during City-assisted
• The City assisted the tenants of at least 51
homes during the planning period.
Continued. The City
recognizes the
importance of providing
financial relocation assistance for qualified
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-22
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
substantial rehabilitation of
residential units. Relocation
can be temporary or
permanent.
• The City awarded at least $932,118 of
Relocation Assistance during the planning
period.
tenants during City-
assisted substantial
rehabilitation of
residential units.
Therefore, the City will
continue this program in
the 6th Cycle.
Housing Strategy Area #5: Affordable Housing Opportunity – establishes policy actions for the establishment of affordable housing opportunity for all segments of Anaheim’s populations.
5.A Local Support of
Regional Fair Housing
Efforts
To further outreach to the
community, the City shall
provide fair housing
information as part of the City’s
Housing Information
Clearinghouse. The City will
provide Information in multiple
languages and through print
and electronic media, which
may include the City’s website,
brochures, and newsletters.
The objective of this program is
to allocate annual financial
allocation, based on program funding availability. Estimated
annual allocation of $100,000.
• The City served at least 7,999 homes during
the planning period.
• The City allocated $100,000 a year during
the planning period.
Modified. The City will
modify this program in
the 6th Cycle and continue
to identify local partners
and engage residents
with support and
information about fair
housing.
5.B
Section 8 Rental
Assistance Program
The Anaheim Housing
Authority provides rental
assistance through the Section
8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program. The City refers families/individuals whose
• The City leased at least 5,900 vouchers
during the planning period.
Continued. The City will
continue to provide
information regarding
assistance opportunities
to its residents in the 6th Cycle.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-23
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
annual income is below 50
percent of the HUD Area
Median Income to this
program. The objective of this
program is to provide an
estimated 6,000 Vouchers
annually, subject to federal
funding availability.
5.C
Section 8 Mainstream
Housing Program
Vouchers for Persons with Disabilities
This program provides Section
8 rental assistance to very-low
income persons with
disabilities to enable them to rent private housing of their
own in a non-segregated
environment. The Housing
Authority screens its current
Section 8 waiting list for disabled persons who meet the
eligibility requirements for this
program. The objective of this
program is to provide an
estimated 225 Vouchers annually, subject to federal
funding availability.
• The City leased at least 397 vouchers during
the planning period.
• The Housing Authority also received an
additional 55 Mainstream Housing Program Vouchers in 2018 and began the in-take and
lease-up process throughout 2020. These
vouchers target non-elderly disabled
individuals who are currently transitioning
out of institutional or other segregated settings, at serious risk of
institutionalization, homeless or at risk of
becoming homeless.
Continued. The City will
continue to provide
information regarding
assistance opportunities to its residents in the 6th
Cycle.
5.D
Section 8 Family Self
Sufficiency (FSS)
Section 8 Family Self Sufficiency
(FSS) program assists very-low
income families in transitioning
from living with the help of
public assistance to economic
self-sufficiency. The objective
of this program is to allow for
an estimated 100 participants,
• At least 100 people participated during the
planning period.
Continued. The City will
continue this program in
the 6th Cycle.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-24
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
subject to federal funding
availability.
5.E
Section 8 Homeless
Program
The Anaheim Housing
Authority shall set aside
vouchers specifically for
homeless households. The objective of the program is to
provide an estimated 91
vouchers, subject to federal
funding availability.
• The City leased at least 91 vouchers during
the planning period.
• Due to funding constraints, the Housing
Authority no longer sets aside a specified number of vouchers for the homeless. The
Anaheim Housing Authority changed the
methodology for allocating homeless
vouchers to a formula, based on new admissions, allowing the City to set-aside up
to 50% of its annual new admissions for
homeless families and individuals.
Continued. The City will
continue this program in
the 6th Cycle.
5.F
Project Based Voucher
Program
Federal regulations allow the
Housing Authority to take a
portion of its Housing Choice Voucher allocation and convert
it to Project Based assistance
for the purposes of expanding
housing opportunities for very-
low income individuals and
families. The objective of the
program is to provide an
estimated 700 vouchers,
subject to federal funding availability.
• The Housing Authority approved at least 360
Developer requests for Vouchers during the
planning period.
• Rockwood Apartments - 48
• El Verano Senior – 53
• Manchester/Orangewood -20
• Miracle Terrace - 40
• Hermosa Village Phase I - 50
• Hermosa Village Phase II – 30
• Econo Lodge – 49
• Anaheim Midway – 8
• Center of Hope – 50
• Tyrol Plaza Senior 12
Continued. The City will
continue this program in
the 6th Cycle.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-25
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
5.G
Emergency Solutions
Grant Program
The City shall utilize federal
Emergency Solutions Grant
(ESG) funds to assist people
that are homeless or those who
are at-risk of becoming
homeless. The objective of the
program is to distribute an
estimated $220,000/year in
ESG Grants, subject to federal funding availability.
• The City assisted at least 10,384 persons
during the planning period.
• The City awarded at least $2,137,842 of ESG
funds during the planning period.
Continued. The City will
continue this program in
the 6th Cycle.
5.H
Homeless and Motel Families
To address the unique needs of
the homeless and those families living in motels, the
City will collaborate with local
advocacy groups, motel
owners, police and human
service agencies and other interested parties to develop
strategies and actions to
transition the chronically
homeless, temporary homeless
and families living in Motels into permanent housing. The
objective of this program is to
continue to identify permanent
housing opportunities for homeless and motel families.
• The Community and Economic Development Department continues to implement the
Homeless Assistance Program (HAP), which
focuses on homeless families with children
in Anaheim schools. The program provides
supportive services and rental assistance for
up to 24 months.
• The City served at least 292 households
during the planning period with 611 being
children.
• In 2018, the City launched the Chronically
Homeless Individuals Pilot Program (CHIPP). The CHIPP program mirrors the HAP
program and provides supportive services
and rental assistance for up to 24 months. In
its fourth year of operation, results have
shown that providing case management services and housing to the most vulnerable
can be an effective way of moving homeless
clients into permanent housing. The
program focuses on the chronically
Continued. The City will
continue this program in the 6th Cycle.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance [DRAFT August 2021] Page A-26
Policy Strategy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for 6th Cycle
homeless and those who do not qualify for
County of Orange permanent supportive
housing.
• The City served at least 99 individuals during
the planning period.
Appendix A - Review of Past Performance
Page A-1
Appendix B
Adequate Sites Analysis
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-1
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis
1. Adequate Sites Analysis Background
State law requires each city and county to identify adequate sites, by income category, to meet its
Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) allocation.
The City of Anaheim plans to meet its 2021-2029 RHNA need by income category through the
identification of adequate sites and related Policies and Programs detailed in this Housing Element. This
appendix includes details on the sites determined to meet the City’s RHNA, which include:
• Submitted Development Applications known as “Projects in the Pipeline”;
• Anticipated development of accessory dwelling units (ADU) with regional affordability
assumptions developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and
approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); and
• Candidate Sites, described in the categories below.
• Sites within existing zones, overlay zones, or specific plan development areas that permit
development of housing ;
• Sites within the proposed Center City Corridors (C3) Specific Plan that are anticipated to develop
with housing (subject to the approval of the C3 Specific Plan and any associated General Plan
Amendments);
• Sites designated for residential land use by the General Plan that require a proposed addition of
the Residential Opportunity (RO) or Mixed-Use (MU) Overlay Zone in order to streamline the
development of housing;
• Sites requiring a change in General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations, in order to permit
development of housing; and
• Sites owned by the Anaheim Housing Authority and Successor Agency.
Table B-1: Summary of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation and Adequate Sites Analysis
provides a summary of the City’s RHNA allocation and types of sites projected to meet the housing
need for each income category. Table B-1 displays the following Income Categories:
• Extremely Low-Income: Table B-1: Summary of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
Allocation and Adequate Sites Analysis indicates RHNA allocated units that are within the Extremely
Low-Income category (referred to as EL Income Units in the table). The Extremely Low-Income
category is a subset of the Very Low Income category (referred to as VL Income Units in the table).
The RHNA allocation for the Extremely Low Income Category is one-half of the Very Low Income
RHNA allocation.
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-2
• Very Low and Low Income: Table B-1 combines the Very Low Income and Low Income categories
of the RHNA allocated units into “Lower Income” for Projected ADU and Candidate Sites because
the development requirements for these units are consistent. State law considers any Candidate
Site that has a permitted density of 30 or more dwelling units per acre and is between 0.5 and 10
acres to be suitable to develop units for Lower Income Households. However, although the City
can count all sites that allow 30 or more dwelling units per acre within the Lower-Income category,
the City has elected to include sites that allow 60 or more dwelling units per acre in the Moderate
Income category. The City does not currently have any Lower Income units built at this higher
density range and therefore, thought it would be more appropriate to place these units in the
Moderate Income category. Therefore, the Lower Income category only include sites that allow
30 or more dwelling units per acre, but less than 60 dwelling units/acre.
• Moderate Income: The City considers any Candidate Site that has a permitted density of 18 or
more dwelling units per acre suitable to develop units for Moderate Income Households. In
addition, although stated above and pursuant to State law, the City can count all sites that allow
30 or more dwelling units per acre within the Lower-Income category, the City has elected to
include sites the permit up to 60 dwelling units per acre in the Moderate Income category,
consistent with market realities.
• Above Moderate Income: Any site that permits fewer than 18 dwelling units per acre or is a
Pipeline Project that is not proposing to provide any income-restricted units, is included in the
Above Moderate Income category.
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-3
Table B-1: Summary of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation and Adequate Sites Analysis
Extremely Low
Income
Very Low
/Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
RHNA (2021-2029) 3,767 2,397 2,945 8,344 17,453
Units within Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Projects (Table B-2) 170 571 470 11,887 13,098
Remaining Unmet RHNA 3,196 1,861 2,475 -- 7,532
Projected Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Construction
Lower Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Projected ADU Construction 514 227 15 756
Remaining Unmet RHNA 4,909 2,248 0 6,791
Projected Dwelling Units on Candidate Sites (Table B-8)
Unit Capacity: Citywide
No Proposed Change in General Plan Land Use
Designation
No Proposed Change in Zoning
670 8,689 0 9,359
Unit Capacity: Center City Corridors (C3)
Specific Plan
No Proposed Change in General Plan Land Use
Designation
Proposed Change in Zoning to C3 Specific Plan
0 1,844 0 1,844
Unit Capacity: Center City Corridors Specific
Plan
Proposed Change in General Plan Land Use Designation
Proposed Change in Zoning to C3 Specific Plan
169 1,895 0 2,064
Unit Capacity: Citywide No Proposed Change in General Plan Land Use
Designation
Proposed Change in Zoning to add Residential
Opportunity or Mixed Use Overlay Zone
93 614 200 907
Unit Capacity: Citywide
Proposed Change in General Plan Land Use Designation
Proposed Change in Zoning to add to Residential
Opportunity or Mixed Use Overlay Zone
10,020 480 0 10,500
Unit Capacity: Citywide
Housing Authority and Successor Agency Sites 357 2 4 363
Total on Candidate Sites 11,309 13,524 204 25,037
Total Summary
RHNA (2021-2029) 6,164 2,945 8,344 17,453
Total Units: Pipeline Projects, ADU, and Candidate
Sites 12,564 14,221 12,106 38,891
Total Unit Capacity Over RHNA +6,400 +11,276 +3,762 +21,438
Percentage of Unit Surplus +104% +383% +45% +123%
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-4
2. Provision of Utilities to Serve the Adequate Sites
To determine adequacy of sites, the City has completed an analysis to ensure all sites within the inventory
have access to necessary utilities and essential infrastructure.
Water Service
The City of Anaheim (City) has prepared its 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in compliance
with the California Water Code (CWC). The UWMP provides an assessment of the reliability of the City’s
water service, and describes and evaluates sources of water supply, demand management measures, and
other relevant information and programs. In addition to the water reliability assessments, the UWMP
includes an evaluation of frequent and severe periods of drought and the preparation and adoption of the
Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) that provides actions in response to potential water supply
shortages. CWC requires reporting agencies to describe their water reliability under the conditions
associated with a normal water year, a single dry-year, and droughts lasting at least five consecutive water
years, with projected information in five-year increments for a minimum period of 20 years into the
future. Some of the considerations and resulting projections may change over time with changes in water
supply conditions and planning efforts. The City will reflect these changes in future updates of the UWMP,
which occur every five years.
The UWMP states that the population of the City of Anaheim’s water service area was 365,987 in 2020
and projects that the population of the water service area will increase by 13 percent through 2045. The
City relies on a combination of imported water, local groundwater, and a small amount of recycled water
to meet its water needs. The City works together with two primary agencies, the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (Metropolitan) and the Orange County Water District (OCWD), to ensure a
safe and reliable water supply that will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and
shortage.1 The City relies primarily on groundwater for water supply, its main source is from the Orange
County Groundwater Basin the remaining imported water’s primary sources are the Colorado River
Aqueduct and the Lake Oroville watershed.
The City’s water system facilities consist of the following:
• Eight imported water service connections to Metropolitan
• 18 active wells
• One 920-million-gallon (MG) reservoir of untreaded water
• One 20 million gallons per day (MGD) water treatment plant
• 13 treated water reservoirs (38.75 MG of total storage)
• Permanent chlorination facilities at various sites
• Nine booster pump stations
1 City of Anaheim, Urban Water Management Plan (1.2.2 Water Supply), 2020. Accessed online August 2021.
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-5
• About 758 miles of water mains
According to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, updated in 2020, the City projects that water
supplies will meet full-service demands under both normal and drought conditions. Additionally,
Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP finds that Metropolitan can meet full-service demands of its member
agencies from 2020 through 2045 during normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years.
As the City has developed, it has correspondingly increased its number of connections, installed more
wells, built a series of reservoirs, and greatly expanded the transmission and distribution system in order
to meet the water service requirements of a growing number of customers. Additionally, all sites
identified within this section to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation are within the City’s water
service area and are properties already connected to the system. The City will work to ensure that housing
developed for low and very low-income households receive priority service connection.
Sewer Capacity
The City operates and maintains the local sewer system consisting of approximately 578 miles of pipeline
that connect to OCSD's trunk system to convey wastewater to OCSD's treatment plants. The City’s main
plants have the following capacity:
• Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley: 320 MGD
• Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach: 312 MGD
Water Service and Sewer Capacity Updates
The City updates the Capital Improvement Plan every five years to ensure continued adequate water and
sewer availability and service to existing and future planned residential development. The City also
updates the UWMP every five years to ensure all systems are up to state regulation and capacity
requirements.
Dry Utilities
Anaheim residents received electric services from the Anaheim Public Utilities Department, which
operates the only municipal electric system in Orange County. As of May 2021, the department has
103,366 residential meters. The power supply comes from the following resources:
• Anaheim Solar Energy Plant • Intermountain Power Plant
• ARP-Loyalton Biomass Project • Magnolia Power Project
• Brea Power II • MWD Hydroelectric Project
• Bowerman Power Facility • Heber South
• Canyon Power Project • Pleasant Valley Energy Center
• Desert Harvest Facility • Thermo No.1
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-6
• High Winds Energy Center • San Gorgonio Wind Farm
• Hoover Dam • Westside Solar WSP PV1
In accordance with the California Public Utilities Commission and in compliance with SCE’s “Rules for the
sale of electric energy” all electric and gas service will be provided for future development in the City of
Anaheim as requested.
3. Pipeline Projects
Pipeline projects are indicators of the future development of housing throughout the City, based upon
property owner/developer interest. Since the start of the projection period for the 6th Cycle Planning
Period (June 30, 2021), the City has multiple projects in different stages of the pipeline. These stages
include:
• Application Stage
• Conceptual Development Review Application: an applicant has submitted a housing project for
Conceptual Development Review Application, which may be followed by the submittal of a
Development Application
• Development Application: the property owner has submitted a Development Application that is
in process but not yet approved
• Approved Entitlements: The Development Application that has approved for the site, but the City
has not issued building permits as of June 30, 2021
• Under Construction: The City has issued building permits, but it is not yet constructed, as of June
30, 2021
Table B-2: Pipeline Projects provides a detailed list of pipeline projects in Anaheim.
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page A7
Table B-1: Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Unique ID Project's APN Site Type DEV Acres Project Name Address Description EL Income
Units
Low/VL Income Units
Mod Income Units
Above Mod Income Units
Total
Units
P-3 03702123 Approved DEV2018-00112 0.15 Carleton
Apartments 114 N Carleton Ave 4-unit multiple-family residential development 0 0 0 4 4
P-5 27107108, 271071087,
27107110 Conceptual DEV2021-00023 0.68 Anaheim B – 34
Townhomes 1075 N Harbor Blvd 34-unit attached single-family residential
development 0 0 0 34 34
P-6 25009109, 25009110,
25009111 Approved DEV2017-00128 5.3 1600 W Lincoln
Avenue Apartments 1600 W Lincoln Ave 315-unit mixed-use development with 3,413
square-foot retail space. 0 0 0 315 315
P-7
03625108 ,03625136,
03625134, 03625128,
03625126, 03625132,
03625124, 03625130
Development Application DEV2019-00102 0.46 625 S Illinois Street 625 S Illinois St 3-lot single-family residential development 0 0 0 3 3
P-8 03501051 Approved DEV2019-00087 4.48 The Invitation 1122 N Anaheim Blvd 269-unit multiple-family residential
development 0 0 0 269 269
P-9
08218501, 08218552,
08218553, 08218547,
08218548, 08218559
Approved DEV2021-00059 2.26 Anaheim Midway 110 W Midway Dr 86-unit multiple-family residential development. 28 67 0 1 96
P-10 07111040, 07111028,
07111041 Approved DEV2015-00127 2.85 Parkgate Center 2301-2331 W Lincoln
Ave 114a
48-unit attached and detached single family
residential development 0 0 0 48 48
P-11 12707101, 12707107 Development Application DEV2017-00091 0.7 Linbrook Villas 2280 W Lincoln Ave 12-unit multiple-family residential
development 0 0 0 12 12
P-12 13532130 Conceptual DEV2020-00273 3.38 Lincoln Motel Conversion 3360 W Lincoln Ave 235-unit multiple-family residential development 0 0 24 113 137
P-13 07241701 Conceptual DEV2020-00294 0.44 2 Custom Homes
Development 1204 N Brookhurst St 2-lot single-family residential development
with an ADU on each lot. 0 0 0 4 4
P-14 03535051 Conceptual DEV2017-00101 0.56 Lincoln Apartments 1221 E Lincoln Ave 19-unit multiple-family residential
development 0 0 0 19 19
P-15 07988238 Conceptual DEV2021-00089 0.7 850 Western Ave 850 Western Ave 2-lot single-family residential development 0 0 0 2 2
P-17 07988237, 07988236 Development Application DEV2019-00139 1.39 Pepperwood Place 910 S Western Ave 12-lot single family residential development 0 0 0 12 12
P-19 13446137 Conceptual DEV2021-00051 0.68 Mungall Apartments 3701 W Mungall Dr 24-unit multiple-family residential
development. 0 0 0 24 24
P-20 36322102 Conceptual DEV2021-00157 3.48 145 S Vista Grande 145 S Vista Grande 2-lot single-family residential development 0 0 0 2 2
P-21
08327075, 08327069, 08327067, 08327073,
08327074, 08327051,
08327077
Approved DEV2015-00024 10.84 LT Platinum Center 2040 S State College
Blvd
405-unit mixed-use development with 583,000 gross square feet of commercial uses, a 200-
room hotel, and 77,000 gross square feet of
office.
0 0 0 405 405
P-22 07988234 Approved DEV2016-00074 0.36 Ball And Western
Apartments 3175 W Ball Rd 11-unit multiple-family residential
development 0 0 0 11 11
P-23 12660204 Approved DEV2020-00278 1.8 39 Commons Beach II - Rental 212 S Beach Blvd 100-unit multiple-family development (processed in conjunction with P-27) 20 57 0 1 78
P-24 12723149 Development Application DEV2016-00131 0.94 Orange Avenue – 8
Units
9812 W Orange Ave
(Unincorporated) 8-lot single family residential development 0 0 0 8 8
P-25
08246135, 08246134,
08246124, 08246125,
08246139, 08246123,
08246131
Conceptual DEV2021-00123 10.34 SEC Ball and
Anaheim Mixed Use
1200-1354 S
Anaheim Blvd And
200 E Ball Rd
159-unit mixed use development with 182-
room hotel and 6,000 square feet of retail 0 0 16 143 159
P-27
12660202, 12660235,
12660222, 12660232, 12660233, 12660234,
12660229, 12660231
Approved DEV2020-00278 4.91
39 Commons Beach
II For Sale
Townhomes
100, 126 And 130 S
Beach Blvd And 2952, 2960 And 2970 W
Lincoln Ave
134-unit attached single family residential
development processed as horizontal mixed use with 5,000 square feet of retail and the
multiple-family development described in P-23
0 0 14 120 134
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page A8
Table B-1: Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Unique ID Project's APN Site Type DEV Acres Project Name Address Description EL Income
Units
Low/VL Income Units
Mod Income Units
Above Mod Income Units
Total
Units
P-28 25010108, 25010109 Development Application DEV2020-00248 0.78
Anaheim A –
Broadway
Townhomes
1661 W Broadway 34-unit single-family attached residential
development 0 0 0 34 34
P-29 03702123 Development Application DEV2019-00168 0.59 Broadway Tower
Apartments 122 W Broadway 36-unit mixed use development with 667
square feet of retail 0 0 0 36 36
P-30 27105233 Conceptual DEV2020-00173 3.14
West Street
Affordable Housing
Project
1171 N West St 157-unit multiple family residential
development 52 104 0 156
P-31 12921230 Development Application DEV2018-00069 0.79 1625 W Cerritos 4-
Lot Subdivision 1625 W Cerritos Ave 4-lot single family residential development
with one ADU 0 0 0 5 5
P-32 Approved DEV2019-00111 0.61 Center of Hope 1340 Lewis St 72-unit permanent supportive housing
development 70 70 0 2 142
P-33 12705143 Development Application DEV2020-00180 6.49 Townes at
Broadway 2323 W Broadway 112-unit attached single family residential
development 0 0 0 112 112
P-34 03702411 Conceptual DEV2020-00262 2.02 Lumberyards 275 E Santa Ana St 56 unit attached single-family residential
development 0 0 7 49 56
P-35 08505115 Conceptual DEV2021-00137 10.73 Deer Park 115 N Carleton Ave 513-unit multiple-family residential development 0 0 0 513 513
P-36
08218528, 08218527,
08218531, 08218526, 08218529, 08218530,
08218551, 08218539,
08218541, 08218540,
08218535, 08218558
Development Application DEV2019-00013 6.4 Legacy Anaheim 1076 N Harbor Blvd 156-unit attached single-family residential
development 0 0 0 156 156
P-37 25803104 Approved DEV2019-00120 3.63
39 Commons – NEC
Beach Blvd/Lincoln
Ave
1601 W Lincoln Ave 65-unit attached single-family residential
development 0 0 0 65 65
P-38 35627104 Development Application DEV2020-00097 4.19 Rio Grande
Subdivision 626 S Illinois St 4-lot single family residential development 0 0 0 4 4
P-39 25363139, 25363132,
25347301 Conceptual DEV2020-00126 6.48 Ball Road Basin 1123 N Anaheim Blvd 1,320-unit mixed use development with
15,000 square feet of commercial uses 0 0 0 1320 1320
P-41 36121168 Development Application DEV2021-00073 4.58 VYAS Development 2301-2331 W Lincoln Ave 114a 3 lot single-family residential development 0 0 0 3 3
P-42 12810108 Development Application DEV2019-00123 0.92 Tinh Homes 4440 W Lincoln Ave 6-lot single-family residential development 0 0 0 8 8
P-44 34352203 Approved DEV2014-00130 0.44 Short Street Parcel
Map 5520 W Lincoln Ave 4-lot single-family residential development 0 0 0 4 4
P-45 Approved DEV2019-00037 7.17 Lincoln at Euclid 1631-1667 W Lincoln
Ave
115-unit single family attached residential
development 0 0 0 115 115
P-47 03603144 Conceptual DEV2019-00033 0.4 Walnut Parcel Map 1205 N Brookhurst St 2-lot single-family residential development 0 0 0 2 2
P-48 03611203, 03611232 Development Application DEV2019-00179 0.55 Lincoln Colony
Apartments 1222 E Lincoln Ave 44-unit multiple-family residential
development 0 0 0 44 44
P-50 23212136 Under Construction DEV2018-00034 4.49
A-Town
Development Area
H
851 Western Ave 84-unit attached single-family residential development 0 0 0 84 84
P-51 23212130 Development Application DEV2020-00287 3.3
A-Town
Development Area
B
911 S Western Ave 270-unit mixed-use development with 21,615 square feet of ground-floor commercial uses 0 0 0 270 270
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page A9
Table B-1: Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Unique ID Project's APN Site Type DEV Acres Project Name Address Description EL Income
Units
Low/VL Income Units
Mod Income Units
Above Mod Income Units
Total
Units
P-52 23212134 Conceptual DEV2021-00131 0.23 A-Town
Development Area F 3702 W Mungall Dr 73-unit multiple-family residential
development 0 0 0 73 73
P-53 23212135 Under Construction DEV2018-00027 5.37
A-Town
Development Area
G
146 S Vista Grande 154-unit multiple-family residential
development 0 0 0 154 154
P-54 12921223 Approved DEV2017-00069 0.51 Ryan Homes 2041 S State College
Blvd 3-lot single-family residential development 0 0 0 3 3
P-55 12624217, 1264218 Approved DEV2016-00048 0.42 807 S Dale 3176 W Ball Rd 2-lot single family residential development 0 0 0 1 1
P-56
08329301, 08329302,
08329303, 08329304,
08329305
Under Construction DEV2015-00078 17.57 Jefferson Stadium
Park final phase
9813 W Orange Ave
(Unincorporated)
332-unit mixed use development with 14,504
square feet of retail space 0 0 0 332 332
P-57
35658212, 35658211,
35658213, 35658210,
35658214, 35658230,
35658215, 35658209,
35658216, 35658229, 35658208, 35658217,
35658207, 35658228,
35658231, 35658218,
35658206, 35658227,
35658232, 35658205, 35658219, 35658226,
35658220, 35658204,
35658233, 35658225,
35658221, 35658203,
35658234, 35658224,
35658222, 35658202,
35658201, 35658223,
35658236, 35658102,
35658101, 35658235, 35658103
Approved PRJ2004-02012 32.2 Deer Canyon 1417 W Broadway 35-unit single family residential development 0 0 0 35 35
P-58 03702201 Under Construction DEV2016-00118 0.58 Lemon Street
Industrial 2956 W Broadway 1-unit (caretakers unit) in a 7,239 square foot
industrial building 0 0 0 1 1
P-59 34518125, 34518126,
34518127 Approved DEV2017-00031 9.4 Link OC 1172 N West St 406-unit mixed use development with 5,000
square feet of new commercial space 0 0 0 406 406
P-60 Under Construction DEV2019-00046 3.83
Melia Homes
(Victory Baptist
Church)
227 N Magnolia Ave 59-units attached single-family residential development 0 0 6 53 59
P-61
03619148, 03619249,
03619255, 03619247,
03619257, 03619250,
03619253
Approved DEV2016-00062 11.32 BARN 1626 W Cerritos Ave 57-unit mixed-use project with 16,500 square
feet of commercial and office space 0 0 0 57 57
P-63 23212133 Development Application DEV2020-00288 3.1 A-Town 116 N Carleton Ave 257 multiple-family residential units 0 0 0 257 257
P-65 08221402, 08221403,
08221405 Under Construction DEV2018-00081 11.87 Avanti Anaheim
Boulevard 1077 N Harbor Blvd 292 attached single-family residential units 0 0 30 262 292
P-66 38652114, 38652117, 25352117, 25360103,
25352129, 25352131,
Development Application DEV2020-00125 95 OC Vibe 1602 W Lincoln Ave 1500-unit mixed use development around and
including Honda Center and ARTIC 0 66 63 1305 1434
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page A10
Table B-1: Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Unique ID Project's APN Site Type DEV Acres Project Name Address Description EL Income
Units
Low/VL Income Units
Mod Income Units
Above Mod Income Units
Total
Units
25352130, 25360104,
25359101, 25352132,
23207102, 38652116,
38652120, 23207209,
23207208, 23207103,
23207206, 25360102, 25352134, 25352135,
25352137, 25352133
P-67 25508114, 25508117 Under Construction DEV2020-00146 4.4 Alexan Center City 627 S Illinois St 11-units conversion of 11,136 square feet of commercial space to 11 live/work units in an
existing mixed-use development.
0 0 0 11 11
P-68
08327076, 23201137,
23201147, 23201102,
23201139, 23201155,
23201135, 23201140,
23201143, 23201150,
23201148, 23201153, 23201154, 23201156,
23201106, 23201141
Approved DEV2020-00127 152 Stadium District 1124 N Anaheim Blvd
5,175-unit mixed use development with 1.75
million square feet of commercial uses, and
2.7 million square feet of office space around
and including Angel Stadium
0 207 310 4399 4916
P-69 26715134 Approved DEV2014-00095 7 La Palma Village 2301-2331 W Lincoln
Ave 114a
New 152 unit residential subdivision and 10
unit residential subdivision with 922 square
feet of ground floor commercial space
0 0 0 162 162
Total Units: 170 571 470 11,887 13,098
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-11
4. Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are housing units, which property owners may develop in addition to an
existing single- or multiple-family residential use. These housing units can be freestanding or attached to
a primary structure and provide additional housing on an existing residential lot. Often ADUs provide
housing for family members or the property owners rent these units to members of the community. In
accordance with State law, the City allows ADUs in all zones that allow for single-family dwelling or
multiple-family dwelling unit development. The City only permits Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs)
in single-family dwelling unit zones.
The City of Anaheim has determined, based on past performance, that it is appropriate to anticipate the
development of 756 accessory dwelling units from 2021 to 2029. Table B-3: Accessory Dwelling Unit
Assumptions below displays the calculation and estimated projection for the 8-year planning period. The
basis for these assumptions is the following calculations:
• The average number of ADUs permitted between 2018 to 2020 (42 units)
• Double the average (84 units) to reflect the ADU growth that the City can reasonably expect, in
consideration of new state legislation and policy considerations
• Extrapolate this average over the 8-year projection period
• Total number of ADU projected from 2021 to 2029
Table B-3: Accessory Dwelling Unit Assumptions
Year ADU Permitted
Projection Period Total: 756 units
2029 (projected) 84 units
2028 (projected) 84 units
2027 (projected) 84 units
2026 (projected) 84 units
2025 (projected) 84 units
2024 (projected) 84 units
2023 (projected) 84 units
2022 (projected) 84 units
2021 (projected)1 84 units
2020 (actual) 90 units
2019 (actual) 32 units
2018 (actual) 4 units
From January 1, 2021-August 19, 2021, the City has issued building permits for
93 ADUs.
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-12
For the purposes of this projection exercise, the City assumes a percentage of ADUs to be consistent with
Affordability Assumptions produced by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The
SCAG conducted analysis consists of the following steps:
• Calculating maximum rent limits for RHNA income categories for one-person and two person
households by county
• Conduct survey of rents for ADUs in the SCAG region
• Use survey data to determine proportion of ADUs within each income category
• Create assumption of how many persons will occupy each ADU, finalize proportions
Using the proportions SCAG created for Orange County, the City has allocated the following ADUs for each
income category:
Table B-4: Accessory Dwelling Unit Projections by Income Category
Income Category Percent of Total Units Units
Very Low Income 25% 189 units
Low Income 43% 325 units
Moderate Income 30% 227 units
Above Moderate Income 2% 15 units
Total 756 units
The City has developed Housing Production Strategies (see Section 4: Housing Policy Plan) in support of
the above projections, to facilitate the development of ADUs available for lower income households.
5. Candidate Sites
This section contains a description and listing of the candidate sites identified to meet RHNA need. Table
B-8: All Potential Housing Sites provides a full list of these sites. The City of Anaheim has identified sites
with capacity to accommodate the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA using existing residentially zone land and land
that will require a General Plan Amendment or Rezone. The City identified land to accommodate the RHNA
based on the following criteria:
• Selected sites are between half of an acre and ten acres
• Selected sites currently permit residential development or are identified for General Plan
Amendment or Rezone to permit Housing at an appropriate density identified below by income
category pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv). This Code Section permits a
jurisdiction within a metropolitan county, such as Orange County, to count units on sites that
allow a minimum of 30 dwelling units/acre (du/ac) as appropriate for accommodating lower
income households. However, in that the City has not had any Low or Very Low Income Housing
developed at a density of 60 dwelling units/acre (du/ac) or greater, it has elected to identify sites
that permit a density of 60 du/ac as appropriate for accommodating Moderate Income housing:
o Low and Very Low Income
An assumed density of at least 30 du/ac and less than 60 du/ac
o Moderate Income
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-13
An assumed density of at least 18 du/ac and less than 30 du/ac OR
An assumed density of at least 60 du/ac
o Above Moderate Income
An assumed density of less than 18 du/ac
• Selected sites are also near essential transportation, resources, and markets and further fair
housing opportunities. Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites and Figure B-1: Candidate Sites by
District show all sites that the City has identified to accommodate its RHNA allocation.
Capacity Calculations
The City utilized the following capacity calculation on parcels identified to accommodate RHNA units:
• The City identified the net available land of each parcels for development opportunity
• The City assumed a conservative 80 percent of the maximum density permitted on each parcel
• Based on this assumed density, the City calculated each identified site’s capacity to develop at its
designated income category
• For sites designated to accommodate lower and moderate income units:
o These sites are shown with projected capacity at 100% affordable development
o The City understands that not every development will occur 100% affordability and has
therefore added additional sites to the inventory with the capacity to accommodate
additional lower and moderate-income units.
Development of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Use
The City does not have sufficient vacant land available to accommodate fifty percent of the low/very-low
income RHNA allocation. To accommodate the need at those income levels, the City has analyzed sites
within existing zoning capacity and identified additional sites, which will require a General Plan Land Use
Element and/or Zoning Map Amendment.
The City has evaluated recent projects, within the last five years, which have included the development
of residential units on non-vacant sites. Table B-5: Example Development of Non-Vacant Sites for
Residential Uses provides each projects location, zoning, use prior to development with housing, and the
number of dwelling units constructed on site.
The City has also conducted a parcel specific analysis of existing uses for each of the identified sites. This
analysis of existing uses, including indicators of a likelihood that the existing use will redevelop within the
next eight years, are provided in Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites. The information that the City
used for this analysis is readily available to the City and found through online research.
Table B-5: Example Development of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses shows illustrative residential
development projects are on sites that have been for housing in the last five years that meet the following
criteria:
• Non-vacant sites
• Required a Zone-Change for Residential Use:
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-14
Table B-5: Example Development of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses
Project Address/ APN Dwelling
Units Zoning Size
(Acres) Use Prior
to Housing Project Analysis
1600 W Lincoln Avenue
APN: 25009111 315 C-G
(MU) 5.25 Auto
Dealership
General Plan Amendment from
General Commercial to Mixed-Use
High Land Use Designation and Zone
Change to add Mixed Use (MU)
Overlay Zone to Existing “C-G”
General Commercial Zone.
1619-1699 W Lincoln Ave
APN: 03527040 115 RM 3.5 7.17
Industrial
Uses/
Freeway
Remnant
General Plan Amendment from
General Commercial to Mid Density
Residential Land Use Designation
and Zone Change to RM 3.5
Multiple-Family Residential from C-
G, “T” Transitional, and “I” Industrial
Zones.
100-394 W Cerritos Ave
APN: 08221405 292 RM 3.5 11.87
Light
Industrial/
Office
Complex
General Plan Amendment from
General Commercial to Mid Density
Residential land use designation and
Zone Change from C-G to RM-3.5
702-798 N Ethan Way
APN: 03520501 39 RM 3.5 1.57
Outdoor
Storage/
Vehicle
Storage/
Parking
General Plan Amendment from Low
Density Residential to Mid Density
Residential land use designation and
Zone Change from I to RM 3.5 Zone
312-400 S Euclid and
1678 W Broadway
APN: 25005118
39 RM-3 2.35 Small Retail
Center
General Plan Amendment from
General Commercial and Corridor
Residential to the Low-Medium
Residential Density land use
designation and Zone Change from
C-G to RM-3 Multiple Family
Residential Zone
Existing Citywide Capacity
The City has multiple zones which permit residential development at appropriate densities for affordable
housing and which have remaining capacity to accommodate residential development. There are 100 sites
identified under existing zoning within approximately 155 acres of potential development area. These
sites are primarily within the Platinum Triangle, Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, and Beach Boulevard
Specific Plan but are also in other areas throughout the City. These sites have the capacity to develop
9,359 units, 670 of which have the capacity to develop affordably.
City Center Corridors (C3) Specific Plan
The development of the C3 Specific Plan is currently underway and the City anticipates that it will bring
considerable housing potential to the study area. The City has identified multiple sites to accommodate
its RHNA allocation within the future C3 Specific Plan using the assumptions detailed previously in this
appendix. In order to accommodate this capacity, several of the identified sites will require General Plan
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-15
land use designation changes, in addition to receiving a change in zoning as part of the approvals for the
C3 Specific Plan.
Table B-6: Sites for Rezone within C3 Specific Plan
Category Income Sites Acres Unit Capacity
No Change in GPLU
Designation
Lower Income 2 1.6 20
Moderate Income 20 29.4 1,844
Above Moderate Income 0 0.0 0
Proposed Change in
GPLU Designation
Lower Income 10 12.0 466
Moderate Income 32 48.2 1,897
Above Moderate Income 0 0.0 0
Total: 64 91.2 3,908
NOTE: Further site details are in Table B-8.
Citywide Zoning or Overlay Zone Change
The City identified sites, which require a change in the Zone or Overlay Zone designation to accommodate
housing at appropriate densities for all income levels. Several of these sites will also require a change to
the General Plan Land Use designation. Implementation of policies under the Housing Production Strategy
Area (found within Section 4: Housing Policy Program) will reclassify these sites to add either the
Residential Opportunities (RO) Overlay Zone or the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone as indicated below in
Table B-7: Sites for Rezone Citywide. However, until January 1, 2025, Government Code Section
65589.5(j)(4) allows development of sites that are consistent with objective General Plan standards and
criteria without the requirement for a zone change.
Table B-7: Sites for Rezone Citywide
Category Income Sites Acres Unit Capacity
No Change in GPLU
Designation
Lower Income 2 3.3 93
Moderate Income 29 14.4 614
Above Moderate Income 8 15.8 200
Proposed Change in
GPLU Designation
Lower Income 166 376.2 10,020
Moderate Income 1 22.24 480
Above Moderate Income 0 0 0
Total: 169 401.7 11,407
NOTE: Further site details are in Table B-8.
Housing Authority and Successor Agency Sites
The City has identified sites currently owned by the City’s Housing Authority and Successor Agency as
having additional capacity to accommodate housing development at existing zoning capacity. Based on
existing maximum densities permitted by the General Plan/Zoning or planned for by the Housing Authority
or Successor Agency, which would allow up to either 36 du/ac or 60 du/ac, these sites have the capacity
to accommodate 388 units of residential development. The permitted or planned development intensities
for these sites have the capacity to result in the development of 382 affordable units.
Figures B-1a through B-1e: Candidate Sites Inventory display the sites identified to accommodate the
City of Anaheim’s RHNA for the 2021-2029 Housing Element Planning Period, with the exception of ADU,
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-16
which the City and State law permit within residential areas citywide. As described in this appendix, the
development capacity for each site depends on its permitted density, consistency with surrounding uses,
the City’s past performance, development trends, and the site’s location, as well as known development
factors.
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites identifies each Candidate Site with a unique identifier used to track
sites within the inventory, as well as by assessor parcel number (APN). Additionally, the table provides
the following information for each parcel:
• Category, including sites identified in the previous Housing Element
• Parcel size and whether the Site meets the minimum site size (0.5 acres) and is no greater than
the maximum site size (10 acres) permitted by State law
• Existing and, as applicable, any proposed General Plan Land Use Designation
• Existing and, as applicable, any proposed Zoning (including Specific Plan and Overlay Zones)
• Maximum and Assumed Density
• Potential Housing Units by Income Category based on Assumed Density (Net Units)
• Assumed Income Category based on expected density of development
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-17
Figure B-1a: Candidate Sites Inventory District 1
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-18
Figure B-1b: Candidate Sites Inventory District 2
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-19
Figure B-1c: Candidate Sites Inventory District 3
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-20
Figure B-1d: Candidate Sites Inventory District 4
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-21
Figure B-1e: Candidate Sites Inventory District 5
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-22
Figure B-1f: Candidate Sites Inventory District 6
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-23
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
1 07308340 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 1.21 Vacant N/A Commercial-
General C-G Mixed-Use
High
C3SP, MU H Area Designation 60 48 57 0 57 0 Moderate Vacant
2 07308339 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 2.44 Vacant N/A Commercial-General C-G Mixed-Use High
C3SP, MU H
Area
Designation
60 48 117 0 117 0 Moderate Vacant
3 03711130 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 0.27 Yes N/A
Residential Low-Medium Density
I RO Residential-Mid
C3SP, RM-3.5 Area
Designation
27 21.6 5 0 5 0 Moderate Industrial Use
4 23416109 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 0.29 N/A Commercial-
General I Mixed-Use
High
C3SP, MU H Area
Designation
60 48 13 0 13 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
5 08248115 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 0.30 N/A Commercial-
General I Mixed-Use
High
C3SP, MU H
Area
Designation
60 48 14 0 14 0 Moderate Office Use
6 03713025 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 0.36 Yes N/A
Residential
Low-
Medium Density
I RO Residential-
Mid
C3SP, R-3 Area Designation 27 21.6 7 0 7 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
7 23416107 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 0.37 N/A Commercial-
General I Mixed-Use
High
C3SP, MU H Area Designation 60 48 17 0 17 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
8 03713026 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 0.39 Yes N/A
Residential Low-
Medium Density
I RO Residential-
Mid
C3SP, R-3 Area Designation 27 21.6 8 0 8 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
9 08248116 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 0.47 N/A Commercial-
General I Mixed-Use
High
C3SP, MU H
Area
Designation
60 48 22 0 22 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
10 08240404 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 0.52 Yes Commercial-General C-G Mixed-Use Medium
C3SP, MU MED Area
Designation
36 28.8 14 14 0 0 Low and Very Low Library
11 03618338 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 0.54 N/A Commercial-
General C-G Mixed-Use
Mid
C3SP, MU MID Area Designation 27 21.6 11 0 11 0 Moderate Medical
Office
12 25108315 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 0.55 N/A
Residential
Low-
Medium
Density
I Mixed-Use
Mid
C3SP, MU MID Area Designation 27 21.6 11 0 11 0 Moderate Industrial Use
13 25112114 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 0.61 N/A Residential-Medium O-L Mixed-Use Mid
C3SP, MU MID Area Designation 27 21.6 13 0 13 0 Moderate Hotel/Motel
14 08249225 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 0.69 Yes School C-G Mixed-Use
Medium
C3SP, MU MED Area
Designation
36 28.8 19 19 0 0 Low and
Very Low Office Use
15 08249230 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 0.75 Yes Commercial-General C-G Mixed-Use Medium
C3SP, MU
MED Area
Designation
36 28.8 21 21 0 0 Low and Very Low Restaurant
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-24
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
16 03711129 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 0.75 Yes N/A
Residential Low-Medium
Density
I RO Residential-Mid
C3SP, R-3.5
Area Designation 27 21.6 16 0 16 0 Moderate Industrial Use
17 07343528 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 0.76 Yes
Residential
Low-
Medium
Density
C-G Mixed-Use
Medium
C3SP, MU MED Area
Designation
36 28.8 22 22 0 0 Low and
Very Low Hotel/Motel
18 23416108 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 0.81 N/A Commercial-General I Mixed-Use High
C3SP, MU H Area
Designation
60 48 39 0 39 0 Moderate Industrial Use
19 27107106 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 0.86 Yes
Residential
Low-Medium Density
C-G Mixed-Use Medium
C3SP, MU
MED Area
Designation
36 28.8 24 24 0 0 Low and Very Low Hotel/Motel
20 23416110 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 0.95 N/A Commercial-General I Mixed-Use High
C3SP, MU H
Area
Designation
60 48 45 0 45 0 Moderate Industrial Use
21 03618337 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 1.07 N/A Commercial-General C-G Mixed-Use Mid
C3SP, MU MID Area Designation 27 21.6 23 0 23 0 Moderate Retail Use
22 23416113 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 1.43 N/A Commercial-
General I Mixed-Use
High
C3SP, MU H Area Designation 60 48 68 0 68 0 Moderate Private
School
23 23416112 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 1.56 N/A Commercial-General I Mixed-Use High
C3SP, MU H
Area
Designation
60 48 74 0 74 0 Moderate Industrial Use
24 23416105 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 1.59 N/A Commercial-
General I Mixed-Use
High
C3SP, MU H
Area
Designation
60 48 76 0 76 0 Moderate Private
School
25 23416111 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 1.76 N/A Commercial-
General I Mixed-Use
High
C3SP, MU H Area
Designation
60 48 84 0 84 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
26 03713028 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 1.93 Yes N/A Residential-
Medium I RO Residential-
Mid
C3SP, R-3 Area Designation 27 21.6 41 0 41 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
27 25108122 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 2.07 Yes N/A
Residential
Low-
Medium
Density
I RO Mixed-Use
Mid
C3SP, MU MID Area Designation 27 21.6 44 0 44 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
28 08248114 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 2.38 N/A Commercial-General I Mixed-Use High
C3SP, MU H Area Designation 60 48 114 0 114 0 Moderate Private School
29 03521009 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 2.41 Yes Residential-
Low Density I Residential-
Medium
C3SP, R-4 Area
Designation
36 28.8 69 69 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use
30 25108126 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 2.67 Yes N/A
Residential
Low-
Medium Density
I RO Mixed-Use Mid
C3SP, MU MID Area
Designation
27 21.6 57 0 57 0 Moderate Industrial Use
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-25
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
31 07308323 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 2.69 N/A Industrial I Mixed-Use
High
C3SP, MU H Area Designation 60 48 128 0 128 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
32 03501035 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 2.99 N/A Industrial I Mixed-Use High
C3SP, MU H
Area
Designation
60 48 143 0 143 0 Moderate Industrial Use
33 03713015 C-3 GPA and RCL and DA 3.59 Yes N/A
Residential Low-Medium Density
I RO Residential-Mid
C3SP, R-3 Area
Designation
27 21.6 77 0 77 0 Moderate Industrial Use
34 03501047 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 3.97 N/A Industrial I Mixed-Use
High
C3SP, MU H Area
Designation
60 48 190 0 190 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
35 03501052 C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA 7.96 N/A Industrial I Mixed-Use
High
C3SP, MU H
Area
Designation
60 48 381 0 381 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
36 25516101 C-3 RCL 0.47 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core C-G C3SP, MU
UC Area
Designation
100 80 37 0 37 0 Moderate Restaurant
37 25507611 C-3 RCL 0.53 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G C3SP, MU H
Area Designation 60 48 25 0 25 0 Moderate Park
38 25516106 C-3 RCL 0.53 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core C-G C3SP, MU UC Area Designation 100 80 42 0 42 0 Moderate Bank
40 03510114 C-3 RCL 0.58 N/A Mixed-Use High RM-4 C3SP, MU H
Area
Designation
60 48 27 0 27 0 Moderate Parking Lot*
41 03510117 C-3 RCL 0.58 N/A Mixed-Use
High T C3SP, MU H Area Designation 60 48 27 0 27 0 Moderate Parking Lot*
42 25516104 C-3 RCL 0.83 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core C-G C3SP, MU UC Area
Designation
100 80 66 0 66 0 Moderate Bank
43 25506112 C-3 RCL 0.91 N/A Mixed-Use High O-L C3SP, MU H
Area
Designation
60 48 43 0 43 0 Moderate Office Use*
44 03510122 C-3 RCL 0.99 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G C3SP, MU H
Area
Designation
60 48 47 0 47 0 Moderate Retail Use*
45 26715105 C-3 RCL 1.13 N/A Mixed-Use High C-G C3SP, MU H Area
Designation
60 48 54 0 54 0 Moderate Industrial Use
46 25111112 C-3 RCL 1.15 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G C3SP, MU H Area Designation 60 48 55 0 55 0 Moderate Retail Use*
47 25507712 C-3 RCL 1.34 N/A Mixed-Use High C-G C3SP, MU H
Area
Designation
60 48 64 0 64 0 Moderate Retail Use*
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-26
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
48 03501073 C-3 RCL 1.45 N/A Mixed-Use
High I C3SP, MU H Area Designation 60 48 69 0 69 0 Moderate Industrial
Use*
49 26715104 C-3 RCL 1.82 N/A Mixed-Use High I C3SP, MU H
Area
Designation
60 48 87 0 87 0 Moderate Industrial Use
50 25506416 C-3 RCL 1.85 N/A Mixed-Use High C-G C3SP, MU H Area Designation 60 48 88 0 88 0 Moderate Medical Office*
51 25506417 C-3 RCL 2.10 N/A Mixed-Use
High O-L C3SP, MU H Area Designation 60 48 100 0 100 0 Moderate Office Use*
52 25516102 C-3 RCL 3.05 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core C-G C3SP, MU
UC Area
Designation
100 80 243 0 243 0 Moderate Retail Use
53 25516105 C-3 RCL 3.96 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core C-G C3SP, MU
UC Area
Designation
100 80 316 0 316 0 Moderate Retail Use
54 25516103 C-3 RCL 4.96 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core C-G C3SP, MU UC Area
Designation
100 80 397 0 397 0 Moderate Retail Use*
56 08375140 Existing GP 0.28 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 22 0 22 0 Moderate Industrial Use
58 08375103 Existing GP 0.46 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 36 0 36 0 Moderate Retail Use
59 08375105 Existing GP 0.63 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 50 0 50 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
60 08375104 Existing GP 0.73 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 58 0 58 0 Moderate Office Use
61 08375116 Existing GP 0.84 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 67 0 67 0 Moderate Industrial Use
62 25353206 Existing GP 0.94 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core O-L PTMU 100 80 75 0 75 0 Moderate Office Use*
63 25353207 Existing GP 0.95 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core O-L PTMU 100 80 76 0 76 0 Moderate Office Use*
64 08375117 Existing GP 0.97 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 77 0 77 0 Moderate Industrial Use
65 08375136 Existing GP 1.85 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 148 0 148 0 Moderate Industrial Use
66 08375138 Existing GP 2.01 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 161 0 161 0 Moderate Industrial Use
67 25353213 Existing GP 2.11 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core C-G PTMU 100 80 168 0 168 0 Moderate Business
Park*
68 25353204 Existing GP 3.26 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core O-L PTMU 100 80 260 0 260 0 Moderate Parking Lot*
69 25353208 Existing GP 6.02 Vacant N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core O-L PTMU 100 80 481 0 481 0 Moderate
Partial
Parking Lot and Partial Vacant
70 03719072 RCL Only 0.15 N/A Mixed-Use High C-G MU 60 48 7 0 7 0 Moderate Medical Office*
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-27
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
71 03529064 RCL Only 0.15 N/A Mixed-Use High C-G MU 60 48 7 0 7 0 Moderate Office Use*
72 03529046 RCL Only 0.16 N/A Mixed-Use High T MU 60 48 7 0 7 0 Moderate
Single
Family
Residence
73 03529053 RCL Only 0.16 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G MU 60 48 7 0 7 0 Moderate Restaurant*
74 03719060 RCL Only 0.18 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G MU 60 48 8 0 8 0 Moderate Office Use*
75 03719066 RCL Only 0.18 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G MU 60 48 8 0 8 0 Moderate Auto Repair/Service*
76 03528144 RCL Only 0.21 N/A Mixed-Use
High O-L MU 60 48 10 0 10 0 Moderate Office Use*
77 03719061 RCL Only 0.22 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G MU 60 48 5 0 5 0 Moderate Fourplex
78 03528143 RCL Only 0.26 N/A Mixed-Use
High O-L MU 60 48 12 0 12 0 Moderate Office Use*
79 03719071 RCL Only 0.26 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G MU 60 48 12 0 12 0 Moderate Retail Use*
80 03719070 RCL Only 0.32 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G MU 60 48 15 0 15 0 Moderate Retail Use*
81 03719064 RCL Only 0.33 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G MU 60 48 16 0 16 0 Moderate Restaurant*
82 03719068 RCL Only 0.35 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G MU 60 48 16 0 16 0 Moderate Auto Repair/Service*
83 03528145 RCL Only 0.36 N/A Mixed-Use High O-L MU 60 48 17 0 17 0 Moderate Office Use*
84 03529071 RCL Only 0.38 N/A Mixed-Use
High O-L MU 60 48 18 0 18 0 Moderate Office Use*
85 03719073 RCL Only 0.46 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G MU 60 48 22 0 22 0 Moderate Restaurant*
86 03529047 RCL Only 0.47 N/A Mixed-Use High O-L MU 60 48 22 0 22 0 Moderate Medical Office*
87 13527104 Existing GP 0.50 N/A Mixed-Use High SP 2017-1 60 48 24 0 24 0 Moderate Retail Use
88 07989329 Existing GP 0.52 Yes Residential-Medium SP 2017-1 36 28.8 14 14 0 0 Low and Very Low Hotel/Motel
89 03529036 RCL Only 0.53 N/A Mixed-Use
High RM-4 MU 60 48 5 0 5 0 Moderate Apartment
90 03528146 RCL Only 0.53 N/A Mixed-Use
High O-L MU 60 48 25 0 25 0 Moderate Office Use*
91 03528158 RCL Only 0.56 N/A Mixed-Use
High O-L MU 60 48 27 0 27 0 Moderate Medical
Office
92 03529050 RCL Only 0.57 N/A Mixed-Use High C-G MU 60 48 27 0 27 0 Moderate Office Use*
93 34518117 Existing GP 0.59 Vacant N/A Mixed-Use
High SP 2015-1 60 48 28 0 28 0 Moderate Vacant
94 13745125 Existing GP 0.59 Yes Yes Residential-
Medium C-G RO 36 28.8 17 17 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-28
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
95 34512114 Existing GP 0.61 N/A Mixed-Use High SP 2015-1 60 48 29 0 29 0 Moderate Industrial Use
96 34512115 Existing GP 0.61 N/A Mixed-Use High SP 2015-1 60 48 29 0 29 0 Moderate
Auto
Repair/Servi
ce
97 07916423 Existing GP 0.63 Yes Residential-
Medium SP 2017-1 36 28.8 18 18 0 0 Low and
Very Low Hotel/Motel
98 03529063 RCL Only 0.63 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G MU 60 48 30 0 30 0 Moderate Restaurant*
99 07916413 Existing GP 0.66 Yes Residential-Medium SP 2017-1 36 28.8 18 18 0 0 Low and Very Low Hotel/Motel
100 13526104 Existing GP 0.67 Vacant N/A Mixed-Use
High SP 2017-1 60 48 32 0 32 0 Moderate Vacant
101 07916422 Existing GP 0.68 Yes Residential-
Medium SP 2017-1 36 28.8 19 19 0 0 Low and
Very Low Hotel/Motel
102 12661101 Existing GP 0.70 N/A Mixed-Use High SP 2017-1 60 48 33 0 33 0 Moderate Hotel/Motel
103 03529067 RCL Only 0.71 N/A Mixed-Use High C-G MU 60 48 34 0 34 0 Moderate Restaurant*
104 26833102 Existing GP 0.73 Yes Yes Residential-
Medium T RO 36 28.8 20 20 0 0 Low and
Very Low Nursery
105 03529060 RCL Only 0.74 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G MU 60 48 35 0 35 0 Moderate Office Use*
106 07916412 Existing GP 0.75 Yes Residential-Medium SP 2017-1 36 28.8 21 21 0 0 Low and Very Low Hotel/Motel
107 12611101 Existing GP 0.77 Yes Mixed-Use Mediium SP 2017-1 36 28.8 22 22 0 0 Low and Very Low Hotel/Motel
108 07995132 Existing GP 0.86 Yes Mixed-Use Mediium SP 2017-1 36 28.8 24 24 0 0 Low and Very Low Auto Dealership
109 07995106 Existing GP 0.89 Yes Mixed-Use
Mediium SP 2017-1 36 28.8 25 25 0 0 Low and
Very Low Athletic Club
110 07995127 Existing GP 0.92 Yes Mixed-Use
Mediium SP 2017-1 36 28.8 26 26 0 0 Low and
Very Low Hotel/Motel
111 13745122 Existing GP 0.93 Yes Yes Residential-
Medium C-G RO 36 28.8 26 26 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
112 34512111 Existing GP 0.93 N/A Mixed-Use
High SP 2015-1 60 48 44 0 44 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
113 03529077 RCL Only 0.99 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G MU 60 48 47 0 47 0 Moderate Hotel/Motel
*
114 07995130 Existing GP 1.00 Vacant N/A Mixed-Use
High SP 2017-1 60 48 48 0 48 0 Moderate Vacant
115 03529059 RCL Only 1.01 N/A Mixed-Use High C-G MU 60 48 48 0 48 0 Moderate Hotel/Motel*
116 12661118 Existing GP 1.04 N/A Mixed-Use High SP 2017-1 60 48 49 0 49 0 Moderate Retail Use
117 03529074 RCL Only 1.07 N/A Mixed-Use High O-L MU 60 48 39 0 39 0 Moderate Medical Office
118 34501112 Existing GP 1.14 N/A Mixed-Use
High SP 2015-1 60 48 54 0 54 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
119 03529079 RCL Only 1.22 N/A Mixed-Use
High RM-3 MU 60 48 31 0 31 0 Moderate Apartment
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-29
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
120 07989333 Existing GP 1.28 Yes Residential-
Medium SP 2017-1 36 28.8 36 36 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Community or Charity Group
121 13526119 Existing GP 1.31 N/A Mixed-Use
High SP 2017-1 60 48 62 0 62 0 Moderate Retail Use
122 07916414 Existing GP 1.31 Yes Residential-
Medium SP 2017-1 36 28.8 37 37 0 0 Low and
Very Low Hotel/Motel
123 08373118 Existing GP 1.32 Yes Yes Residential-
Medium C-G RO 36 28.8 37 37 0 0 Low and
Very Low Office Use
124 34501104 Existing GP 1.37 N/A Mixed-Use
High SP 2015-1 60 48 65 0 65 0 Moderate Auto Repair/Service
125 34613202 Existing GP 1.43 N/A Mixed-Use
High SP 2015-1 60 48 68 0 68 0 Moderate Restaurant
126 13526117 Existing GP 1.64 N/A Mixed-Use
High SP 2017-1 60 48 78 0 78 0 Moderate Retail Use
127 12611120 Existing GP 1.67 Yes Mixed-Use
Mediium SP 2017-1 36 28.8 48 48 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use
128 12603226 Existing GP 1.71 Yes Yes Residential-
Medium C-G RO 36 28.8 49 49 0 0 Low and
Very Low Hotel/Motel
130 34613211 Existing GP 1.79 N/A Mixed-Use
High SP 2015-1 60 48 85 0 85 0 Moderate Office Use
131 34613201 Existing GP 1.88 N/A Mixed-Use
High SP 2015-1 60 48 90 0 90 0 Moderate Office Use
132 34613210 Existing GP 1.88 N/A Mixed-Use High SP 2015-1 60 48 90 0 90 0 Moderate Office Use
133 34613212 Existing GP 2.24 N/A Mixed-Use High SP 2015-1 60 48 107 0 107 0 Moderate Office Use
134 07995121 Existing GP 2.26 N/A Mixed-Use High SP 2017-1 60 48 108 0 108 0 Moderate Medical Office
135 07995126 Existing GP 2.27 N/A Mixed-Use
High SP 2017-1 60 48 109 0 109 0 Moderate Medical
Office
136 35901180 Existing GP 2.30 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G SC 60 48 110 0 110 0 Moderate Hospital*
137 34518116 Existing GP 2.46 N/A Mixed-Use High SP 2015-1 60 48 118 0 118 0 Moderate Hotel/Motel
138 34518103 Existing GP 2.65 N/A Mixed-Use High SP 2015-1 60 48 127 0 127 0 Moderate Retail Use
139 08373119 Existing GP 2.69 Yes Yes Residential-
Medium C-G RO 36 28.8 77 77 0 0 Low and
Very Low Office Use
140 03446033 Existing GP 3.01 Yes Residential-
Medium RM-4 36 28.8 86 86 0 0 Low and
Very Low Office Use*
141 35901176 Existing GP 3.50 N/A Mixed-Use High C-G SC 60 48 168 0 168 0 Moderate Hospital*
142 35901175 Existing GP 3.61 N/A Mixed-Use
High C-G SC 60 48 173 0 173 0 Moderate Hospital*
143 34518124 Existing GP 6.27 N/A Mixed-Use
High SP 2015-1 60 48 300 0 300 0 Moderate Hotel/Motel
144 13525128 Existing GP 8.49 N/A Mixed-Use
High SP 2017-1 60 48 407 0 407 0 Moderate Retail Use
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-30
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
145 23208107
Existing GP (PT DA DU CAP See Site
Type Notes)
0.75 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 60 0 60 0 Moderate Office Use*
146 23208106
Existing GP
(PT DA DU
CAP See Site
Type Notes)
0.88 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 70 0 70 0 Moderate Office Use*
147 23208122
Existing GP (PT DA DU
CAP See Site Type Notes)
1.07 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 85 0 85 0 Moderate Office Use*
148 23208116
Existing GP (PT DA DU CAP See Site
Type Notes)
1.09 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core O-L PTMU 100 80 87 0 87 0 Moderate Office Use
149 23208120
Existing GP
(PT DA DU
CAP See Site
Type Notes)
1.32 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core O-L PTMU 100 80 105 0 105 0 Moderate Office Use
150 23208119
Existing GP (PT DA DU
CAP See Site Type Notes)
1.70 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core O-L PTMU 100 80 135 0 135 0 Moderate Office Use
151 23208105
Existing GP (PT DA DU CAP See Site Type Notes)
2.00 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core O-L PTMU 100 80 159 0 159 0 Moderate Office Use
152 23212121
Existing GP
(PT DA DU
CAP See Site
Type Notes)
1.04 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 82 0 82 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
153 23212120
Existing GP (PT DA DU
CAP See Site Type Notes)
8.32 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 665 0 665 0 Moderate Office Use
154 08375113
Existing GP (PT DA DU CAP See Site Type Notes)
0.79 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 63 0 63 0 Moderate Industrial Use
155 08375115
Existing GP
(PT DA DU
CAP See Site
Type Notes)
1.19 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 94 0 94 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
156 08375101
Existing GP (PT DA DU
CAP See Site Type Notes)
2.13 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 170 0 170 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
157 08226134
Existing GP (PT DA DU CAP See Site Type Notes)
0.92 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 73 0 73 0 Moderate Bank
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-31
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
158 08226109
Existing GP (PT DA DU CAP See Site
Type Notes)
0.99 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 79 0 79 0 Moderate Industrial Use
159 08226112
Existing GP
(PT DA DU
CAP See Site
Type Notes)
1.05 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 84 0 84 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
160 08226111
Existing GP (PT DA DU
CAP See Site Type Notes)
1.08 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 86 0 86 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
161 08226108
Existing GP (PT DA DU CAP See Site
Type Notes)
1.30 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 104 0 104 0 Moderate Industrial Use
162 08226110
Existing GP
(PT DA DU
CAP See Site
Type Notes)
1.38 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 110 0 110 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
163 23212132
Existing GP (PT DA DU
CAP See Site Type Notes)
3.24 Vacant N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 259 0 259 0 Moderate Vacant
164 08327112
Existing GP (PT DA DU CAP See Site Type Notes)
0.51 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 41 0 41 0 Moderate Industrial Use
165 08327110
Existing GP
(PT DA DU
CAP See Site
Type Notes)
0.51 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 41 0 41 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
166 23201126
Existing GP (PT DA DU
CAP See Site Type Notes)
0.52 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core O-L PTMU 100 80 41 0 41 0 Moderate Office Use
167 08327104
Existing GP (PT DA DU CAP See Site Type Notes)
0.58 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 46 0 46 0 Moderate Industrial Use
168 08327205
Existing GP
(PT DA DU
CAP See Site
Type Notes)
0.58 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 46 0 46 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
169 08327105
Existing GP (PT DA DU
CAP See Site Type Notes)
0.60 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 47 0 47 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
170 08327103
Existing GP (PT DA DU CAP See Site Type Notes)
0.60 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 48 0 48 0 Moderate Industrial Use
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-32
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
171 08327206
Existing GP (PT DA DU CAP See Site
Type Notes)
0.61 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 48 0 48 0 Moderate Industrial Use
172 08327207
Existing GP
(PT DA DU
CAP See Site
Type Notes)
0.77 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 61 0 61 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
173 08327102
Existing GP (PT DA DU
CAP See Site Type Notes)
0.79 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 63 0 63 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
174 08327107
Existing GP (PT DA DU CAP See Site
Type Notes)
1.17 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 93 0 93 0 Moderate Industrial Use
175 08327113
Existing GP
(PT DA DU
CAP See Site
Type Notes)
1.27 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 101 0 101 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
176 08327106
Existing GP (PT DA DU
CAP See Site Type Notes)
1.29 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 103 0 103 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
177 08327101
Existing GP (PT DA DU CAP See Site Type Notes)
1.47 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 117 0 117 0 Moderate Industrial Use
178 23201146
Existing GP
(PT DA DU
CAP See Site
Type Notes)
2.00 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core O-L PTMU 100 80 160 0 160 0 Moderate Office Use
179 08327108
Existing GP (PT DA DU
CAP See Site Type Notes)
2.09 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core I PTMU 100 80 167 0 167 0 Moderate Industrial
Use
180 23201152
Existing GP (PT DA DU CAP See Site Type Notes)
2.09 N/A Mixed-Use Urban Core C-G PTMU 100 80 167 0 167 0 Moderate Parking Lot
181 23201128
Existing GP
(PT DA DU
CAP See Site
Type Notes)
2.26 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core O-L PTMU 100 80 180 0 180 0 Moderate Office Use
182 23201130
Existing GP (PT DA DU
CAP See Site Type Notes)
2.55 N/A Mixed-Use
Urban Core O-L PTMU 100 80 203 0 203 0 Moderate Office Use
221 08325039 GPA and RCL 0.51 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA that allows Res Area Designation
36 28.8 14 14 0 0 Low and Very Low Parking Lot
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-33
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
222 08224204 GPA and RCL 0.52 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 14 14 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
223 08325049 GPA and RCL 0.52 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 15 15 0 0 Low and
Very Low Mortuary
224 25353107 GPA and RCL 0.53 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA that allows Res Area Designation
36 28.8 15 15 0 0 Low and Very Low Service Station*
225 25358103 GPA and RCL 0.53 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 15 15 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
226 25353101 GPA and RCL 0.53 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area Designation
36 28.8 15 15 0 0 Low and Very Low Restaurant*
227 08325070 GPA and RCL 0.54 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area Designation
36 28.8 15 15 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use
228 08224203 GPA and RCL 0.55 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 15 15 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
229 08224906 GPA and RCL 0.55 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 15 15 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
230 08226120 GPA and RCL 0.57 Yes Office-Low I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 16 16 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
231 25361107 GPA and RCL 0.59 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 17 17 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
232 08325046 GPA and RCL 0.60 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA that allows Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 17 17 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
233 25361104 GPA and RCL 0.62 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 17 17 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
234 08224118 GPA and RCL 0.62 Yes Public-
Institutional C-G Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 17 17 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
235 08226119 GPA and RCL 0.65 Yes Office-Low I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA that allows Res Area Designation
36 28.8 18 18 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use
236 08224205 GPA and RCL 0.66 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 19 19 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
237 25361105 GPA and RCL 0.67 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 19 19 0 0 Low and
Very Low No Data*
238 25359210 GPA and RCL 0.67 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 19 19 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
239 25361106 GPA and RCL 0.68 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 19 19 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-34
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
240 25361203 GPA and RCL 0.68 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 19 19 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
241 08226117 GPA and RCL 0.71 Yes Office-Low I PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 20 20 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
242 08226121 GPA and RCL 0.74 Yes Office-Low I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA that allows Res Area Designation
36 28.8 21 21 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
243 08224206 GPA and RCL 0.77 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 22 22 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
244 08329094 GPA and RCL 0.77 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area Designation
36 28.8 22 22 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
245 25361205 GPA and RCL 0.80 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 22 22 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
246 08224902 GPA and RCL 0.80 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 23 23 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
247 08226118 GPA and RCL 0.80 Yes Office-Low I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA
that allows Res Area Designation
36 28.8 23 23 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
248 25306111 GPA and RCL 0.83 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 23 23 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
249 25358112 GPA and RCL 0.89 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 25 25 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
250 08224122 GPA and RCL 0.90 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 25 25 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
252 25358111 GPA and RCL 0.90 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 25 25 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
253 25306121 GPA and RCL 0.93 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 26 26 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Religious
Use
254 08329085 GPA and RCL 0.95 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 27 27 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
255 25358107 GPA and RCL 0.95 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 27 27 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
256 08225070 GPA and RCL 0.96 Yes Office-Low I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA
that allows Res Area Designation
36 28.8 27 27 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
257 08329086 GPA and RCL 0.96 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 27 27 0 0 Low and
Very Low Office Use*
258 08224207 GPA and RCL 0.98 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 28 28 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-35
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
259 25359208 GPA and RCL 0.99 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 28 28 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use
260 08224208 GPA and RCL 0.99 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 28 28 0 0 Low and
Very Low Office Use*
261 25306104 GPA and RCL 0.99 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 28 28 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
262 25361204 GPA and RCL 1.01 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 28 28 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
263 08226116 GPA and RCL 1.03 Yes Office-Low I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA
that allows Res Area Designation
36 28.8 29 29 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
264 25359211 GPA and RCL 1.04 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 30 30 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
265 25358115 GPA and RCL 1.17 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 33 33 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
266 25358108 GPA and RCL 1.19 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 34 34 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
267 25361201 GPA and RCL 1.22 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 35 35 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
268 25361102 GPA and RCL 1.34 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 38 38 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
269 08224115 GPA and RCL 1.40 Yes Office-High C-G PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 40 40 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
270 25358102 GPA and RCL 1.42 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 40 40 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
271 25358101 GPA and RCL 1.46 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 41 41 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
272 25353102 GPA and RCL 1.47 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 42 42 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
273 08329069 GPA and RCL 1.51 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA
that allows Res Area Designation
36 28.8 43 43 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
274 25361202 GPA and RCL 1.56 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 44 44 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
275 25353103 GPA and RCL 1.64 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA that allows
Res Area Designation
36 28.8 47 47 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
276 08325045 GPA and RCL 1.70 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 48 48 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
277 08224114 GPA and RCL 1.84 Yes Office-High O-L PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA
that allows 36 28.8 52 52 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-36
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
Res Area Designation
278 25358106 GPA and RCL 1.84 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 52 52 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
279 25306107 GPA and RCL 1.87 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 53 53 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Sex Oriented
Business
280 08224125 GPA and RCL 1.89 Yes Public-Institutional C-G Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 54 54 0 0 Low and Very Low Office Use*
281 25306106 GPA and RCL 1.89 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 54 54 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
282 25358116 GPA and RCL 1.95 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 56 56 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
283 08329109 GPA and RCL 1.96 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 56 56 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Public
Utilities*
284 08224209 GPA and RCL 1.98 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 56 56 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
285 25306102 GPA and RCL 2.04 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 58 58 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
286 25361103 GPA and RCL 2.08 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 59 59 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
287 08325074 GPA and RCL 2.18 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 62 62 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
288 25306105 GPA and RCL 2.19 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 63 63 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
289 25358105 GPA and RCL 2.27 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 65 65 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
290 25306103 GPA and RCL 2.30 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 66 66 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use
291 25306122 GPA and RCL 2.36 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 67 67 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
292 08225058 GPA and RCL 2.58 Yes Office-Low I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA that allows Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 74 74 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
293 08225088 GPA and RCL 2.86 Yes Office-Low I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA that allows Res Area Designation
36 28.8 82 82 0 0 Low and Very Low Retail Use*
294 25306115 GPA and RCL 2.92 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 83 83 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
295 08224903 GPA and RCL 3.02 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 87 87 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use
296 25362204 GPA and RCL 3.23 Yes Office-High O-H PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA that allows Res Area Designation
36 28.8 93 93 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-37
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
297 25353105 GPA and RCL 3.35 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA that allows Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 96 96 0 0 Low and Very Low Retail Use*
298 25362301 GPA and RCL 3.59 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use
Medium
PTMU
Overlay 36 28.8 103 103 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
299 25362101 GPA and RCL 3.79 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 109 109 0 0 Low and Very Low Office Use*
300 08224112 GPA and RCL 3.82 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 110 110 0 0 Low and Very Low Parking Lot*
301 08225901 GPA and RCL 4.35 Yes Office-Low I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA that allows Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 125 125 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
302 08224113 GPA and RCL 4.55 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 131 131 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
303 08224904 GPA and RCL 4.55 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA that allows
Res Area Designation
36 28.8 131 131 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
304 08226115 GPA and RCL 5.25 Yes Office-Low I PTMU Mixed-Use Medium
**New DA that allows Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 151 151 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use
305 25353106 GPA and RCL 5.26 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 151 151 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
306 08225069 GPA and RCL 5.75 Yes Office-Low I PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA that allows
Res Area Designation
36 28.8 165 165 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
307 08224120 GPA and RCL 5.93 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 170 170 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use
308 25353104 GPA and RCL 6.31 Yes Office-High I PTMU Mixed-Use
Medium
**New DA
that allows
Res Area
Designation
36 28.8 181 181 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Auto Repair/Service*
309 25306123 GPA and RCL 8.17 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 235 235 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
310 08224110 GPA and RCL 8.59 Yes Industrial I Mixed-Use Medium PTMU Overlay 36 28.8 247 247 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
318 07309030 GPA and RCL 0.76 Yes Commercial-Regional C-G Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 21 21 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
319 07309035 GPA and RCL 0.77 Yes Commercial-
General C-G Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 22 22 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
320 07309046 GPA and RCL 0.88 Yes Commercial-
Regional C-G Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 25 25 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-38
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
321 07309043 GPA and RCL 0.96 Yes Commercial-Regional C-G Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 27 27 0 0 Low and Very Low Retail Use*
322 07309037 GPA and RCL 0.99 Yes Commercial-
Regional C-G Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 28 28 0 0 Low and
Very Low Vacant
323 07309039 GPA and RCL 1.20 Yes Commercial-
General C-G Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 34 34 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
324 07309045 GPA and RCL 1.53 Yes Commercial-Regional C-G Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 37 37 0 0 Low and Very Low Retail Use*
325 07309050 GPA and RCL 1.67 Yes Commercial-
Regional C-G Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 48 48 0 0 Low and
Very Low Restaurant*
326 07309044 GPA and RCL 2.39 Yes Commercial-
Regional C-G Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 68 68 0 0 Low and
Very Low Vacant
327 07309041 GPA and RCL 3.34 Yes Commercial-
Regional C-G Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 96 96 0 0 Low and
Very Low Vacant
328 07309031 GPA and RCL 9.23 Yes Commercial-Regional C-G Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 265 265 0 0 Low and Very Low Retail Use*
347 34938117 GPA and RCL 0.51 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 14 14 0 0 Low and Very Low Athletic Club*
348 34628105 GPA and RCL 0.59 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 16 16 0 0 Low and Very Low Retail Use*
349 26803102 GPA and RCL 0.61 Yes
Commercial-
Neighborho
od
C-G Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 17 17 0 0 Low and Very Low Retail Use
350 34511115 GPA and RCL 0.63 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 18 18 0 0 Low and Very Low Retail Use
351 34938111 GPA and RCL 0.64 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 18 18 0 0 Low and Very Low Bank*
352 34908109 GPA and RCL 0.67 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 19 19 0 0 Low and Very Low Retail Use*
353 34938119 GPA and RCL 0.75 Yes Commercial-
General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 21 21 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Business
Park*
354 34645126 GPA and RCL 0.83 Yes Commercial-
General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 24 24 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use
355 26803105 GPA and RCL 0.84 Yes
Commercial-
Neighborhood C-G Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 24 24 0 0 Low and
Very Low Car wash*
356 34511117 GPA and RCL 0.95 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 26 26 0 0 Low and Very Low Restaurant
357 34908154 GPA and RCL 1.12 Yes Commercial-
General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 32 32 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Service
Station
358 35919224 GPA and RCL 1.39 Yes
Residential
Low-
Medium
Density
C-G SC Mixed-Use
Medium
SC & MU
Overlay 36 28.8 40 40 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
359 34645118 GPA and RCL 1.79 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 51 51 0 0 Low and Very Low Restaurant
360 34908169 GPA and RCL 1.82 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 52 52 0 0 Low and Very Low Nursery*
361 34367106 GPA and RCL 1.84 Yes Residential-
Low Density T Residential-
Medium RM-4 Zone 36 28.8 53 53 0 0 Low and
Very Low Parking Lot*
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-39
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
362 34512121 GPA and RCL 2.08 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 59 59 0 0 Low and Very Low Retail Use*
363 35919223 GPA and RCL 2.17 Yes
Residential
Low-
Medium
Density
C-G SC Mixed-Use
Medium
SC & MU
Overlay 36 28.8 62 62 0 0 Low and
Very Low Restaurant*
364 36018401 GPA and RCL 2.20 Yes Residential-Low Density T Residential-Medium RM-4 36 28.8 63 63 0 0 Low and Very Low Vacant
365 26803103 GPA and RCL 2.25 Yes Commercial-Neighborhood C-G Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 64 64 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use*
366 34511119 GPA and RCL 2.50 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 72 72 0 0 Low and Very Low Parking Lot*
367 34645111 GPA and RCL 2.59 Yes Commercial-
General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 74 74 0 0 Low and
Very Low Vacant
368 35445119 GPA and RCL 2.64 Yes Commercial-
Regional SP 90-1 SC Mixed-Use
Medium
SC & MU
Overlay 36 28.8 75 75 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
369 34512123 GPA and RCL 2.78 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 80 80 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
370 34908170 GPA and RCL 2.88 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 83 83 0 0 Low and Very Low Retail Use*
372 34367201 GPA and RCL 3.59 Yes Residential-
Low Density T Residential-
Medium RM-4 36 28.8 103 103 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
373 34511111 GPA and RCL 3.91 Yes Commercial-
General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 112 112 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Bowling
Alley*
374 34628106 GPA and RCL 4.39 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 126 126 0 0 Low and Very Low Hotel/Motel*
375 35445131 GPA and RCL 4.40 Yes Commercial-
Regional SP 90-1 SC Mixed-Use
Medium
SC & MU
Overlay 36 28.8 126 126 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Single Family
Residence
376 34511105 GPA and RCL 5.14 Yes Commercial-
General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 148 148 0 0 Low and
Very Low Parking Lot*
377 34511104 GPA and RCL 5.16 Yes Commercial-
General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 148 148 0 0 Low and
Very Low Retail Use*
378 34628103 GPA and RCL 5.53 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 159 159 0 0 Low and Very Low Retail Use*
379 34511116 GPA and RCL 5.54 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 159 159 0 0 Low and Very Low Business Park*
380 34511108 GPA and RCL 5.88 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 169 169 0 0 Low and Very Low Business Park*
381 34511110 GPA and RCL 6.33 Yes Commercial-
General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 182 182 0 0 Low and
Very Low Theater
382 34511103 GPA and RCL 6.47 Yes Commercial-
General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 186 186 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Business
Park*
383 34512119 GPA and RCL 7.23 Yes Commercial-
General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 208 208 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Amusement/Theme Park*
384 35445132 GPA and RCL 7.79 Yes Commercial-Regional SP 90-1 SC Mixed-Use Medium SC & MU Overlay 36 28.8 224 224 0 0 Low and Very Low Office Use*
385 34938120 GPA and RCL 7.86 Yes Commercial-
General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use
Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 226 226 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Business
Park*
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-40
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
386 34511118 GPA and RCL 8.01 Yes Commercial-General SP 2015-1 Mixed-Use Medium MU Overlay 36 28.8 230 230 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use*
388 12806103 RCL Only 0.65 N/A
Residential
Low-
Medium
Density
T RO Overlay 18 14.4 9 0 0 9 Above Moderate Retail Use*
389 12806105 RCL Only 0.66 N/A
Residential Low-Medium Density
T RO Overlay 18 14.4 9 0 0 9 Above Moderate Retail Use
390 12632106 RCL Only 0.84 N/A
Residential Low-
Medium Density
T RO Overlay 18 14.4 12 0 0 12 Above
Moderate
Industrial
Use
391 12632111 RCL Only 0.90 N/A
Residential
Low-
Medium
Density
T RO Overlay 18 14.4 13 0 0 13 Above
Moderate
Medical
Office
392 03529076 RCL Only 1.21 N/A Mixed-Use High T RO Overlay 60 48 57 0 57 0 Moderate Retail Use
393 13407263 RCL Only 1.53 Yes Residential-Medium T RO Overlay 36 28.8 44 44 0 0 Low and Very Low Public Utilities
394 26833206 RCL Only 1.72 Yes Residential-Medium T RO Overlay 36 28.8 49 49 0 0 Low and Very Low Private School
395 12921237 RCL Only 1.77 N/A Residential-
Corridor T RO Overlay 13 10.4 18 0 0 18 Above
Moderate Hotel/Motel
396 07056241 RCL Only 1.84 N/A Residential-
Low Density T RO Overlay 6.5 5.2 9 0 0 9 Above
Moderate
Medical
Office
397 25318144 RCL Only 2.78 N/A
Residential
Low-Medium Density
T RO Overlay 18 14.4 40 0 0 40 Above Moderate Public Utilities
398 12834202 RCL Only 6.31 N/A
Residential Low-Medium
Density
T RO Overlay 18 14.4 90 0 0 90 Above Moderate Medical Office
406 03621015 Housing Authority /
C-3 RCL
0.56 Yes
Residential
Low-
Medium
Density
I RO C3SP, RM-3 Area
Designation
0 15 15 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Private
School
411 03702212 Housing Authority /
C-3 RCL
1.04 Yes Residential-
Medium I RO C3SP, RM-4 Area
Designation
0 28 28 0 0 Low and
Very Low Preschool
431 03711318
Housing Authority / C-3 GPA and RCL and DA
0.15 N/A Residential-Low Density RM-4 Residential-Medium
C3SP, RM-4
Area Designation 0 1 0 1 0 Moderate Private School
432 03711333
Housing
Authority /
C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA
0.03 Yes N/A Residential-
Low Density RM-4 Residential-
Medium
C3SP, RM-4 Area Designation 0 0 0 0 0 Moderate Industrial
Use*
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-41
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
433 03711332
Housing Authority / C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA
0.12 Yes N/A Residential-Low Density RM-4 Residential-Medium
C3SP, RM-4
Area Designation 0 1 0 1 0 Moderate Industrial Use*
434 07308342
Housing
Authority /
C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA
0.58 Yes Commercial-
General C-G Mixed-Use
High
C3SP, MU H Area
Designation
0 29 29 0 0 Low and
Very Low Vacant
435 07308334
Housing Authority /
C-3 GPA and RCL and DA
1.23 Yes Commercial-
General C-G Mixed-Use
High
C3SP, MU H
Area
Designation
0 62 61 0 1 Low and
Very Low Vacant
436 07308341
Housing Authority / C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA
2.23 Yes Commercial-General C-G Mixed-Use High
C3SP, MU H
Area Designation 0 112 111 0 1 Low and Very Low Vacant
437 07308338
Housing
Authority /
C-3 GPA and
RCL and DA
1.94 Yes Commercial-
General C-G Mixed-Use
High
C3SP, MU H Area
Designation
0 97 96 0 1 Low and
Very Low
Vocational
School
447 03407048 Successor Agency: GPA
and RCL
0.19 No Commercial-
General C-G MU-MED MU Overlay 36 28.8 5 5 0 0 Low and
Very Low Vacant
448 03407077
Successor
Agency: GPA and RCL 0.69 Yes Commercial-
General C-G MU-MED MU Overlay 36 28.8 19 19 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Vocational
School
449 03407079
Successor
Agency: GPA
and RCL
0.01 No Commercial-
General C-G MU-MED MU Overlay 36 28.8 0 0 0 0 Low and
Very Low Vacant
450 03407080
Successor
Agency: GPA and RCL 0.00 No Commercial-General* C-G MU-MED MU Overlay 36 28.8 0 0 0 0 Low and Very Low Vacant*
451 03407084 Successor Agency: GPA and RCL 0.06 No Commercial-
General C-G MU-MED MU Overlay 36 28.8 1 1 0 0 Low and
Very Low Vacant
452 03407083 Successor Agency: GPA
and RCL
1.21 Yes Commercial-General C-G MU-MED MU Overlay 36 28.8 34 34 0 0 Low and Very Low No Data*
453 03407085
Successor
Agency: GPA
and RCL
0.22 No Commercial-General C-G MU-MED MU Overlay 36 28.8 6 6 0 0 Low and Very Low No Data*
459 34516135 GPA and RCL 0.96 Yes Industrial SP 2015-1 Residential-Medium RO 36 28.8 28 28 0 0 Low and Very Low No Data*
460 34516121 GPA and RCL 0.52 Yes Industrial SP 2015-1 Residential-Medium RO 36 28.8 15 15 0 0 Low and Very Low Vacant*
461 34516106 GPA and RCL 1.71 Yes Industrial SP 2015-1 Residential-Medium RO 36 28.8 49 49 0 0 Low and Very Low No Data*
462 34516122 GPA and RCL 0.59 Yes Industrial SP 2015-1 Residential-
Medium RO 36 28.8 17 17 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use
463 34516105 GPA and RCL 1.01 Yes Industrial SP 2015-1 Residential-
Medium RO 36 28.8 29 29 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use
Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis [DRAFT August 2021] Page B-42
Table B-8: All Potential Housing Sites
Unique ID APN Category Acres Cycle 5 Vacant Sizing Criteria
General
Plan Land
Use
Zoning/ SP
Overlay
Zone or
Specific Plan
Developme
nt Area
Proposed
General Plan Amendment
Proposed Zone
Change or Specific Plan Development Area
Max Density (du/ac)
Assumed
Density (80% of Max)1
Assumed Units (du)
Assumed
Lower
Income (du)
Assumed
Moderate
Income (du)
Assumed
Above Moderate Income (du)
Income Category Notes and Existing Use
464 34516127 GPA and RCL 0.78 Yes Industrial SP 2015-1 Residential-Medium RO 36 28.8 22 22 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use
465 34516101 GPA and RCL 3.53 Yes Industrial SP 2015-1 Residential-
Medium RO 36 28.8 102 102 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use
466 34516102 GPA and RCL 4.14 Yes Industrial SP 2015-1 Residential-
Medium RO 36 28.8 119 119 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use
467 34516120 GPA and RCL 0.89 Yes Commercial-Neighborho
od
SP 2015-1 Residential-
Medium RO 36 28.8 26 26 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use
468 34516103 GPA and RCL 4.90 Yes Industrial SP 2015-1 Residential-Medium RO 36 28.8 141 141 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use
469 34516104 GPA and RCL 1.21 Yes Industrial SP 2015-1 Residential-
Medium RO 36 28.8 35 35 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use
470 34516128 GPA and RCL 8.99 Yes Industrial SP 2015-1 Residential-
Medium RO 36 28.8 259 259 0 0 Low and
Very Low
Industrial
Use
471 34516124 GPA and RCL 1.92 Yes Industrial SP 2015-1 Residential-Medium RO 36 28.8 55 55 0 0 Low and Very Low Industrial Use
472 34516133 GPA and RCL 22.24 Yes Industrial SP 2015-1 Residential-Mid RO 27 21.6 480 0 480 0 Moderate Industrial Use
Appendix C: Summary of Outreach C-3
o Need for more regulatory policies to support affordable housing;
o Different densities are suitable in different areas of the City;
Community Workshop #2 – The City conducted a second community workshop on June 30, 2021.
Advertising for the workshop included emails out to the City’s distribution list, social media posts,
creating an item on the City’s calendar, distribution of event flyers at libraries and community
events, , and announcing the event on the project website. Community Workshop #2 was held in
person at the Downtown Anaheim Community Center from 6-7:30pm. Approximately 24
members of the community attended Workshop #2. T The workshop discussed opportunity sites
and policy strategies for the Housing Element and provided opportunities for the public to discuss
options and provide feedback. Takeaways from the workshop include the following:
o Many believe short-term rentals are negatively affecting the rental market;
o Opportunity for motel/conversion to allow for more affordable housing;
o Need for more housing for all income levels, specifically low and extremely low income
residents;
o Opportunity for Inclusionary Housing Ordinance;
o Suggestions for various Opportunity Sites throughout the City.
Community Workshop #3 – The City conducted a third community workshop on September 2,
2021. Advertising for the workshop included emails out to the City’s distribution list, social media
posts, creating an item on the City’s calendar, distribution of event flyers at libraries and
community events, and announcing the event on the project website. Community Workshop #3
was held in person at the Downtown Anaheim Community Center from 6-7:30pm. Approximately
___ members of the community attended Workshop #3. The workshop discussed how to access
and review the draft Housing Element Update document and to provide ideas and feedback.
Takeaways from the workshop include the following:
o TBD
o TBD
Online Community Survey – The City of Anaheim launched an online community survey to gather
additional feedback regarding the Housing Element Update. The Online Community Survey was
live from March 24-June 13, 2021. Participants were asked to consider potential policies and
programs to include in the Housing Element, as well as potential housing types and opportunities
for housing in the City. The survey also solicited feedback regarding potential barriers to housing
access and constraints to the development of housing.
Planning Commission Study Session –The City held a Planning Commission Study Session on
August 16, 2021. During the study session, the project team provided a presentation with an
overview of the Public Review Draft Housing Element and Housing Element update process to
date. Community members had the opportunity to give public comments.
Appendix C: Summary of Outreach C-4
City Council Study Sessions –The City held a City Council Study Session on August 24, 2021 to
discuss the draft Housing Element, the City Council reviewed draft RHNA accommodation
scenarios and provided input and direction in consideration of community comments received.
Housing Element Update Committee (HEUC) Meetings – The City established a Housing Element
Update Committee to:
o Advise and provide input to the City's project team, based on their expertise, experience,
and knowledge.
o Review draft documents for potential housing sites and housing policies.
o Be an advocate for the Housing Element Update process to the Anaheim community.
o Have regular attendance and participation in monthly committee meetings.
The HEUC meeting agendas, minutes, and videos are available on the City’s webpage at:
https://www.anaheim.net/5877/Housing-Element-Update-Committee. The HEUC is comprised of
a variety of stakeholder groups and Anaheim residents; the roster can be found at:
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/37205/HEUC-Final-List-for-Website---Final.
Technical Focus Groups – The City conducted four informal Technical Focus Groups meetings to
draw upon the technical expertise of certain groups that have worked with the City of Anaheim.
The goal of the Technical Focus Group meetings was to have a listening session to broadly collect
information and actionable steps the City can use with the end goal of creating programs that
promote the development of housing at all income levels. The Technical Focus Groups
participants consisted of representatives from:
o Housing Advocates and Community Organizations
o Housing and Real Estate Organizations
o Major Employers in the City
Housing Element Update Website – A website was developed for public consumption and can be
accessed at https://www.anaheim.net/5848/2021-2029-Housing-Element-Update. The website
provided relevant information about the update process, key features of the housing element,
project timeline and a calendar of events for outreach activities. The website also provided a link
to the community survey tool, past recorded meetings, and summaries, as well as the contact
information of the City for residents and community members to send additional comments or
request additional information.
As required by Government Code Section 65585(b)(2), all written comments regarding the Housing
Element made by the public have previously been provided to each member of the City Council.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROJECT
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 MEETING SUMMARY
On Wednesday, March 24, 2021, the City of Anaheim hosted a virtual community workshop, using the
Zoom platform. The workshop began at 6 pm and had a total 71 participants. The workshop was
provided in two languages (English and Spanish) by conducting two simultaneous sessions. The
complete recordings of both the English and Spanish workshop sessions are available on the City’s
Housing Element Update webpage here: English Session / Spanish Session.
The first community workshop provided background information and basic education about the Housing
Element Update and gathered initial feedback and input from participants. The Housing Element team
provided a presentation including the following information:
• Housing Element Update Team introductions
• Background and history of the Housing Element
• Overview of the Housing Element purpose and state requirements
• Overview of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation
• Project timeline and tentative schedule for outreach
Following the presentation, the Housing Element Update Team utilized online tools, including a virtual
polling survey and virtual whiteboard exercise, to facilitate community participation, discussions
regarding housing, and gather feedback. All community engagement and participant feedback is
summarized below:
VIRTUAL POLLING SURVEY - MENTIMETER EXERCISE
During the workshop the City conducted an anonymous live polling survey to engage participants, using
Menitmeter.com. The poll offered five questions related to housing in Anaheim. A summary of each
question and responses is below:
• Question 1: Tell us about your housing experience in Anaheim
Participants were provided a blank text box for free response. Majority of participants defined
their experience as expensive, noting gentrification.
• Question 2: What are some housing challenges or needs in Anaheim?
Participants were provided a blank text box for free response. Participants identified lack of
affordable housing and accessible housing, along with overcrowding and unbalanced
opportunities as primary challenges. Overall cost of housing and affordability were also identified
as one of main concerns. Additionally, participants noted lack of green spaces, parking, and
recreational areas as additional challenges to increasing housing opportunity.
• Question 3: What are your ideas for housing in Anaheim?
Participants were provided a blank text box for free response. Responses varied, but a large
percentage of participants noted rent control, accessible units for persons with disabilities, and
large-affordable housing to accommodate multigenerational housing need. Participants also noted
fair housing approaches, converting motels and unused land into housing, and the need to
City of Anaheim
Housing Element Update
Community Workshop #1 Summary
Page 2 of 3
implement affordable and inclusionary regulations for developers. The primary focus remained
the need to increase affordable housing opportunities in the community.
• Question 4: What housing types are you interested in seeing in Anaheim?
Participants were provided a multiple-choice question with the following options, and asked to
select all that apply:
Single-Family/Multi-Generational Housing Apartments
Townhomes/Condos for rent Townhomes/Condos for sale
Senior Housing Accessory Dwelling Units
Affordable Housing Supportive or Transitional Housing
Participants were primarily interested in single family/multigenerational housing, affordable
housing options, and supportive or transitional housing.
• Question 5: Of those housing types, which would you like the City to Prioritize?
Participants were provided a multiple-choice question with the same options as Question 4, and
asked to prioritize three options in total.
Participants identified affordable housing, single family/multigenerational housing, and supportive
or transitional housing as the top three housing types for the City to prioritize in development.
The complete list of the participant responses is available on the City’s Housing Element Update
webpage here: English responses / Spanish responses
WHITEBOARD EXERCISE
Following the Mentimeter exercise, participants were asked to participate in a visioning whiteboard
exercise. The discussion centered around four major themes related to affordable housing and how to
increase affordable housing options in Anaheim. A summary of each discussion topic and responses is
below:
• Topic 1: Unique Considerations/Characteristics of Anaheim
What are unique characteristics about your community that you want the Housing Element
Team to know?
Anaheim is diverse There is a lot of tourism as it relates to Disneyland
High senior needs A lot of underused strip malls/commercial centers
• Topic 2: Housing in the Community
What are some challenges to housing in your community?
There are too many short-term rentals Not enough ADA accessible housing
Large population A large percent is unhoused
Infill housing in unhealthy areas Too many rental properties
Lack of regulatory policies to support
affordable housing
City of Anaheim
Housing Element Update
Community Workshop #1 Summary
Page 3 of 3
What are some opportunities for housing in your community?
Modular and tiny homes Eco friendly and sustainable construction
Solar in condos Housing near transportation
Affordable housing for low, very low and
extremely low-income households
Allow single family residences to convert to
duplexes
Affordable Accessory Dwelling Units Housing that considers children by design
Mixed-use developments Community centered housing
• Topic 3: Vision
What is your vision for the future of Anaheim? What do you want to see for the current and
next generations?
Fewer short-term rentals and more regulation Improved schools and upward mobility
More affordable options More housing
Community centers in multifamily buildings Programs to support first time home buyers
More public transportation Newer housing stock
• Topic 4: New or Innovative Ideas
What are some creative housing ideas you have for your community?
3D printed homes Accessory Dwelling units
Promote more dynamic uses and
multifamily/mixed use developments
Up-zoning and vacancy fees for unused
lots/properties
Tiny homes Policies to protect long term renters
Connections to transit and including areas for
bikes/scooters/skaters not just cars
Converting old commercial centers for
residential uses
Multi-generational housing Mixed use, more small lot homes, attainable
homes, higher density, overlays encouraging
residential on underutilized commercial
The complete list of the participant responses is available on the City’s Housing Element Update
webpage here: English Responses / Spanish Responses
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
A summary of questions and comments received from the public is below:
Where and how can additional people participate in the survey?
Are there additional opportunities to participate?
What is the relationship between 5th cycle need and 6th cycle need?
What strategies will the City utilize to mee the Housing Element goals and needs?
How is the unhoused population counted in Anaheim?
Responses to the questions above is available in a fact sheet, available here. The Community Workshop
#1 ended approximately at 7:45 p.m.
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Fact Sheet and Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Will there be more opportunities for participation?
A: Yes! The City has released a survey, available in English and Spanish. The survey will remain available through
May 2021; it is available on the City’s webpage (linked below). Additionally, the City has monthly Housing
Element Update Committee Meetings where public participation is welcomed. The City is also planning an
additional public meeting in late spring, all outreach opportunities can be found on the City’s website, here:
www.anaheim.net/5848/2021-2029-Housing-Element-Update.
Q: Are the RHNA numbers final? How will the City accommodate the RHNA allocation?
A: Yes, the RHNA numbers were finalized by SCAG on March 4, 2021 and approved by HCD on March 22, 2021. The
City plans to take a holistic and comprehensive analysis approach to accommodating the RHNA. This includes,
but is not limited to, analyzing vacant parcels, opportunities for redevelopment, and considering Accessory
Dwelling Unit production. The adequate sites strategy is guided by Assembly Bill 1397, and the City will pair the
analysis with appropriate programs and policies.
Q: Has the City already identified areas to accommodate the RHNA?
A: The City is in the process of collecting data and analyzing opportunity areas. No determinations have been
made as the City will continue to facilitate discussion and gather feedback from the community. Additionally,
it is important to note that the sites analysis process is to identify areas of opportunity for housing and provide
channels for the market to build it.
Q: How does the City determine how many unhoused people to plan for?
A: In considering its unhoused population, the City of Anaheim conducts its own point in time count. Additional
resources and information regarding unhoused persons in Anaheim is available here: www.anaheim.net/4991/
Addressing-Homelessness. Additional data used by the City includes the US Census, the American Community
Survey Estimates, U.S. Department of Finance Data, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Consolidated Planning/Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, and more.
Q: What happens when a City is not meeting the RHNA need for a current cycle?
A: For cities that are not meeting the RHNA need to date, Senate Bill 35 kicks in and requires streamlined
housing approval for specific projects. HCD tracks city building permits through the Annual Progress Report
(APR) submitted to the state each year. Currently, the City of Anaheim is subject to SB 35 streamlining for
proposed developments with ≥ 50% affordability.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE TIMELINE
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Page 2 of 2
Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda 2021-2029
Hoja Informativa y Preguntas Frecuentes
P: ¿Habrá más oportunidades para participar?
R: Y¡Sí! La ciudad ha publicado una encuesta que está disponible en inglés y en español. La encuestapermanecerá disponible
hasta mayo del 2021; está disponible en la página web de la ciudad (en el enlace acontinuación). Adicionalmente, la
ciudad lleva a cabo reuniones mensuales del Comité de Actualización delElemento de Vivienda en donde la participación
pública es bienvenida. La ciudad también está planeandouna reunión pública adicional a fines de la primavera, todas las
oportunidades de alcance puedenencontrase en el sitio web de la ciudad a continuación: www.anaheim.net/5848/2021-
2029-Housing-Element-Update.
P: ¿Son finales las cifras del RHNA? ¿Cómo se adaptará la ciudad a la Distribución del RHNA?
R: Sí, SCAG finalizó las cifras del RHNA en marzo 4 del 2021 y el HCD las aprobó en marzo 22 del 2021. Laciudad planea
adoptar un enfoque de análisis holístico e integral para adaptar el RHNA. Esto inluye, pero nose limita a, analizar parcelas
vacías, oportunidades de reurbanización y considerar la producción deUnidades de Vivienda Accesorias. La estrategia
de sitios adecuados se basa en la Ley de la Asamblea 1397, yla ciudad la utilizará junto con los programas y políticas
adecuados para realizar el análisis.
P: ¿Ya ha identificado la ciudad las áreas para adaptar el RHNA?
R: La ciudad está en proceso de recopilar datos y analizar las áreas de oportunidad. Aún no se ha llegado aalguna
determinación pues la ciudad continuará facilitando la conversación y la recopilación de loscomentarios de la comunidad.
Además, es importante señalar que el proceso del análisis de los sitios esidentificar áreas de oportunidad para viviendas
y proporcionar los canales para que el mercado lasconstruya.
P: ¿Cómo es que la ciudad determina para cuánta gente sin vivienda debe planificar?
R: Al considerar su población sin vivienda, la ciudad de Anaheim lleva a cabo su propio conteo de puntaje.La información
y recursos adicionales referentes a personas sin hogar están disponibles aquí: www.anaheim.net/4991/Addressing-
Homelessness. Los datos adicionales utilizados por la ciudad incluyen: el Censo de los EE.UU., Los Estimados de la
Encuesta de la Comunidad Estadounidense, Datos del Departamento de Finanzas de los EE.UU., Datos de la Estrategia
Integral de Asequibiliad de Vivienda (CHAS) del Departamento deDesarrollo Urbano y Habitacional (HUD), y más.
P: ¿Qué sucede si la ciudad no está cumpliendo con la necesidad de RHNA para el ciclo en curso?
R: Para las ciudades que no cumplen con la necesidad de RHNA hasta la fecha, el Proyecto de Ley 35 del Senadoentra
en vigor y requiere la aprobación racionalizada de viviendas para proyectos específicos. El HCD mantieneun registro de
permisos de construcción en la ciudad a través del Reporte Anual de Progreso (APR) que se envíaal estado cada año.
Actualmente, la ciudad de Anaheim está sujeta a la racionalización del SB 35 paradesarrollos propuestos con ≥ 50% de
asequibilidad.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE TIMELINE
PREGUNTAS FRECUENTES
Página 2 of 2
La ciudad de Anaheim está actualizando el Elemento de Vivienda 2021-2029.
¡Por favor acompáñenos en el tercer taller comunitario de la ciudad para aprender
acerca de la Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda, aprender cómo tener
acceso y revisar el documento preliminar y saber cómo puede proporcionar sus
comentarios e ideas! Su participación es importante para ayudar a planificar el
futuro de Anaheim.
Para más información acerca del Elemento de Vivienda, visite el sitio web de la
ciudad: www.anaheim.net/5848/2021-2029-Housing-Element-Update
FECHA: Jueves 2 de septiembre a las 6 p.m.
LUGAR: Centro Comunitario del Centro de Anaheim 250 E. Center Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 Acompáñenos en el salón “Assembly Hall”
CUIDAD DE ANAHEIM
Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda 2021-2029
Taller Comunitario # 3
Si tiene preguntas, por favor comuníquese con el personal de la ciudad
en housingelement@anaheim.net o llamando al (714) 765-4479.
9/9/2021
1
Reunión Comunitaria # 3 –Jueves, 2 de Septiembre de 2021
Community Meeting #3– Thursday, September 2, 2021
Agenda
•Introductions
•Housing Element Update Process
•Housing Element Efforts to Date
•Public Review Draft
•Adequate Sites
•Policies and Programs
•Community Feedback and Review
•Next Steps
2
•Introducciones
•Proceso de la Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda
•Esfuerzos del Elemento de Vivienda Hasta la Fecha
•Revisión Pública Preliminaria•Sitios Adecuados
•Políticas y Programas
•Comentarios y Revisión de la Comunidad
•Próximos Pasos
Introductions
Introducciones
Introductions
Introducciones
City of Anaheim Staff
Planning and Building
• Niki Wetzel, Deputy Planning Director
• Susan Kim, Principal Planner
• Bianca Alcock, Community Preservation Supervisor
• Andy Nogal, Community Investment Manager
• Charles Guiam, Planner
Consultant Team
Kimley-Horn
• Dave Barquist, Principal-in-Charge
• Molly Mendoza, Planner
4
Personal de la ciudad de Anaheim
Planificación y Construcción
• Niki Wetzel, Directora Adjunta de Planificación
• Susan Kim, Planificadora Principal
• Bianca Alcock, Supervisora de Preservación
Comunitaria
• Andy Nogal, Gerente de Inversiones Comunitarias
• Charles Guiam, Planificadoro
Equipo de Consultores
Kimley-Horn
• Dave Barquist, Principal a Cargo
• Molly Mendoza, Planificadora
We Want Your Input!¡Queremos sus Comentarios!
• Thank you for being here!
• The goal of today’s workshop is to gather your feedback and input.
• Your ideas will:
• Inform the City on the needs of the Anaheim community
• Provide crucial feedback on the draft housing element
• Provide guidance on the draft goals and policies
• There is time for discussion and questions at the end of today’s workshop, please hold your questions until then.
5
• ¡Gracias por acompañarnos!
• La meta del taller de hoy es reunir sus comentarios e ideas.
• Sus ideas servirán para:• Informar a la ciudad sobre las necesidades de la comunidad de Anaheim• Proporcionar comentarios crucialesacerca del documento preliminar del lemento de vivienda• Proporcionar orientación acerca de las metas y políticas del documentopreliminar
• Hay tiempo para discutir las preguntas al final del taller de hoy, por favor guardesus preguntas hasta entonces.
Housing Element
Update Process
Proceso de
Actualización del
Elemento de Vivienda
1
2
3
4
5
6
9/9/2021
2
What is a Housing Element?
¿Qué es un Elemento de Vivienda?
7
Required chapter of the Anaheim General Plan
Identifies existing and future housing needs for all
economic segments of the community
Establishes goals, policies, programs, and quantified
objectives to guide current and future housing needs
for all income groups in Anaheim
Requires review and certification by the Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for
compliance with state laws
Es una sección que requiere el Plan General de
Anaheim
Identifica las necesidades existentes y futuras para
todos los segmentos económicos de la comunidad
Establece metas, normas, programas y objetivos
cuantificados para guiar las necesidades existentes y
futuras para todos los grupos de ingresos de Anaheim
Requiere la revisión y certificación del Departamento
de Vivienda y Desarrollo Comunitario (HCD) para
cumplir con las leyes estatales
Housing Element FeaturesCaracterísticas del Elemento de Vivienda
8
Demographic profile of population and housing
Perfildemográfico de la población y la vivienda
Analysis of sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation
Evaluación de sitios para acomodar la distribución de RHNA
Evaluation of existing programs and policies
Evaluación de programas y políticasexistentes
Evaluation of housing constraints and resources
Evaluación de las limitacionesy los recursos de la vivienda
Policies, programs and objectives to achieve
the City’s housing goals
Políticas, programas y
objetivos para lograr las
metas de vivienda de la ciudad
Housing Element Efforts to
Date
Esfuerzos del Elemento de
Vivienda Hasta la Fecha
Overview of the Housing Element UpdateDescripción General de la Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda
• Start of Housing Element Update Process (January 2021)
• Community Workshop #1 (March 2021)
• Community Survey (March-June 2021)
• HEUC Meetings (Monthly, starting in March 2021)
• Community Workshop #2 (June 2021)
• Technical Focus Group Meetings (July-July 2021)
• City Council 1 on 1 briefings (August 2021)
• Planning Commission, Housing and Community Development Commission and City Council Workshops (August 2021)
• Public Review Draft Release (August 26, 2021)
• Project website with the available Public Review Draft: www.anaheim.net/5848/2021-2029-Housing-Element-Update
10
• Inicio del proceso de actualización del elemento de vivienda (enero de 2021)
• Taller Comunitario #1 (marzo de 2021)
• Encusta Comunitaria (marzo-junio de 2021)
• Reuniones HEUC (Mensuales, a partir de marzo de 2021)
• Taller Comunitario #2 (junio de 2021)
• Reuniones de Grupos de Enfoque Técnico (julio-julio de 2021)
• Reuniones informativas 1 a 1 del Ayuntamiento (agosto de 2021)
• Talleres de la Comisión de Planificación, la Comisión de Vivienda y Desarrollo Comunitario y el Ayuntamiento (agosto de 2021)
• Versión preliminar de revisión pública (26 de agosto de 2021)
• Sitio web del proyecto con el Borrador de Revisión Pública disponible: www.anaheim.net/5848/2021-2029-Housing-Element-Update
Community WorkshopsTalleres Comunitarios
• The City hosted the following Community workshops:
• Community Workshop #1 (Virtual)
• Community Workshop #2 (In-person)
• Overview of the Housing Element Update process, Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), project timeline.
• Opportunity for public participation, discussion and feedback.
• Fact sheets and workshop summaries are available on the City’s HEU webpage.
11
• La ciudad llevó a cabo los siguientes tallerescomunitarios:
• Taller Comunitario #1 (Virtual)
• Taller Comunitario #2 (En-persona)
• Resumen del proceso de Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda, Evaluación de las Necesidades de Vivienda Regionales (RHNA), cronograma del proyecto.
• Oportunidad de participación, discusión y comentarios del público.
• Las hojas informativas y el resumen de los talleres están disponibles en la página web de la Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda (HEU) de la ciudad.
Online Community Survey
Encuesta Comunitaria en Línea
• Survey focused on:
• Housing Challenges and Needs
• Housing Opportunity Programs
• Potential Housing Areas
• General Demographic information
• Available to the public from March 24 to June 13.
• English Participants: 303
• Spanish Participants: 20
• Summaries are available on the City’s HEU webpage and at the sign in table.
12
• Enfoque de la Encuesta:
• Desafíos y Necesidades de Vivienda
• Programas de Oportunidad de Vivienda
• Posibles Áreas para Viviendas
• Información Demográfica General
• Disponible al público de marzo 24 a junio 13.
• Participantes en inglés: 303
• Participantes en español: 20
• Los resúmenes están disponibles en la páginaweb de la Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda (HEU) de la ciudad y en la mesa de registro.
7
8
9
10
11
12
9/9/2021
3
Online Community Survey FindingsResultados de la Encuesta Comunitaria en Línea
• Key Data Themes:
• Primary interest in single family homes and multigenerational homes, followed by small lot homes and condos for households and ownership.• High community interest in apartments and live/works units for multifamily homes and renting.
• Costs, available land, and available funding were all identified as key barriers to housing opportunity and growth
• Primary interest in use of older shopping centers as housing sites and city owned properties
13
• Temas de Datos Claves:
• Interés principal en viviendas unifamiliares y viviendas multigeneracionales, seguidas de viviendas pequeñas y condominios para hogares y propietarios.
• Alto interés de la comunidad en apartamentos y unidades de vivienda / trabajo para viviendas multifamiliares y alquiler.
• Los costos, la tierra disponible y la financiación disponible se identificaron como barreras clave para la oportunidad y el crecimiento de la vivienda.
• Interés principal en el uso de centros comerciales más antiguos como sitios de vivienda y propiedades de la ciudad.
Housing Element Update Committee (HEUC)Comité de la Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda (HEUC)
• The City hosts a monthly HEUC meeting.
• HEUC Includes:
• Affordable Housing Advocates• YIMBY (Yes in my backyard) Housing Advocates
• Business Community
• Building Industry• Emergency Shelter, Permanent Supportive Housing, Senior Housing, and Affordable and Market-Rate Developers
• Disabled Community
• Residents from each Council District
• Provides feedback and recommendations to staff on the update of the Housing Element.
• Meetings are open to the public and allow public participation at each meeting.
14
• La ciudad organiza una reunión de la HEUC mensualmente.
• HEUC incluye:
• Defensores de viviendas asequibles
• YIMBY (por sus siglas en inglés) Defensores de Vivienda
• Comunidad de Negocios
• Industria de la Construcción
• Refugio de emergencia, vivienda de apoyo permanente, vivienda para personas de la tercera edad y urbanizadores asequibles y a precio de mercado• Comunidad de discapacitados
• Residentes de cada distrito del consejo
• La función principal del comité es proporcionarcomentarios y recomendaciones al personal acerca de la actualización del Elemento de Vivienda.
• Las reuniones están abiertas al público y hay tiempo para la participación del público en cada reunión.
Workshops with City Decision MakersTalleres con Personal de la Ciudad que Toma las Decisiones
• The City hosted the following workshops:
• Planning Commission Workshop
• Housing Community Development Commission
• City Council
• 1 on1 Briefings with City Council Members
• Staff provided an update on the
status of the Housing Element and gathered feedback.
15
• La ciudad organizó talleres con los siguientes:
• Taller con la Comisión de Planificación
• Comisión de Desarrollo Comunitario de Viviendas
• Concejo de la ciudad
• Sesiones informativas individuales con el concejo del la ciudad
• El personal proporcionó informaciónactualizada sobre el estado del Elemento de Vivienda y recopiló los comentarios.
City Council Direction and Recommendation
Dirección y recomendación del Ayuntamiento
• Mayor directed staff to meet with Housing Ad
Hoc Committee
• Formed by Council Member O’Neil in 2019
• Includes:
• Mayor Pro Temp Faessel
• Council Member O’Neil
• Council Member Diaz (replaces Kring)
• Staff from City Manager’s Office, Community & Economic Development and Planning & Building Departments
• Committee to develop an Affordable Housing Production Program
• Strategy to fund affordable housing
• City Council will receive input from committee at a Workshop on September 28
16
• El alcalde ordenó al personal que se reuniera con el
Comité Ad Hoc de Vivienda
• Formado por el Miembro del Consejo O’Neil en el 2019
•Incluye:
• Alcalde Pro Temp Faessel
• Miembro del Consejo O’Neil
• Miembro del Consejo Diaz (reemplaza a Kring)
• Personal de la oficina del administrador de la ciudad, departamentos de desarrollo económico y comunitario, y de
planificación y construcción
• Comité para desarrollar un programa de producción de
viviendas asequibles
• Estrategia para financiar viviendas asequibles
• El Ayuntamiento recibirá comentarios del comité en un
taller el 28 de septiembre
Public Review DraftRevisión Pública Preliminar
• The City released the public review draft of the Housing Element, Thursday August 26th.
• The draft includes:
• Demographic profile
• Analysis of housing constraints
• Analysis of fair housing issues
• Analysis of housing resources
• Policy plan for 2021-2029
• Review of the City’s past Housing Element performance
• Summary of community engagement
17
• La ciudad publicó el documento preliminar de la revision pública del Elemento de Vivienda el jueves 26 de agosto.
• El documento preliminar incluye:
• Perfil demográfico
• Análisis de las restricciones de la vivienda
• Análisis de problemas de la vivienda justa
• Análisis de recursos de vivienda
• Plan de políticas para el 2021-2029
• Revisión del desempeño anterior del Elemento de Vivienda de la ciudad
• Resumen de la participación comunitaria
Public Review Draft –
Adequate Sites
Revisión Pública
Preliminar
Sitios Adecuados
13
14
15
16
17
18
9/9/2021
4
Where and How to Review the Draft Document¿En dónde y Cómo Revisar el DocumentoPreliminar?
• The Draft Document is available on the City’s
website at:
www.anaheim.net/5998/2021-2029-Draft-
Housing-Element
• Click on “2021-2029 Housing Element Draft” to download and review the draft.
• Read “How to Submit Comments” to provide your feedback on the draft document.
• Or submit your comments to:
housingelement@anaheim.net
19
• El Documento Preliminar está disponible enel sitio web de la ciudad en:
www.anaheim.net/5998/2021-2029-Draft-
Housing-Element
• Haga click en Elemento de Vivienda Preliminar 2021-2029 para descargar y revisar el documento preliminar.
• Lea “Cómo Enviar Comentarios” praproporcionar sus comentarios acerca del document preliminar.
• O envíe sus comentarios a:
housingelement@anaheim.net
Where and How to Review the Draft Document
¿En dónde y Cómo Revisar el Documento
Preliminar?
20
Sites Strategy
Estrategia de Sitios
21
• Total RHNA Allocation: 17,453
• To accommodate the RHNA the City will utilize the following:
• Projects in the pipeline
• Accessory Dwelling Units
• Land with existing policy (land use) to permit residential
• Planned policy land use changes to permit residential throughout the City
• The City identified sites based on:
• Density
• Acreage
• Proximity to essential resources
• Potential for future housing units
• Distribución Total de RHNA: 17,453
• Para adaptar el RHNA, la ciudad utilizará lo siguiente:
• Proyectos en trámite
• Unidades de Vivienda Accesorias
• Terrenos con categoría existente (uso del terreno) que permitan el uso residencial
• Planes de cambios en el uso existente del terreno que permitan el uso residencial a travésde la ciudad
• Los sitios identificados por la ciudad se basaronen lo siguiente:
• Densidad
• Superficie en acres
• Su proximidad a los recursos esenciales
• Potencial para futuras unidades de vivienda
22
Candidate Sites Inventory – District 1
Inventario de Sitios Candidatos – Distrito 1
23
Candidate Sites Inventory – District 2
Inventario de Sitios Candidatos – Distrito 2
24
Candidate Sites Inventory – District 3
Inventario de Sitios Candidatos – Distrito 3
19
20
21
22
23
24
9/9/2021
5
25
Candidate Sites Inventory – District 4
Inventario de Sitios Candidatos – Distrito 4
26
Candidate Sites Inventory – District 5
Inventario de Sitios Candidatos – Distrito 5
27
Candidate Sites Inventory – District 6
Inventario de Sitios Candidatos – Distrito 6
Summary Table
Resumen
28
Extremely/Very
Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate
Income Total
RHNA (2021‐2029) 3,767 units 2,397 units 2,945 units 8,344 units 17,453 units
Unit Capacity on Projects in the Pipeline 571 units 536 units 470 units 11,886 units 13,463 units
Unit Capacity on Site Strategies
Unit Capacity: Citywide
No Proposed Change in General Plan Land Use or Zoning 670 units 8,689 units 0 units 9,359 units
Unit Capacity: Citywide
Proposed Change in Zoning (Residential Opportunity or
Mixed Use Overlay Zone)
93 units 614 units 200 units 907 units
Unit Capacity: Citywide
Proposed Change in General Plan Land Use and Zoning (Residential Opportunity or Mixed‐Use Overlay Zone)9,198 units 0 units 0 units 9,198 units
Unit Capacity: Citywide
Housing Authority and Successor Agency Candidate Sites 382 units 2 units 4 units 388 units
Unit Capacity: Center City Corridors (C3) Specific Plan 169 units 3,739 units 0 units 3,908 units
Projected ADU Construction 514 units 227 units 15 units 756 units
Unit Capacity on Site Inventory Total
Total Units towards RHNA 12,133 units
(+97%)
13,741 units
(+367%)12,105 units
(+45%)
37,979 units
(+118%)
Public Review Draft –
Policies and Programs
Revisión Pública
Preliminar – Políticas y
Programas
Proposed Policy Strategies and Actions
Proposición de Estrategias de Políticas y Acciones
• Some strategies are from the current Housing Element that are working well and should be continued
• New strategies added to accommodate new provisions in State law
• New strategies added to meet the needs identified by the community
• Additional strategies have been added based on fair housing analysis
30
• Algunas estrategias propuestas para la
política de vivienda del 6tociclo son del
Elemento de Vivienda actual de la ciudad que están funcionando bien• Se han agregado nuevas estrategias de
política para acomodar nuevas disposiciones
en la Ley Estatal• Se han agregado nuevas estrategias de
política para satisfacer las necesidades
identificadas por la comunidad• Se han agregado estrategias de política adicionales basadas en el análisis de
vivienda justa
25
26
27
28
29
30
9/9/2021
6
Current Housing Element Policy StrategiesEstrategias Actuales de Política para El Elemento de Vivienda
31
Policy Strategy #1: Housing Production
Policy Strategy #2: Housing Conservation and
Preservation Strategy
Policy Strategy #3: Housing Quality and
Design Strategy
Policy Strategy #4: Housing Rehabilitation
Policy Strategy #5: Affordable Housing Strategy
Estrategia de Política #1: Producción de Viviendas
Estrategia de Política #2: Estrategia de
Conservación y Preservación de Viviendas
Estrategia de Política #3: Estrategia de
Calidad y Diseño de Viviendas
Estrategia de Política #4: Rehabilitación de
Viviendas
Estrategia de Política #5: Estrategia de Viviendas
Económicos
Sample Housing ProgramEjemplo de un Programa de Vivienda
32
Housing Production Strategy 1C: Expedited Processing for Extremely-Low, Very-Low, Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Developments
The City shall continue to offer expedited discretionary entitlement andplan check processing for lower income housing developments across allCity reviewing Departments. Expedited processing provides an incentive toencourage development of affordable housing projects as shorterdevelopment timeframes results in lower housing production costs. TheCity will evaluate the effectiveness of the expedited processing programand modify as needed to encourage affordable housing development. As
part of this evaluation, the City will analyze and monitor the effectiveness
of inter‐departmental coordination to ensure that expedited reviews areoccurring in a consistent and coordinated manner.
•Objective: Expedited processing for affordable housing developments
to reduce housing production costs. •Responsible Party:Community Development/ Planning & Building
/Public Works/Public Utilities/Fire•Source of Funds:General Fund•Timeline for Implementation:Evaluate within one (1) year of Housing
Element adoption and implement annually, ongoing for 2021‐2029
Estrategia de Producción de Viviendas 1C: Procesamiento Acelerado para Desarrollos de Viviendas para Ingresos Extremadamente Bajos, Muy Bajos, Bajos y Moderados
La Ciudad continuará ofreciendo derechos discrecionales acelerados y
procesamiento de revisión de planes para desarrollos de viviendas para bajos ingresos en todos los Departamentos de revisión de la ciudad. El procesamiento
acelerado proporciona un incentivo para fomentar el desarrollo de proyectos de viviendas asequibles, ya que los plazos de desarrollo más cortos dan como
resultado menores costos de producción de viviendas. La Ciudad evaluará la
efectividad del programa de procesamiento acelerado y lo modificará según sea necesario para fomentar el desarrollo de viviendas asequibles. Como parte de
esta evaluación, la Ciudad analizará y monitoreará la efectividad de la coordinación interdepartamental para asegurar que las revisiones aceleradas se
realicen de manera consistente y coordinada.•Objetivo: Procesamiento acelerado para desarrollos de viviendas asequibles para reducir los costos de producción de viviendas.•Responsable: Desarrollo Comunitario / Planificación y Construcción / Obras
Públicas / Servicios Públicos / Incendios•Fuente de fondos: Fondo General•Cronograma para la Implementación: Evaluarla dentro de un (1) año de la adopción del Elemento de Vivienda e implementarlo anualmente, en curso
para el 2021‐2029.
Community Discussion
Discusión Comunitaria
Next Steps
Próximos Pasos
Community Engagement- Tentative TimelineParticipación Comunitaria – Cronograma Tentativo
35
Public Review Draft
August 26,
2021
Community Workshop #3
September
2021
Gather public comment and
feedback
30 days
HCD
Review
Fall 2021
Public
Hearings
Fall/Winter
2021
Revisión
Pública
Preliminar
Agosto 26, 2021
Taller
Comunitario# 3
Septiembre2021
Recopilarcomentarios
e informaciónpública
30 días
Revision del HCD
Otoño 2021
Audiencias Públicas
Otoño/Invierno2021
Thank You!
¡Gracias!
Questions? Please contact:
36
Bianca Alcock, Community Preservation Supervisor
Phone: 714‐765‐4479
Susan Kim,Principal Planner
Phone: 714‐765‐4958
Email: housingelement@anaheim.net
Or visit the City’s Housing Element Update website for more information:
O visite el sitio web del Elemento de Vivienda de la Ciudad para más información:
www.anaheim.net/5848/2021‐2029‐Housing‐Element‐Update
¿Preguntas? Por favor comuníquese con:
Bianca Alcock, Supervisora de Preservación Comunitaria
Teléfono: 714‐765‐4479
Susan Kim, Planificadora Principal
Teléfono: 714‐765‐4958
Correo electrónico: housingelement@anaheim.net
31
32
33
34
35
36
City of Anaheim
Community Outreach Summary
Page | 1
Community Survey
The City launched an online community survey on Wednesday, March 24, 2021. During the City’s first
community workshop, on March 24, 2021, staff provided information regarding access to the online survey
and instructions for taking the survey. The survey asked the following questions:
• Housing Type and Interest in Housing Opportunities
• Accessible and Fair Housing Considerations
• Priority Areas for Housing Opportunity
• Vision for the City of Anaheim
• Participant Demographic Information
• Additional comments regarding the Housing Element
The survey was available through the City’s Housing Element Update Webpage. The City promoted the
survey in the following ways:
• Social Media posts in both English and Spanish
• Information regarding the survey was available on the Housing Element Update website and the
Planning & Building Department landing page
• Information regarding the survey and a link to the survey was emailed to individuals on the
Housing Element Update interest list and subscribers list
• Information regarding the survey was shared prior to Council Meetings and Planning Commission
Meetings for the months of May and June via a poster board with a QR code to the survey
• Information about the survey was posted at City Hall
• Flyers with survey QR code were distributed to patrons when checking out books in-person or via
the curb-side pickup
• Survey was shared with city staff who work with the community at Neighborhood Improvement
Team Meetings and those in attendance were asked to share survey information with the
community groups they work with
• The information regarding the survey was included in The Anaheim Business Connection
Newsletter
• Survey announced at HEUC meetings – links to surveys were provided via the chat function
• Hard copies of the survey were provided to Community Services staff to distribute at community
events and community centers
The survey was live for public access from March 24, 2021 through June 13, 2021. Staff will provide this
survey data to the City Council, as part of its consideration of the policies and programs that the City will
include in the Housing Element. The survey collected 323 survey responses, including 20 responses to the
Spanish survey; a summary of the survey’s results is below.
Slide 1: Welcome
The first slide of the survey provided background information on the Housing Element and the update
process as well as an overview of the purpose and goals of the survey.
City of Anaheim
Community Outreach Summary
Page | 2
Slide 2: Housing Growth
Single-Family Housing Types- Figures 1a and 1b The survey provided participants with descriptions of the
following Single-Family housing types:
• Traditional Single-Family Homes • Small Lot Single-Family Homes
• Townhomes • Multi-Generational Homes
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
The survey asked participants to select the Single-Family housing types that would best help Anaheim
provide housing for all residents in the community. Overall, the data shows that participants, both English
and Spanish, favored Traditional Single-Family Homes over other housing types provided. Participants of
the English survey were also highly in favor of Townhomes and Small Lot Single-Family homes but were not
as interested in Accessory Dwelling Units. Participants of the Spanish survey favored Multi-generational
homes, followed by live work units; they were least in favor of Townhomes.
195
133
136
113
90
0 50 100 150 200 250
Traditional Single-Family Homes
Small Lot Single-Family Homes
Townhomes
Multi-Generational Homes
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Number of Responses
Figure 1a: Single-Family Housing Types
10
6
4
9
6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Hogares Unifamiliares Tradicionales
Casas Unifamiliares en Lotes Pequeños
Casas Adosadas
Hogares Multigeneracionales
Unidades de Viviendas Accesorias (ADUs)
Numero de Respuestas
Figura 1b: Tipos de Vivienda Unifamiliares
City of Anaheim
Community Outreach Summary
Page | 3
Multi-Family Housing Types- Figures 2a and 2b The survey provided participants with descriptions of the
following Multi-Family housing types:
• Apartments • Condominiums
• Co-Living Units (Leased Per Room) • Live/Work Units
• Mixed-Use (Residential and Commercial Uses Together)
The survey asked participants to select the Multi-Family housing types that would best help Anaheim
provide housing for all residents in the community. Overall, the data shows that participants of the English
survey favored Condominiums over other housing types provided, while participants of the Spanish survey
favored apartments. English survey Participants were also highly in favor of Apartments but were not as
supportive of Live/Work Units and Co-Living Units. Spanish survey participants on the other hand, were
supportive of Live/Work Units followed by mixed interest in Condominiums. The figures show that
participants had mixed interest in Multi-Family housing types that would best help Anaheim provide
housing for all residents in the community.
141
117
58
78
162
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Apartments
Mixed-Use (Residential and Commercial Uses
Together)
Co-Living Units (Leased Per Room)
Live/Work Units
Condominiums
Number of Responses
Figure 2a: Multi-Family Housing Types
11
5
5
9
6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Apartamentos
Uso Mixto y Residencial Juntos
Unidades de Vivienda Compartidas (Rentadas por
Cuarto)
Unidades de Vivienda/Trabajo
Condominios
Numero de Respuestas
Figura 2b: Tipos de Vivienda Multifamiliares
City of Anaheim
Community Outreach Summary
Page | 5
• Student Housing • Affordable Housing
Overall, the data shows that participants identified affordable housing and senior housing as primary needs
of the community. There was moderate support for transitional, supportive, and housing for persons with
disabilities. English participants identified student housing as the lowest priority, whereas Spanish
participants identified a moderate need for/priority of student housing.
The following figures show that participants had mixed opinions on which groups need additional housing
in Anaheim.
163
130
124
63
139
178
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Senior Housing
Persons with Disabilities
Supportive Housing (helping people maintain stable
housing)
Student Housing
Transitional Housing for People Experiencing Homelessness
Affordable Housing
Number of Responses
Figure 4a: Fair Housing and Housing for Special Needs Groups
10
8
9
8
8
13
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Viviendas para Gente Mayor
Personas con Discapacidades
Viviendas de Apoyo (ayudan a la gente a mantener
una vivienda estable)
Viviendas para Estudiantes
Hogares Transitorios para Personas sin Hogar
Vivienda Justa
Numero de Respuestas
Figura 4b: Vivienda Justa y Para Grupos con Necesidades Especiales
City of Anaheim
Community Outreach Summary
Page | 6
Barriers to Housing Growth- Figures 5a and 5b The survey asked participants to select from the following
barriers or constraints to the access and availability of housing, to best describe what limits housing growth
in Anaheim:
• Cost • Unit Size
• Available Land • Community Opposition
• Available Funding
Overall, the data shows that participants believed Cost is the biggest barrier or constraint to housing
growth. Participants of the English survey selected Available Land as the second biggest barrier or
constraint to housing growth while participants of the Spanish survey selected Available Funding as the
second biggest barrier or constraint to housing growth. Participants also identified Community Opposition
as a primary barrier to housing growth in Anaheim, additionally, participants generally did not see unit size
as a barrier. The figures show that participants had mixed opinions on what were barriers or constraints to
housing growth in Anaheim.
198
129
49
80
84
0 50 100 150 200 250
Cost
Available Land
Unit Size
Available Funding
Community Opposition
Number of Responses
Figure 5: Barriers to Housing Growth
13
7
5
11
5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Costo
Disponibilidad de Terreno
Tamaño de las Unidades
Fondos Disponibles
Oposición de la Comunidad
Numero de Respuestas
Figura 5: Barreras Para el Crecimiento de la Vivienda
City of Anaheim
Community Outreach Summary
Page | 7
Slide 3: Potential Housing Areas
The survey provided participants with the following list of location types for housing opportunities in
Anaheim and asked participants to rank each location type based on where they would most like to see
housing in the City. Participants placed their highest priority area as number one at the top of the list, their
second priority as number two, and so on. The potential areas included the following:
• Older Shopping Centers: Aging and potentially underperforming shopping centers within Anaheim.
This option could provide increased access to essential business/retail.
• Accessory Dwelling Units: Additional housing units that can be built in backyards or as room
conversions in a house. They are also sometimes called secondary units and granny flats.
• Along Major Streets: Future housing along the City's larger roadways. These areas currently have
mostly retail shops and businesses as well as access to a variety of transportation.
• Transportation Corridors: Near transit corridors and transit stops (i.e. bus stops). Housing near
transit could provide increased mobility for current and future residents.
• City-Owned Properties: City-owned properties not needed for other purposes. The City's analysis
would determine appropriate City sites if any are available.
• Existing Neighborhoods: Housing on vacant or unused properties on existing residential areas.
Figure 6 displays the data for participant prioritization of potential housing opportunities in Anaheim. The
line chart shows average priority ranking for each housing location/type. Participants identified highest
priority by placing an option in the number one position, therefore, the lower the number (higher priority),
the more important it was to participants.
The results show that the participants of the English survey would like the City to prioritize housing near
Older Shopping Centers. City-owned Properties and Transportation corridors were the next highest priority
areas for housing respectively. Participants had the lowest interest in opportunities for housing Along Major
Streets.
Participants of the Spanish survey identified different priorities for potential housing opportunities in
Anaheim compared to English participants. The results show that the participants of the Spanish survey
would like the City to prioritize housing on City-owned Properties. Existing communities and Older Shopping
Centers were the next highest priority areas for housing respectively. Participants had the lowest interest
in opportunities for housing Along Major Streets.
City of Anaheim
Community Outreach Summary
Page | 9
• Many people are opposed to any new housing, specifically new housing in the form of
apartments and low-income housing.
• Many believe the City needs more dense housing that is affordable for all income levels.
• Of those who believe the City needs more dense housing, many were interested in mixed-use
buildings to provide integrated housing and retail.
• There was interest in improved transportation services to reduce car usage.
• Many noted a parking shortage in the City and hoped that the City can address the parking issue.
• Participants also identified older, underutilized areas of the City such as aging shopping centers
and industrial areas for redevelopment potential to provide for more housing.
The overall sentiment was that the City needs more diverse affordable housing options for all levels of
income.
Figure 1a: Vision for Anaheim
Figure 1a represents the most common words or themes that English survey participants used when
providing their Vision for Anaheim. Of the English responses, 54 percent of the responses had a positive
connotation associated with them.
Of the Spanish survey participants, common themes included:
City of Anaheim
Community Outreach Summary
Page | 10
• All members of the Community should have access to dignified, affordable housing no matter
their income level.
• There is not enough high-quality affordable housing within the city.
• Many believe that they are not able to live healthy lives if they are not able to live in or afford
housing.
• Some believe that their housing options are limited and desire more diverse low-income housing
options.
Figure 1b: Vision for Anaheim
Figure 1b represents the most common words or themes that Spanish survey participants used when
providing their Vision for Anaheim. Of the Spanish responses, 45 percent of the responses had a positive
connotation associated with them.
Detailed comments provided for both English and Spanish surveys are in Appendix A.
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?Equal opportunity/Affordable Guidance for first time homebuyersEmployee housing discount/guidanceTownhomes with rooftopsDowntown LA has some great Live/Work unitsRemove old industrial buildings and rezone for housing/parks/sidewalksSmall homes / 3D homesRemove Industrial buildings to make room for more housingTake out industrial buildings from integrated neighborhoods. More parks. Better sidewalks.MORE HOMES LESS APARTMENTSContinuation of existing neighborhoods and additional higher density housing in current retail and commercial areas along major transportation corridors.STOP BUILDING LOW INCOME APARTMENTS. THIS DAMAGES OUR CITY AND BRINGS DOWN THE VALUE OF HOMESWhen it still feels like we live in Orange county and not a copy of LA or NY.Housing that seamlessly fits into the surrounding community. Housing that has yards for children, adequate parking for each unitFire evacuation dangers from overcrowdingSqueezing condos into a smallArea. Taking awayuseful business to replace with condos. Too many people in the area already.Mixed Use Housing, such as converting an old strip mall to a new one with stores on the ground floor with housing above.Lower housing costs to build. Such as fees and requirementsLack of parkingToo many apartments. Not enough parking.Preserve existing neighborhoods. Build qualityhousing that takes into account community opinion, parking and neighborhood culture.We need less housing in Anaheim hills and more parks and restaurants.You should put new housing in areas where people work in West Anaheim. East Anaheim is already a fire hazard and cannot support new housing.I think it's unrealistic to think that Anaheimcan take on a significant amount of new housing. Anaheim is already built out. West Anaheim is congested already. East Anaheim is also congested and can't support more housing given the fire danger.Homeless Veteran housingToo many apartment buildings and low cost housing. Becoming too crowded.Build them in Los Angeles County, like Lancaster.Build new housing in Lancaster.pokiticsI see pokitics playing a MAJOR eoll in this, ie, continual DUMPING ON WEST ANAHEIM, and not enough housing being built in places like ANAHEIM HILLS!Yes! QUIT DUMPING APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN WESTANAHEIM! BUILD THEN IN HARRY'S TRACT INSTEAD!
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?I don’t want any rezoning to allow multi‐family housing to be built in our neighborhood. Please don’t allow someone to be able to tear down the house next to me and build an apartment complex or duplex.Affordable housing for 1st time home buyersA vibrant mix of mixed use housingRent controlled housing units for senior citizensNIMBYism ( not in my backyard) opposing housingunits close by that residents support in areas not near them.Would like to see a 1st time buyers program, rent control for seniors, and low interest loans for home improvement in existing neighborhoods.We have enough apartments in this area.Build more apartments in anaheim hills and lessin west anaheim, where there are too many apartmentsThe community dows not want more residential inwest anaheim, but the city ignores their pleas and builds anyways. West anaheim is patk poor, commercially challenged and needs less residential.This survey only wants the residents to say they want more housing. Unfair and bias.One day, i want to see Beach blvd catering to the real needs of Anaheim...no more housing. What we need are places to go, shop, dine, play and entertain. The area is ignored. I do not belive 3 story apartments are the answer in already dense areas. I would like to see a return of single family detached houses, less apartments, more family oriented homes, not apartments or condos.Stop overcrowding west anaheim with cheap apartments. District 1 needs quality not quanitity, and is lacking commercial shopping and entertainment. Stop asking us what we want if you are going to do what you want anyways. We need commercial. We have enough residential. Its over built in district 2, and we never got the commecial we were promised. There is not a grocery store or coffee house in district 1, but they sure keep building apartments. Unfair to district 1.Adequate housing which doesn't destroy the character of existing residential neighborhoods. A general plan with different types of neighborhoods—some with single traditional family homes and small condos, others with apartments. No forced building of high‐density housing in single family neighborhoods without neighborhood consensus in support.Location of small commercial centers with neighborhood businesses in close proximity to residentialneighborhoods.Affordable to younger generationsAffordable housing. Either allowing for a boarding house style rental or finding a way to limit or discourage people from 'flipping' houses. Flippers take all the reasonable priced places, resurface them and resell for more than the average personcan afford.Tiny home villages! This would help provide basic needs for the working poor so they don't need to camp in their cars or the parks.Cost mostly.NoNoNoMixed‐use, so businesses are on bottom and apartments or condos on top. Often has a park space as part of property.Veterans. HomelessnessOver crowding and nowhere to park
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?Tiny homes or apartment buildings for foster care youth that have aged out of the system or for veterans that would otherwise be homeless with programs that help them move on to secure housing with employment or schooling initiatives.Acquire empty commercial building/lots that havelong been closed or unused and create housing there.Foster youth aging out of the system, retired military especially those discharged for medical issuesVacant commercial building or properties not being utilized, not enough parking when apartment's are in or near housing tracts thus causing neighborhood streets to be overrun with cars tightly parked and quickly driving in communitiesThanks for trying to find answers to the housing crises and making the public's input a priority. I saw this on Nextdoor app, perhaps more outreach is needed though on social media, in newspapers, etc.Small house community, multistory ADU community.Allow multistory storage container home to reduce cost of construction. Reduce front yard setbacks in single family house to allow for ADU or duplex.Employee housing, Teachers housing.Zoning, regulations.Maintaining a spatial community, congested communities give the idea of a lack of a thriving economical community. The community that a park or a central playground brings a true practical living, for low income and the middle income.NIMBYs are a huge problem and are prevent us from investing in apartments and public transportation for denser developmentI hope to see urban, walkable, dense development, supported with public transportation to eliminate the need to own a car in Orange County.Please actually try to allow for cheaper development. It's absolutely disgusting that rent is so high, forcing me to live with my parents and public transportation is piss poor to put it lightly, forcing me to drive a car in this traffic‐mess that is our freeways.Smaller SFRs, Starter or Empty Nester cottage type housing, 2 master bedrooms w/ sitting/retreat area, walk‐in tubs, on reduced size lots w/ garages, patios. Smaller spaced ADA compliant single‐story ground‐level‐entry units w/ adequate easily accessible storage in kitchen, laundry areas, esp, to encourage early/later independence w/ dignity. Smaller lot footage offsets maximized living area = affordability. & less upkeep.not enough parking for apartments..... they bleed over into housing tracks with causes problems for the home owners. From parking to trash... Apartments need to have more parking spaces than they currently have on there propertyThere is a current parking problem with apartments today.. They need more spaces in the apartment complex. They currently are parking in neighborhoods and leaving trash and taking the neighborhoods parking...Stop building apartments since you do notrequire enough parking for them.. Its is ruining the City...No more apartments. only build single family homes. You are creating an over crowded condition with all the apartments and town lofts... Stopdeveloping or there will be no green belts left.... Stop being greedyThere's not enough room to build more housing, the suburban sprawl is difficult, and I do believe there's plenty of space for ADUs. I'm hoping morepublic transit in denser spaces will helphttps://www.wharfdc.com/ is a very impressive example of what could be done with mixed‐use.There's plenty of space in Anaheim Hills, it's incredibly dense everywhere else in Anaheim. I wonder if there's more that could be done in Anaheim Hills. There are cars lined up everywhere and public transit could be enhanced.
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?It's incredibly important that we build housingnear transit to make it convenient for residents to choose mass transit over driving.This should be done intentionally. I believe homes that are near major transportation corridors should be offered an incentive to build one since the people that would want to live in an ADU will not have much as an option to own a car since therewont be dedicated parking for them. Also it would incentivize people to take public transitAnaheim Hills is ripe for growth. This could also encourage diversity in the area.A housing future where every citizen in our region, regardless of their economic status, has the ability to choose where they live and can grow into different homes as there life evolves, their career grows, and as their lifestyle changes.I'm very excited about the future of Anaheim,and housing will be a very important that must be addressed in order for the community to grow. I wish the planners the best of luck as they develop the plan very exciting!Find a place for the homeless, making neighborhoods cleaner and safer.Safe clean street with small businesses thriving with community support.Tiny homesSober living20% low income requiredSober living homesI high rentsSupport easier developmentVariety of living options affordable to currentcitizens. No need for market rate development to attract wealthy from elsewhere. Stop gentrification!Stop gentrification!How about mini houses? For the homeless crisis.Utilization of out of compliance seedy motels for homeless housing.Regulated short term vacation rentals. Bring itbackAffordable and upscale housing available in anypart of the city, especially in west Anaheim. Not only enough housing but an abundance of Parking!Housing for a diverse community that cherishessafety, health, local cultural enrichment and entertainment.Dormitory homes for singlesHomes that accommodate a caregiver in a room orADU for both parties to live and thrive together.Long term rehab residents that need dialysis orcancer care.Local government does not mandate a reasonable %of housing to be built in a short period of time. Some large properties are negotiated to special interests instead of what the state asks of our city to produce.A vision for well designated shopping and medical resources that aren’t spread too far from each other.Please continue to look at meaningful resources for our Senior community.It would be nice if we had more safe and AFFORDABLE clean housing that allows pets. Also, crime has been up/quite frequent and it seems not much ifanything is being done about it. I hope our city will come back to the beauty it once was or better.
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?I love our city, we dont want to lose our home. I hope things improve. Thank you for seeking the opinions of your resident's. We've lived here many years and care about our once beautiful and safe city and homes. The job markets aren't paying well either so affordable is extremely important for many.(Homeless have been starting to camp outin front of people's properties or sleep on people's doorsteps etc. Not to mention the trespassing,thefts and attempts at theft)3D‐printed homes; using cargo containers for modular construction; hotel/motel conversions; tiny homes3D‐printed homes; using cargo containers for modular construction; hotel/motel conversions; tiny homesActually, I'm not sure we have a lack of for‐sale homes, but I *am* sure we have a lack of *affordable* homes, whether for sale or for rent. In particular, we have a lack of homes that are affordable to folks in the lowest income brackets, such asmany employees of Disneyland and the surrounding hotels.We need less single‐family zoning and more multi‐family and high‐density housing. In fact, we should eliminate single‐family zoning altogether. Costdoes not have to be a barrier if we are willing to use innovative techniques such as 3D‐printed homes, cargo container construction; tiny homes; hotel/motel conversions; modular homes.The only viable, cost‐effective way to end homelessness in Anaheim is to provide sufficient housing for folks in the very low income levels, and sufficient permanent supportive housing for those who need help to remain housed.Support and subsidize affordable homeownershipLess apartments means less street traffic and more availability of street parking because people don't pay extra for parking spots within their apartment complexes. This also means less street crowding; too many cars on the street is unsightly. Don't make Anaheim a leasing city. Make it a city where people own and take pride in their property.Less apartments means less street traffic and more availability of street parking because people don't pay extra for parking spots within their apartment complexes. This also means less street crowding; too many cars on the street is unsightly. Don't make Anaheim a leasing city. Make it a city where people own and take pride in their property.We have a lot of trouble parking near home. ManyApts./homes have way to many occupants and cars that go with them,Can't stress enough, less apartments means less street traffic and more availability of street parking because people don't pay extra for parkingspots within their apartment complexes. This also means less street crowding; too many cars on the street is unsightly. Don't make Anaheim a leasing city. Make it a city where people own and take pride in their property.PLEASE fix the parking problems.It would be nice to have more decent affordablehomes.Long row houses with parking behind and strips of green between. Please read A Pattern Language by Christopher Alexander, specifically pattern 38 Row Houses.High rent. Accessible parking.South facing tiered housing with parking underneath and fronted by a common green. Please read A Pattern Language by Christopher Alexander, specifically pattern 39 Housing Hill.No, we don't need residential and commercial together We Need AffordableMixed income housing
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?Affordable and regular service maintenance services are available and people ask without being fearful of being kicked out or increasing thier rent.No do not add more housing for homeless people provide work for those who can and programs for mental services and drug free programs.Extremely high cost for small place with littleparking and old places that landlords don't maintain. If tenants ask for general maintenance landlords get bothered and ignore or ask tenants to moveYou could make it easier for us home owners whohave the ability to build on their larger property. The city charges are very expensive for middleclass owners to build.The costs are very high and it does take a longtime for the city to respond to the client.Make affordable housing and use the regulations you have at hand to adapt a schedule of better regular indoor and outdoor maintenance in our Anaheim apartments. Landlords must do better maintain our older apartments than they do now. Making new housing is not the only solution, update our current homes that our citizens have without increasingour rent.A mix of traditional housing and apartmentsbring back the previous flag (2018‐2019)Better city planning will make neighborhoods more cohesive and people focused instead of car focused. There will be a large variety of housing type, size, and cost interspersed together with workplaces to suit the needs of various life stages andsituations. Everyone will have access to a park or public greenspace within a few blocks. Pedestrian only and bicycle only paths and streets will improve safety, sense of community, and environmentalimpact.We have to many people in the city already.West Anaheim gets allThe substandard developments and I’m tired of it. Create all future low income and homeless residents in Anaheim hills!Thank you for requesting community input! Being able to create and change ones own space to suit personal needs and a city change to suit it's collective needs is what makes a place feel like home and a community.My request is to limit the future of housing and Anaheim if new construction is required avoid at all cost compact living it causes a mess for theresidents who currently live in the areaStop building high density housing that doesn’t have enough parking and cheaply made so they turn into slums in a short period of years. Also starart developing Anaheim Hills with the small homes so their area can be miss used like West Anaheim is the city doesn’t think anything of compact in West AnaheimRent controlled apartments I feel that most apartments now in Anaheim are difficult to afford.Nice and affordable housingCity of housing building is not easy to deal withSmall house on small lot but affordableAs more and more company’s are doing on lineorders. Less need for brick and mortar buildings. The land can be use for housing.Resident since 1957. Have a 34 unit project proposed across the street from us right now. Not happy about it but understand the need for housing.Orange County has older homes with big lots. Notice a lot of them are torn down to build multiple dwelling on one big lot.You have a lot of old city dwelling you covertto housing for low income or homeless.If this is for handicaps or people with disabilities. That is a tough one. Case by case maybe.
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?For people that’s don’t have a car or waysto get around this might be a good one.Modern. Mid‐income. Homeless/transitional housing to reduce homeless population.Urban living condosRent is to high. My son works in anaheim but heand his family can not afford to live here moved to another county.faster processing time and more affordable housing and independent housing for person with disabilities and their familiesAffordableTownhomes with good shared common spaces.Limits on short term rentals, since many peopleuse a second home to make income from Disneyland guests. My husband and I both work full time and itis immensely hard to find reasonably priced rental homes.I haven’t looked in many years, to be honest,but when I worked at Disneyland, cast had a hard time finding affordable housing in the area.Anaheim is getting more and more expensive. People who make above minimum wage, work full time hours, and are in no way low income still struggle tofind housing.I would like Anaheim to continue to grow and prosper as a diverse city, while making it possible for people of all incomes to live here.I want to stay in Anaheim, I love Anaheim, I’m glad you are looking into making more housing.People who have affordable housing available. ADU’s would be very useful.Housing for mental health patientsAffordable housing outside of the resort districtMy vision for future of housibg in anaheim aregrants and opportunities for educators in and of Orange county to own a home to bring more of a neighborhood of working individuals who are typically mo crime.Housing in Anaheim should have great value forthe price, accessible and affordable for first time buyers, and possess great quality and quality oflife.Single‐Family homes and Townhomes are great. What Anaheim needs is to get rid of the low life people that trash the city (gangs/stealing catalyst converters, etc). It make the city known as ANACRIME and pushes out people that understands and valuesabout the community.Just want to clarify on the mixed‐use. If you are including single homes next to commercial use is not what I am thing. Look at the city of Carsonand Santa Ana on mixed used.Anaheim lacks upper middle class. A lot of lowermiddle class to homeless that floods one house or apartments.None. Affordable housing is fine. We just have alot of lower middle class and homeless. Why is Anaheim so big on spending homelessness funds? Should it be spent more on make the community safe and getting rid of the crimes and gangs.Community opposition because they do not want change. Enough land but lack on urban planning. Too many manufacturing job and lack of corporate companies for someone to afford homes.A community without crime/gang to worry (safety)Anaheim needs to get replace current apartments and old unused commercial buildings into a new condominium or mixed‐use (commercial/residential) community. Safe community that residents could bike and feel safe. Stop investing on homeless housing. It brings more homeless people and lowlife people into Anaheim communityParking
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?Less Overpriced Stadium Lofts and More traditional Homes and Candos.Please do something about the parking and thepeople that have over five vehicles per apartment. Also the vehicles that don't move until street sweeping Plentiful, quality, affordable, and accessable.I see it not being over populated and everyonelive comfortablyParking!More ParkingI would like Anaheim to focus on revitalizing existing neighborhoods instead of building more apartments. The city is becoming too crowded and quality of life is diminishing.SkyscrapersSkyscrapers but with housekeeping and Nursing staff to help people with physical and emotional issuesWhen it comes to Land, just demolish oldest properties first..tons of old homes probably have mold, termites..don't need to destroy more Nature..build up not outNot good for housing bc pollutionGreat..upgrade old strip malls and build modernaffordable units on topOld houses and apartments are the worst..but also hard to get people to let go so can build back better..if you could, essentially take house areaand stack on top of each other, create tall housing structures with new less energy appliances thenpeople would let go of their current housesAbsolutely The best property owner is Govt, bc there are too many slumlords everywhere, and too many entities that have multiple properties thatare not the bestI don't know what this is but it has to be better than busy pollution street's And make Future housing more pet friendly so people can rescue shelter pet'sI like to see a morph between Tokyo and Miami,with accents Disney everywhereAll ‐ but specifically young adult and students. We are very expensive.Keeping our existing housing tracts from the 50’s thru 70’s that show Anaheim history is important. We can’t allow them to disappear by overbuilding on them. Old run down apartments should be torn down and replaced with new apartments that are built to house more people.In addition to working with affordable housing developers to build traditional apartments on city owned land, perhaps we could offer an incentive for religious/charity/service/labor organizations to work with affordable housing developers to createhousing on their property. Imagine if the local VFW had housing for veterans.I see families double or tripled up which meansthey're not finding affordable housing at their income level. I also see individuals, who either work for minimum wage or receive disability, becoming homeless. I think we need to make sure enough Extremely Low Income and Very Low Income units are created for folks who already live in Anaheim.New affordable workforce housing is created near jobs and transportation. ADUs & JADUs are built what are now single family residences providing intergenerational housing for grandparents, parents & adult children. These ADU/JADUs could also provide affordable rental housing for folks at risk of homelessness, like seniors on Social Security.I vision Anaheim to have affordable safe modernhousing for all its citizens especially Seniors who have worked hard all their lives.
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?Affordable housesAffordabilityParkingMore affordable and flexible housing. More parking.Housing needs to be affordable and accessible.The options are rent horribly maintained apartments or own. There is not option for house rental. Most people cant afford or are in a position to buy. Children suffer. Families suffer.Actual housesEnd homelessness specifically child homelessnessCost is high to live here and to many tourists ruin it for allWould love somewhere my family can afford to live and also places for kids to be safe and playShip Containers turned into housing.NoNoRaise the tax on Disneyland instead of chargingthem $1 / yearMothers with disabled childrenWe barely don’t qualify for housing , yet can’t afford a 1 bedroom for $1600Equal housing for everyone . I see families abuse the housing programFeel free to look into golden skies mobile home parkCentralized shopping and dining. The downtown area needs to be refocused due to uncoordinated planning, especially near Disneyland. There needs tobe better dining and shopping options for Anaheim residents.Permanent residents in designated RV parks . Inother words , RVs that are in RV parks but people live in them.NIMBY , Affordable land . ..well. Affordable anything ,really. Wages for many aren’t in line with our Cost of livingWe need strong leaders who can move past brainstorming and collecting ideas and can actually implement things. In the years I’ve lived in Anaheim , I have seen lots of talk, not much action .More single family homes with grocery stores inthe neighborhoodAnaheim has built so many apartments that apparently most residents can not afford. They must put 2 families in there to be able to pay rent. Streets in Anaheim look like parking lots. If you drive thru areas of apartments, and single family dwellings you can’t find a parking spot. It really degrades neighborhoods and more vandalism occurring . I have lived in Anaheim since 1977.Affordable housing for everyone, from traditional single family homes to tiny houses for seniors, homeless and small families.Homelessness is not because there isn’t enough housing it’s a choice.Affordable Housing for single people and families.Affordable Housing for Single Upper Working Class Folks.Unaffordable housing even for someone with a college degree.
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?The building of new homes that are not affordable to anyone in this area creating surrounding homes to rise in value. There are so many complexes that are not used or are empty because of lack of affordability. Even with the housing program for people that work in the city, it is still not affordable. Also, Disneyland and other tourist attractions being allowed to build new developments to for the tourism industry but how much of that actuallyhelps the people living here.Affordable housing for people that already livein this city and people experiencing homelessness. Catering to the community living here not catering to people we would like to live here. This city should be more than attracting tourists. We can make it beautiful and affordable, especially for people who are the backbone of this city’s attractions for companies that make millions.Just because people live together in a home, like myself, does not mean that our income goes to all living in this household, something that the city should consider, especially when offering rebates and help for low income families. In a home there could be multiple households. And the reason why there are so many homes with multiple people isbecause of the cost and rising cost of housing.Stop doing high density housing in West Anaheim.If people can’t afford to live here, then theyshould try another housing market. I can’t afford to live in Beverly Hills orNewport Beach?Stabilize and improve existing agin neighborhoods. Stop cramming high density housing in West Anaheim. Equitably distribute hosieinf across all districts.Infill construction often squeezes too many units into a small area changing the overall "liveability" of the neighborhood.I'm so proud of Anaheim and how proactive we try to be to adjust to community needs and we need to not only respect current neighborhoods but alsoseek unique solutions to welcome those with specialized needs.AHNo housing is needed until after the infrastructure is fixed. We are constantly in a drought and the city can't keep the lights on as it is. Freeways are gridlocked. Too much untreated sewage is finding it's way to the ocean.No housing is needed until after the infrastructure is fixed. We are constantly in a drought and the city can't keep the lights on as it is. Freeways are gridlocked. Too much untreated sewage is finding it's way to the ocean.No housing is needed until after the infrastructure is fixed. We are constantly in a drought and the city can't keep the lights on as it is. Freeways are gridlocked. Too much untreated sewage is finding it's way to the ocean.The major barrier is infrastructure. We are constantly in a drought and the city can't keep the lights on as it is. Freeways are gridlocked. Too much untreated sewage is finding it's way to the ocean.No housing is needed until after the infrastructure is fixed. We are constantly in a drought and the city can't keep the lights on as it is. Freeways are gridlocked. Too much untreated sewage is finding it's way to the ocean.More apartment buildings and condominiums in the downtown anaheim area.ADA and Senior housingLimit rental homes!!Parking and accessibility to services and bus routesGet more people to take this survey and shareit real time.
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?Every apartment complex should be required to have a percentage of apartments available 2 Section 8 or Anaheim housing. If every apartment complex took on some responsibility for low‐income housing it would be nice. Versus having Section 8 total complexes. There would still need to be screening and assurances for payment and compliance to rules of the complex but there are good people out there that are willing but no one will rent to them.I do see a lot of homeless in the area of Anaheim by beach and ball. It is definitely something that needs to be addressed by the city of Anaheim. Ialso think that because of California now being a state that allows legalize marijuana there is a tremendous number of people moving to the state for that very reason. This was not a good move on thestate's part.I would like to see less homeless people wandering around the streets and the corner of Beach and ball not being used for solicitation or drug use.Better police patrol.I have lived in the city of Anaheim for over 60 years. I feel that that many years gives me a very fair evaluation of the city and what it needs.I've seen City go down in its beauty and care of its citizens over the years. I don't like that there are so many streets that are painted red for no necessary reason other than not wanting people topark there. I live off of Magnolia between Cerritos and ball and the parking in this area is horrible.No more apartments in west Anaheim. We are going to look like the slums of Los Angeles. Need to have parking for the residents already living here.I would like to see Anaheim draw major shopping and dining that is not a latino based market or taqueria‐ we have enough of these.Attainable housing is better than affordable housingLarge developers are definitely lobbying their local government officials in order to get access to large plots of land where you could build a mixof single housing lots and some condominiums and all apartments instead of these high‐rise apartmentbuildings that are going up all over 92806.To be regulated so that these are only placed in areas where there isn't already a high density populationCity‐owned land should no longer go to large developers who are creating apartment dense areas, and should go to traditional single family lot sizes.The city needs to stop prioritizing large profit margins for developers who are donating to political campaigns and instead look at this as a strategy to maintain sustainability with single‐family lots being the first goal and large apartment complexes being avoided since we've already developed more than what is needed and/or sustainable givenour transportation and simple things such as parks and grocery shopping.CrimeYoung couples cannot find a starting homeBefore worrying about adding new housing you should make sure neighborhoods, yards, housing that exists is up to code. Sick of seeing our neighborhoods rotting awayI'm saying Anaheim lacks both homes for sale andapartments because the prices of what is available is absolutely unaffordable. If folks are to make3 times the amount of their rent or mortgage to qualify ‐ prices need to go DOWN. Anaheim, I thinkwe need to subsidize rents and morgatges for houseless or nearly houseless folks, create a lot of single family units that rent or mortgage for less than $1000 a month, extend rent control to mobile homes, and take other measures to slow rising rents.I see a lot of disabled houseless people near myapartments on state college. They deserve unconditional access to housing, they shouldn't have to get by on the streets.If folks are to make 3 times the amount of theirrent or mortgage to qualify ‐ prices need to go DOWN. Anaheim, I think we need to subsidize rents and morgatges for houseless or nearly houseless folks, create a lot of single family units that rentor mortgage for less than $1000 a month, extend rent control to mobile homes, and take other measures to slow rising rents.
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?Everyone has access to affordable housing. No more houseless people camping on the street. People no longer have to live with 4+ people in an 1 bedeoom apartment because they can afford their own safe family home.Having plenty of low‐income affordable housingcan't be worse for property values than houselessness and crime. Anaheim has exasperated houslesness, crime (domestic abuse, elderly abuse, youth on the street because there's no room to be at home,etc.), and now the Covid pandemic by ignoring it's lack of low‐income affordable housing. Now is thetime to change that! I've lived in Anaheim for 25 years and would love to buy my first home in thiscity someday. I only gripe because I love this city!My vision for Anaheim housing involves workingclass folks being able to afford homes that reflect their contributions. Their homes are in good shape, provide reasonable amenities and offer safe neighborhoods. My vision does not include, expensivenew apartment buildings driving up the prices of homes nearby so as to drive out long‐time residents, who can no longer afford property taxes or increasing rents.I hadn't heard of this survey until very recently. I am concerned that many folks will not be aware of its existence and the responses will not accurately reflect the concerns of the community. Further outreach to all Anaheim communities, shouldbe done regarding this critical issue.When you add granny flats to a neighborhoodThe neighborhood isn’t designed to handle the extra auto and foot traffic.I would rather see condos than apartment buildings. Single family dwellings would be the best. Anaheim's quality of living is going downhill, because we are already overpopulated and traffic congestion a problem.Please pay attention to the building of more apartments that are causing further overcrowding and parking problems in the city. It's very frustrating.I think that there is far too much urban‐infillhousing being built: cramming 8 homes into a space that previously held one building."Barriers?" There's too much development andtoo much traffic. These "barriers" are good things.....if they prevent more development.AirB&B disgusts me and the council should getrid of itAddressing homeless problems I’ve been hearingother cities building tiny homes for homelessFamilies with college students to support cost of living for studentsHousing is very expensive almost impossible to buyAnaheim is so wonderful but I would like to seecommunity work towards helping in a program like habitat for humanity where we help in building tiny homes for homeless, women and children and college students.Sec 8 brings crimeCleaning up the neighborhood parrks of homelessnessmulti story single family homes. In addition tothat, homes should have adequate alternate parking space (ie. secured bike parking, provided with grants). easing of permits to build more rooms onto existing homes. less restrictions re: setbacks & heightsmore duplex & other multiplex situations. No more 4 over 1's. Let's build higher if there are multi‐family homesVacancy tax on homes being held empty for more than 1 quarter for rental purposesWe have already permitted more than enough 'attainable' or market rate housing as reflected on the RHNA #'s. all of these housing needs should be permitted in all future fiscal years.The most ridiculous community opposition is fromour own city council members. When a development is not contributing to the council, then councilmembers will oppose initially.
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?More density & subsidies for existing homeowners to build density into their own homes. An end to subsidies, tax breaks, & labor agreements with larger developers . No more 4 over 1 developments, instead our city should build higher.End developer kickbacks from council members when permitting new projects.Very disappointed in my elected officials fornot addressing the homeless living on the streets creating public health hazards and crime.Sgl family home conversion to duplex/triplex. Motel and industrial building conversionsLack at any level of affordability. I suspect many vacancies in moderate and above moderate income level housing. Should be taxedAffordable seems odd in this grouping. Transitional chosen only if short term step to permanent housing guaranteedOffer opportunities and support for convertingsingle family homes to duplexes/triplexesHow about city shift their priorities and put affordable housing at the top of the list for all city propertiesLack of political will to identify and make landavailable for low/very low income levels. The city has not taken RHNA seriously in planning or implementation and unsure will do so this roundParking standards and existing perception that parking from old apts affect neighborhoods.Affordable housing for senior citizens 62+Stop giving section 8 and vouchers to illegal aliens.Yes, low and very low affordable housing.Yes, the abolishment of TRO's can add to the housing surplus in Anaheim.Yes, the city needs more low and very low affordable housing.Anaheim fails to provide any incentives for builders to construct low and very low affordable housing AND fails to develop a policy to require a reasonable percentage (15%) of any new housing development to build/provide low/very low affordable housing.Extremely low, Very Low, and more low income housing is needed in Anaheim, NOT the continued promotion and building to support the high cost of living in the platinum triangle, Anaheim Hills, and/or throughout the city. RHINA requirements can bemet if the city will promote and support innovative housing options such as repurposing existing structures, container homes, modular communities, low cost apartments, etc.Affordable housingAffordable HousingAffordable HousingPlease build more affordable housing.AFFORDABLE and ACCESSIBLEWe need OC back. To be affordable not one of the most expensive counties in the U.S. This should be easy. Continue building to make it more accessible and or bring down prices. For god sakes it's a pandemic.Disability Accessible homes and apartment unitsTiny HomesMore disability accessible rental housing catering to the low income communityIt would be helpful to have accessible homes forall types of persons.Disability Accessible housing catering to the large low to middle income population in Anaheim
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?I hope that affordable housing can be offered to people who needs it the mostNo, commentsaffordable accessible housing for people with disabilities!affordable accessible housing for people with disabilitiesDeaf and Blind housing that is specifically assessible for themAffordable and accessible housing is important to have in the city of Anaheim because the lack of it affects persons with disabilities and other groups of people.Major intersections and shopping centers should receive accessible housing.Anaheim will receive more funding to provide low and affordable housing for seniors, persons with disabilities and other groups who can't afford funding for housing. This can also help with the homeless population.The topic of housing is a necessity for the city of Anaheim.Please continue to involve the community in solving the housing situation in the city of Anaheim.noThe number of families who cannot reside in Anaheim because of increased rent is growing. Buying a house in Anaheim is too costly for most. Homelessness keeps growing and communities refuse to have shelters in their neighborhoods making matters worse.A city that is accessible to working families.A city that resembles the people who work here. A place where families can buy their forever home, and live in stability.Rent control and affordable housing is what welack in Anaheim. Our working class families that work the hospitality and tourism jobs cannot affordto live in Anaheim.More affordable housing for existing residents.We don’t need anymore expensive townhomes or condos.More affordable housing unitsSmaller living spaces that are individual and esperares for transients.Rent is too high and there are hardly any affordable housing units. The lack of rent control makes it difficult for people to stay in one place because the rent hikes keep pushing people out.The ability for a low income family to be ableto afford a home in Anaheim and that they are not pushed out of affordable housing because of Affordable housing.We need a variety of home types to me our needsWe need a variety of home types to me our needsWe need more long term rental options in our community to help our residents and people who work in Anaheim have affordable long term optionsWe need to welcome all people to our neighborhoods. We need affordable long term rentals to help out community stay as a community and keep Anaheimfamily orientedCommunesIncrease percentage of required Affordable housing for low income people.Affordable housing for Low income service workers
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?‐transportation, parking and public transportation ‐strain on public services and utility infrastructure ‐Corruption within our local governmentUnfortunately, we do not have unlimited growthand must deal with the growing economy and population. Our most degenerative issue with affordablehousing is greedy developers pursuing the most profitable direction instead of having an incentive to do what is best for the community at large. We have so much graft and bribery going on in the city that we must alert federal agencies of this corruption.Just to stop the corruption and graft, and have fair representation for all workers and residentsSober Living Homes/Recovery ResidencesSober Living/Recovery ResidencesNeed more sober living residencesSober living/Recovery ResidencesUnfair/discriminatory ordinance against sober livingsAnaheim needs more sober living homes, transitional housing, basically different forms of housing for the homeless more affordable housing (low cost)Sober livingsRecovery residencesSober livings and recovery residencesSober livings and recovery residencesSober LivingSober LivingSober LivingOur community leaders oppose sober livings and recovery residences and group living environmentsMy vision is a place where we can all live peacefully and harmoniously. A place where neighbors talk to each other and communicate. A place where we understand each other's needs and concerns. A place where people who are different aren't looked down on. A place where "not in backyard" doesn't Group homes, sober livings and recovery residences are the solution.A community of caring and kindness. Eliminatingopenly active prostitution, drug abuse, and chronic crimes in the West Anaheim area. Creating a cohesive and safe community.I have lived here for 17 years; the amount ofcrime and non‐compliance with laws and standards has increased exponentially.I/we would appreciatemore police presence and patrols in the area between Beach Blvd/Dale and Orange/Ball RdPlease stop building high density housing in Anaheim. The city would be much more enjoyable if we had more open spaces such as parks and recreation areas.rents are too expensivemore townhomes and condos available for purchase. Often when new housing developments are built, they are overpriced for local Anaheim families, and they are rentals only. There is not enough affordable housing stock for families to purchase realestate.There are plenty dwelling but not affordable
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?Affordable for familes with 40 to 75 wagesPlease keep our Hills populated single family homes. Multiple dwelling units affect our property values and our lifestyle. They are better for Anaheim tax revenues.Multi family housing effects our home values. Notice how Yorba Linda keeps property values up which is good for tax revenues.look at the way YorbaYorba Linda manages property value and their tax revenuesNone of these types of housingKeep property values good and don't add housingthat bring down current values.MDU Homes (duplexes)Some cities provide incentives (closing cost help or tax breaks) to new homeowners in their citiesThe costMore affordable yet good looking neighborhoodsThanks for asking your citizensI believe income should not be the only factorwhen looking to help housing needs. There are various groups of younger generations that needed todrive up debt to keep up with living cost. While salaries went up, their debt remains the same, thus not benefiting from the pay increase many have seen.Stop investors from buying property and jackingup property prices so single families can have a chance to afford buying a house or renting at a reasonable More affordable housing for first‐time buyers and more housing for the homelessI'd like to see houses and apartments with yards big enough for kids to play in.I love living in Anaheim and the current housing market shows low home in inveny. More housing in the city would lead to an increase in much needed housing inventory.More affordable housingMore available housingParking and safe driveways. Stop letting peoplepark on the street where it blocks the view of on coming traffic. Housing should provide adequate parking.The tiny homes seem to be a good idea for the homeless. They could be temporary housing as long as certain eligibility and requirements are met.Stop building places without sufficient parking. Seriously look how many people will live in these places and make accommodations for parking or don’t build them. Too many cars are parked in neighborhoods and streets. Creates too much traffic.Cost, definitely! The prices have soared! It isimpossible to compete in this market, with investors outbidding you. Some housing should be reservedspecifically for first time buyers, to make it fair.Anaheim has enough people in the city for theresources that exist. More is not better.Waive fees for ADU'sMy vision for the city of Anaheim in terms of housing is for there to be programs & funding made available specifically for first time buyers. We need affordable housing that coincides with the wages of Anaheim residents. We also have a huge homeless problem that needs real solution, not temporary bandaids.More ADU's. Less homelessI appreciate the city of Anaheim for creatingsurveys like these that take into account the opinions/perspectives of its residents.
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?Prevent banks and house flippers/commercial sellers, or renters from purchasing housing prior to individual families.NoTypically people are outbid by others trying tomake a profit and resale or rent.More space and natural park areas. We do not need tons of high rise buildings and section 8 housing. It causes stress on individuals and more violence in compacted areas.None, with the heavy traffic. Apartments and condominiums won’t help the city. It will cause more traffic than their is and less parking.Yes, apartments and condominiums in other citieshave up to 3 parking spots available. So attendants won’t park in the street or residential We need more Senior Housing, Anaheim is a very beautiful city. And our seniors should feel safe to walk and exercise anywhereThe cost of living is ridiculous highly priced.We need to stop making real estate a business for profit. That’s destroying the ability for many families to afford to live in a traditional single home. The price to live here in Anaheim is ridiculously expensive. A needs assessment needs to be conducted in order to assess our community and fromtake action and help out our low‐income and middle class residents not have that stress of being able to afford to live!!!Less affordable housing and more Senior housingwith more parks and walkways. What the point make more housing if it’s going to create heavy traffic.An Anaheim that is inclusive and diverse. As well as an environment that is eco friendly. We need to restore those communities that have high crimerate and build safe places around the city that are open to the public to do physical activity, yoga and many other activities that will help the mind body and I hope this initiative really helps out the housing crisis happening in Anaheim and overall California.I would love to see affordable single family homes. I’m tired of seeing over priced apartments being built all over the place. It would be nice if the city does choose to make apartments they are affordable.Affordable rental housing targeted at hourly Disney cast members. Disney has a large employee base. If more Disney employees lived in the area, we would see more spend at Anaheim businesses.Allowing ADUs to be available for short term rentals, like Airbnb, would make Anaheim more appealing.Thoughtful, modern housing like The Domain on Anaheim Blvd. dramatically lifts the aesthetic of the city. This is needed further south on Anaheim and on Broadway across from Broadway Arms.Vacant spaces make the city appear run down andforgottenADUs are great, but they are not as appealing when homeowners do not have the option of using them for short term rentals.Housing developments seem to take a long time tobecome reality, perhaps because of lengthy approval processes. I’ve been looking forward to the BARN and Homemade projects for years, but neither have started construction. Another barrier is the lack of permit parking in new developments.Anaheim will be thriving with residents of allages. Young professionals and growing families alike will call the city home. Communities like Colony Park exist throughout the city, where people can live in large, planned neighborhoods with accessto parks and amenities. FRAN will help transport people throughout the city.As new housing is built, let’s be sure to include plenty of green space throughout the city for residents to enjoy. Thanks for all your work!Anaheim seems to have far too many combinationbusiness and housing buildings that claim to be affordable,but are not. Affordable housing needs tobe in Anaheim Hills as well as the rest of the city. The NIMBYs should not always win. Housing for the homeless should not be so restrictive. Shelters have so many rules that no one wants to live there.More supply but this is very tough in a landlocked city.
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?Have to end the NIMBY approach to housing. I amtotally fine with the new multi‐unit housing being built. There should be some guidelines that require some affordable housing that have less amenities and hopefully cheaper building costs.Existing neighborhoods are preserved, but the future is multi‐family or townhouse/rowhouse model.Always great to get community feedback. Thisis a tough topic in all of California.More condos like in the platinum triangle, market rate and affordable housing.We need to "redevelop" land. Fill in the urbanareas with high rise condos.Vulnerable people need housing.We need a pathway for redevelopment. People needto feel that they are getting a chance to investing in where they live and not just pay a landlordfor a roof over their head.An area where young people and young families can buy a starter home, even if that isn't a sigle family units. Something that allows people to build Lets build more and make it easier to build more in already developed areas.DuplexesNaNaNaNaCondominiums have rules that keep up the property.Senior Housing could be 60 years instead of 55.Not to build up to the street (set back) have some greenery and space. New builds to have character (like the older houses, but new). Safe parking.Please don't over do it.Affordable prices Both on sales and rentsLack of information Not only on English, but in another idioms PriceAffordable housing with a stress free for all Anaheim ResidentsThe City of Anaheim should create or work with aCommunity Land Trust or a City Land Trust as an alternative to renting and traditional homeownership.Same comment as above. Community Land Trust.The City needs to incorporate an Inclusionary Housing ordinance that provides regulatory policy to increase the amount of affordable housing production at the deepest levels (ELI, VLI, LI).The City needs to adopt a Rent Stabilization orRent Control policy as well as a Just Cause policy to provide stability to vulnerable households that are susceptible to displacement.The biggest barrier to housing is cost. Many ofmy peers of my age group (ages 20s) left the City to live in the inland empire or out‐of‐state due to the cost barrier. I am one of four children and I am the only one left living in Anaheim.
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?Yes. Please have more community meetings thatthe public can attend. Host community workshops that inform people about the update.I wish to see closeness of neigbors and not thegrandiose apartments like the ones near the angels stadium. They are outrageously priced and No apartments!More house. NO MORE APARTMENTS. Apartments crowd the streets because people are too cheap to buy parking permits. Make Anaheim a city for people who actually want to live here and call it home; don't make it a renting city.Again, can't stress it enough. Don't make it arenting city. Make it a city people call home. Apartments and temporary living facilities make it crowded and the unsightly.pod‐based housing. Currently, many Disney and other workers have 8‐12 people 'living' in a household and parking in a single family home, which creates crazy parking issues in houses never intended for such density. A 'pod' arrangement as is currently being experienced with in LA would enable workers who are not able to fully reside but work inAnaheim (at Disney) ‐ who might otherwise sleep in their cars ‐ to find better "housing" here. However, city structures would have to sustain that.live/work units are almost widespread throughoutAnaheim ‐ as Covid‐19 showed when people worked from home ‐ but informal, off the books, and unsupported. With so many strip malls nearly vacant or under‐utilized, redeveloping and designating thesestructures would help with affordable housing AND with affordable startup working environments as well.certain plots in my neighborhood which might beused for "tiny homes" and similar housing are too small to be used for a full‐sized, single familyhome, but could accommodate 1‐4 people with a well developed unit. Owners have been trying to complete permits for years, but the costs, permit processes, and the rest of the capital at stake have put that out of reach. It should not be.No more housing is needed. We don’t fit as itisPlease no more housing. Invest in people beautifying their homes. We don’t fit in Anaheim anymore.Reduce the number of industrial buildings to ass housing, parks, sidewalks, etc. Add live/work spaces to Angel Stadium parking lot. Develop moretownhome communities with rooftops.Build condominiums on top of Targets and other large commerical one story buildings. That way, it is easier to have a walkable city iwith less needof cars and accommodate everyone.Please provide us more affordable housing andhousing for the homeless. We do not need anymore luxury apartments when many of us are without permanent homes.I don’t believe we need to build mega complex’s. The just bring more traffic & congestion. I think the city has enough people.Motel conversions to supportive housingNimbysSober LivingSober LivingSober LivingSober LivingSober LivingSober Living
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?Right now more residential properties seem to begoing up without properly assessing the parking needs of current residences. Each project only determines the minimum amount of parking each unit based on bedrooms and not on actual residences. A 2bedroom apartment can have two people in the master bedroom and one in the other, with each of themneeding a car in order to work, but their apartment is only allotted 2 spots, with no additional street parking or option for a parking permit.While Anaheim is focused on growing their residential population, I would like the city regard their current residents with just as much consideration. As an apartment resident currently living in the city and paying my rent like any other upstanding citizen, my car has been continually penalized for trying to park at my own residence, due in large to current structures not allotting for the maximum amount of parking within their buildings and viewing statistics over individual livelihoods.I have contact the city numerous time to attempt to remedy my parking situation, and have been bounced back between city officials and private property owners. IN all honesty, I would just like to park where I live, and the still continuous workI am putting forth to make that happen just proves that I am only considered a residential statistic to developers. Please do not grow the population and then ignore concerns after the fact.More affordable housing for small families andcouples.What is considered "affordable" is still too high. We keep developing housing that will not sell just to appease developers.Housing that is truly affordable. Building Market rate housing that doesn't sell is not a way to fix the housing problem.Manufactured HomeMore affordable housing for home buyersNoNoMore housesAn Anaheim that is family friendly with traditional single family homes that are affordable and eco‐friendly. New homes should not waste precious land on front‐lawns and should instead have small gardens with sustainable and native plants.Affordable programs for accessory dwelling units.Policies that ensure the production of affordable rental units.A city that has a diversity of housing optionsfor residents of all income levels.Shipping container houses .SROsNo concern by our city government for low incomehousing or senior housing .Mandatory low income set aside.Sober living homesToo much market rate housingShould only be available to owner occupied notinvestorsAffordable housing for existing residentsSecure policies/ordinances that ensure the construction of low and extreme low income. Many residents make less than 35K a year!
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?Most folks hurdles would be the cost of living.Its too expensive.my ideal vision for Anaheim is a diverse multiethnic community mixed with folks from all income brackets.Regular homes3and 4 bedroom homesKeep home Like The City of BreaKeeping the regular middle class home in Anaheim.Multi generation housingI know that in anaheim hills most homeowners donot want high rise or low income housing here. There’s not enough land. The other concern is thetraffic. It’s already so bad here so adding more homes is not fair to the people that already livehere.There should be more single family affordable homes for sale. Not just condos.As a teacher who was only able to purchase a home because of the low income offers, there should be more opportunity for this type of home ownership. There should also be more opportunities for single family affordable homes and not just condos.We need affordable programs for accessory dwelling units.Building close to public transportation hubs oreasy access to public transit would be ideal.Policies that ensure the production of affordable rental units.ALL OF THEM! It's so important.Cost is certainly the biggest barriers, which iswhy there is such an urgent need for affordable housing for the most vulnerable populations in Anaheim.Thank you for your work on AHEU!Sober living houses / recovery residencesDiscriminatory ordinance against sober living homesNeeds more help for affordable housing, sober living homes, and traditional homes. To help people with homelessness and to help others get off thestreet and back on their feet.Would love to see help in these areas! Thank you!Sober living homes/recovery homesSober living homes/recovery residencesSober living housesNeed more recovery residences or sober living homesSingle Room Occupancy, Tiny House ComplexesTiny house villages, duplex & triplexes allowedin SFD zonesIncrease mixed income housing options. Utilizeunder‐used commercial zones for housing as parking lots are urban blight. Increase housing density is some areas to free up space for outdoor recreation.Anaheim has too many apartments causing parkingissues and overcrowdingWho can afford an 800k 3 bedroom house??
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?Jose Moreno is awful. He needs to move to LA and take his crazy ideology over there where they would just love him. He’s bad for our district and bad for Anaheim. The homeless issue is a huge problem and he is making it worse.Return the colony area, especially downtown, toa feeling of historical significance. Housing should honor the style of Anaheim’s historical period.Converting abandoned commercial space to dwellingsLoft style officeToo many rentals‐ more actual homes for sale areneeded‐ someone is listening to economist who are reading the data as needing more rentals but no‐we need more housing for families that is affordable.We do not need any more of this "multi‐family housing." We are full of them.We're OK here.Stop. Enough.Beautify our current area to be a desireablePlace to live.Changing built fabric of neighborhoods; unwillingness to allow new development in certain areas; high density / concentration of new housing development in certain part of the city and none in othersSmall one story single family homesYoung start up families......Most homes in Anaheim are large and costly. First time buyers can’t afford these unless they have a relative to helpfinance!Young families can’t afford homes in Anaheim Hills unless they have relatives to help them finance a down payment!The houses are to expensive for middle class families.I would Like you to stick to the master plan that was put in place as far as how the land should be developed. There were certain zones put it in like RH‐3 that should be followed and adhered to.Don’t try to put a big huge commercial business right in the middle of a residential area. Find a better and more suitable place.Sticking to the master plan no matter how much developers keep trying to buy off our council members!Adhere to the master plans in areas that have them and only change them with some kind of resident vote!A city where young families can raise their families and have a supportive community structure with safe and equitable schools. A city in which multigenerational families and individuals that grew up in Anaheim can maintain a sense or community and belonging with available affordable housing spaces. A city and community that takes care of theirseniors, disabled, and homeless by providing supportive transitional housing and low cost housing.We just bought our house this year, but it wasa very challenging. There isn’t much opportunity for younger couples/families to buy family homesin a moderate price range. We bought our house at $490,000, which is unheard of amongst family andfriends. In the 90s my parents bought their house in the $300,000 range. There were more options formy parents than for me(someone who was born and raised in Anaheim). I wouldn’t be able to affordthe average price of a home in Anaheim $600,000 and above.Beautiful, more green spaces, Costco, Traders Joe, parks, less crimeI believe the housing that is already been built in Anaheim is quite complete where is the businesses that would attract residents . What about converting some of these abandoned buildings to homeless housing? Has anyone considered how to handlethe traffic situation of those multi use facilities?
Your Anaheim Vision: What is your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?Anaheim is critically deficit in meeting RHNA numbers. We need more low income, very low income,and affordable housing. We need PSH for our vulnerable residents. We DO NOT NEED more market rate housing developments such as Platinum Trainagle and what is currently being built at Building type ApertmentsMore SFR's and stop all other building. If CAhas a true lack of resources (power, water, over‐crowded streets & freeways, overtaxed emergency services, etc.), there is no need to bring‐in more people if the resources and infrastructure can't support it.Thank you for the opportunity to give some input.
Su Visión de Anaheim: ¿Cuál es su visión para el futuro de la vivienda en Anaheim?un lugar limpio con accesso a trabajo, viviendas para trabajadores, buenas escuelas y opciones de transportacion. Necesitamos trabajos y viviendasen la misma area.Pues sería maravilloso ser dueña de una vivienda digna eso sería un sueño realízaloUna vivienda digna para todos vivir en familiaUna ciudad con equidad, sustentable con el medio ambiente donde la voz del pueblo tenga más valor que la de las grandes corporacionesQue mejorara !Accessible económicamente, pera un ingreso medio, solo reciben apoyo lis que no tienen nada,Que haiga rentas justas para las personas de bajos recursosPara que los alojamientos sean econpmicos y lacompra de cada mas posible.Una ciudad que tiene una diversidad de opcionesde vivienda para residentes de todos los niveles de ingreso.Una ciudad que tiene una diversidad de opcionesde vivienda para residentes de todos los niveles de ingreso
1
City of Anaheim Housing Element Update Committee
(HEUC) Agenda
Thursday, March 18th, 2021
5:30 p.m.
Location: Virtual – Zoom: Meeting ID - 984 1204 0208; Passcode - 121116
Visit https://www.anaheim.net/5877/Housing-Element-Update-Committee for a
more detailed meeting access information
1. Introductions
a. HEUC Committee Member Introductions
b. City Staff
c. Kimley-Horn Staff
2. Roles and Responsibilities of the HEUC
a. Roles and Responsibilities of the HEUC Committee
b. Project Materials
c. Selection of Committee Chair and Co-Chair
3. Overview of the Housing Element Update Process
a. What is the Housing Element and Why is the City updating the Document?
b. 2021-2029 RHNA Allocation
c. Community Engagement Efforts and Opportunities
d. Project Schedule
4. Housing Visioning Exercise
a. Housing Issues/Opportunities
5. Future HEUC Meetings
a. Meeting Dates / Times
b. Tentative Summary of Topics / Agenda Items
6. Open Committee Member Q&A
7. General Public Comment
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item related to the purpose
and responsibilities of the HEUC or public comments on Agenda items. Speakers are asked
to abide by a three minute time limit.
8. Next Steps
a. Next Committee Meeting: Thursday, April 15th, 2021 at 5:30 pm
9. Adjourn.
2
The Housing Element Update Committee (HEUC) is an advisory body to the City staff. No formal
decisions will be made by the HEUC. The HEUC meetings are open to the public. Subsequent
City Council actions or decisions on the Housing Element will be conducted in a public hearing
in compliance with the Brown Act.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, plase contact the Planning Department at (714) 765-5139. Notification
no later than 10:00 a.m. on Monday before the meeting will enable the City to make reaseonable
arrangements to ensure accessiblity to this meeting.
1
City of Anaheim
Housing Element Update Committee
(HEUC) Meeting Summary
Thursday, March 18th, 2021
5:30 p.m.
Location: Virtual – Zoom
The City of Anaheim hosted the first meeting for the HEUC on March 18, 2021. The Committee
meeting started at 5:35 p.m. Below is a summary of the meeting.
Attendance:
Committee members present: Cesar Covarrubias, Steve Lamotte, Rob Mitchell, Rochelle Mills,
James Lawson, Maggie Downs, James Lott, Mitchell Lee, Tim Graham, Natalie Rubalcava,
Linda Lehnkering
Committee members absent: Todd Ament, Benjamin Hurst
Staff present: Joanne Hwang, Susan Kim, Andy Nogal, Bianca Alcock
Consultant present: David Barquist, Molly Mendoza
1. Introductions
Staff welcomed Committee members and each member provided a short introduction. Staff then
introduced the Housing Element Update Team.
2. Roles and Responsibilities of the HEUC
Staff provided an overview of expectations, roles and responsibilities of Committee members
including:
• Providing input based on expertise
• Review of draft documents
• Advocating the Housing Element Update, and
• Attendance and participation in monthly meetings
Staff then provided information on how to coordinate with the Housing Element Update Team
and set expectations for access to a local online shared folder and when to expect documents
and deliverables. Staff then opened the meeting for nominations or volunteers for the
Committee Chair and Co-Chair positions, as well as provided an overview of duties for each
position. The follow Chair and Co-Chair volunteered and were voted in:
• Committee Chair: Mitchell Lee
• Committee Co-Chair: Rochelle Mills
2
3. Overview of the Housing Element Update Process
The Consultant team provided and informational presentation of the Housing Element and the
update process. The presentation included the following information:
• What is the Housing Element?
• Overview of Housing Element components
• Overview of RHNA and the City’s unit allocation
• Community participation opportunities and a tentative timeline
4. Housing Visioning Exercise
The Consultant team provided a visioning exercise utilizing a live polling tool. Below is a
summary of questions posed to the committee and a short summary of responses:
In one word, describe your vision for the future of housing in Anaheim?
• Affordable (a common response) • Vibrant
• Accessible • Family oriented with parking
• Growth • Urban
• Abundant • Total support
What are you most hoping to contribute as a Committee member?
The following themes encompass a variety of responses form Committee members:
• Interest in diversity and representation
• Focus on affordability
• Input from the development perspective
• Input from a resident perspective
• Advocation for a variety of housing types accessible to all people in the community
What information would you like from Staff/Consultant Team before the next meeting?
• A plan for ensuring fair and open
discussion of issues in which team goals are in conflict
• Cost to develop and build an average unit.
• Housing Element Progress Report
• Current projects in the pipeline
• Number of housing units built in each
district.
• List of projects that have been denied and why
• Progress of last housing element; what were barriers to completion?
• Provide a copy of the last plan.
• Current housing stock, average price of home.
• Housing statistics for the city
• Progress report for all projects
• How many affordable and accessible units are available to residents (to date)?
• Progress of last Housing Element
What three goals/ideas would you like to see incorporated into the Housing Element
update process?
The following themes encompass a variety of responses form Committee members:
• Opportunities for people at different income levels
• The benefits housing has on communities
• Policies that guide smart and balanced development
• Accelerated development and permitting processes
• Beautiful and well-designed affordable housing
3
5. Future HEUC Meetings and Next steps
Staff provided a schedule for upcoming HEUC meetings and tentative topics for future
meetings.
6. Open Committee Member Q&A
Staff opened the floor for Committee questions and provided responses to the questions. The
following are summary themes of questions received:
• How is affordability determined?
• Where and when will additional information be available?
• How will the community be engaged?
• How will the City accommodate the RHNA?
• How and when will policies be enacted?
• What is the timeline of the update?
7. General Public Comment
Staff opened the floor for public comments and questions, and provided responses to the
questions. The following are summary themes of questions received:
• Is there a selection criterion for the Committee?
• What is the HEUC process to incorporate public input?
• How will the numbers from the 5th cycle and progress from that cycle reflect in the
upcoming cycle?
• How will the City facilitate the new allocation?
8. Next steps
Staff provided an overview of next steps for the update process.
9. Adjourn
Staff called the meeting to a close at 7:05 p.m.
1
City of Anaheim
Housing Element Update Committee
(HEUC) Agenda
Thursday, April 15th, 2021
5:30 p.m.
Location: Virtual – Zoom;
Visit https://www.anaheim.net/5877/Housing-Element-Update-Committee for
meeting access information
1.Community Workshop #1 Review
a. Community Workshop #1 Recap
b.Participant Feedback
i.Mentimeter Exercise
ii.Whiteboard Exercise
iii.Other comments
2.Draft Document Status
a.Review of Past Performance
b.Community Profile
3.Sites Analysis Process Overview
a. 2021-2029 RHNA Allocation
b.Key Legislative Considerations
c.Sites Considerations
d.Sites Analysis Framework
4.Open Committee Member Q&A
5.General Public Comment
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item related to Agenda items
or to provide comments related to Housing Element Update project.
6.Next Steps
a.Next Committee Meeting: Thursday, May 20th, 2021 at 5:30 pm
7.Adjourn.
2
The Housing Element Update Committee (HEUC) is an advisory body to the City staff. No formal
decisions will be made by the HEUC. The HEUC meetings are open to the public. Subsequent
City Council actions or decisions on the Housing Element will be conducted in a public hearing
in compliance with the Brown Act.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, plase contact the Planning Department at (714) 765-5139. Notification
no later than 10:00 a.m. on Monday before thee meeting will enable the City to make reaseonable
arrangements to ensure accessiblity to this meeting.
1
City of Anaheim
Housing Element Update Committee
(HEUC) Meeting Summary
Thursday, April 15th, 2021
5:30 p.m.
Location: Virtual – Zoom
The City of Anaheim hosted the second meeting for the HEUC on April 15, 2021. The
Committee meeting started at 5:30 p.m. Below is a summary of the meeting.
Attendance:
Committee members present: Cesar Covarrubias, Rob Mitchell, Rochelle Mills, James Lawson,
Maggie Downs, James Lott, Mitchell Lee, Tim Graham, Natalie Rubalcava, Linda Lehnkering,
Adam Wood (alternate to Steve Lamotte), Benjamin Hurst (partial participation), Rachael Mark
(partial participation)
Committee members absent: Todd Ament
Staff present: Joanne Hwang, Susan Kim, Andy Nogal, Bianca Alcock
Consultant present: David Barquist, Molly Mendoza, Rossina Chichiri
Staff welcomed committee members and a member of the public brought forward a discussion
regarding Spanish participation. Staff opened a breakout room with Spanish translation for
participants who needed translation services.
1. Community Workshop #1 Review
The Consultant team provided an overview of the first community workshop to the committee
members. The Summary included the following:
• Total number of participants;
• Key topics of the workshop presentation;
• Community feedback and participation exercises; and
• Summary of community input and ideas
Staff opened the floor for Committee questions. Committee members asked questions and
provided comments regarding the following topics:
• Keep comments and questions after each topic to the committee members and allow
public comments at the end, public comments may provide comments in the chat
• Interim status update of the Community Survey and participation
• Review of initial community feedback
2
2. Draft Document Status
The Consultant team provided background information and summary overview of the status of
the draft Housing Element Document, including the following:
• Review of Past Performance – Purpose of the document and evaluation of programs
for continuation into the 6th cycle Housing Element
• Community Profile – Background information on the demographic analysis as it is
related to and incorporated into the Housing Element
o Overview of sample demographic and housing data in Anaheim
o The Committee provided initial comments on housing opportunity areas including
housing near transportation, housing near exiting infrastructure, housing
opportunities in varied areas of Anaheim, and workforce housing
o Committee member Lehnkering requested information on the median household
income for Anaheim
o Committee member Covarrubias requested a review of the Annual Progress
Report (APR) for 2020
• Sites Analysis Process – Overview of the framework and requirements by state
legislation and a review of the RHNA allocation by income and an overview of the
adequate sites analysis process to identify appropriate site
Staff then provided an overview of the City’s APR for 2020, as requested by the committee.
3. Open Committee Member Q&A
Staff opened the floor for Committee questions and provided responses to the questions. The
following are summary themes of questions received:
• Request for staff to provide summary of APR and how it compares to other jurisdictions
in the region as an item on future agenda
• Request for a summary of previous policies as determined by 5th Cycle HEUC
• Discussion about steps and requirements to make affordable housing feasible
o The need to explore ways to 1) increase funding for affordable housing; and 2)
create opportunities for government support and funding
• Discussion about ways to give affordable housing priority and attract other funding
o How to get federal funding and investment into Anaheim
4. General Public Comment
Staff opened the floor for public comments and questions, and provided responses to the
questions. The following are summary themes of questions received in both the Spanish and
English participation room:
• Questions about the waiting list for Section 8
• Comments about the HEUC process, and the information provided to the HEUC
• Comments about the income levels of past housing projects
• Comments encouraging Low cost methods for housing development
• Concerns about a lack of information and access to affordable housing options
5. Next steps
Staff provided an overview of next steps for the update process, information about the Public
Forum on May 25th and the time and date of the next HEUC meeting.
3
6. Adjourn
Staff called the meeting to a close at 7:45 p.m.
1
City of Anaheim
Housing Element Update Committee
(HEUC) Agenda
Thursday, May 20th, 2021
5:30 p.m.
Location: Virtual – Zoom;
Visit https://www.anaheim.net/5877/Housing-Element-Update-Committee for
meeting access information
1. Update on Community Outreach
a. Survey Status to Date
b. Upcoming Events
2. Annual Progress Reports
a. Annual Progress Reports (APRs)
b. RHNA Progress Comparison
3. Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs
a. Housing Element Goals and Policies
b. What do Housing Element Programs do?
c. Current Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Programs
4. Open Committee Member Q&A
5. General Public Comment
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item related to Agenda items
or to provide comments related to Housing Element Update project.
6. Next Steps
a. Next Committee Meeting: Thursday, June 17 h, 2021 at 5:30 pm
7. Adjourn.
2
The Housing Element Update Committee (HEUC) is an advisory body to the City staff. No formal
decisions will be made by the HEUC. The HEUC meetings are open to the public. Subsequent
City Council actions or decisions on the Housing Element will be conducted in a public hearing
in compliance with the Brown Act.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, plase contact the Planning Department at (714) 765-5139. Notification
no later than 10:00 a.m. on Monday before thee meeting will enable the City to make reaseonable
arrangements to ensure accessiblity to this meeting.
1
City of Anaheim
Housing Element Update Committee
(HEUC) Meeting Summary
Thursday, May 20th, 2021
5:30 p.m.
Location: Virtual – Zoom
The City of Anaheim hosted the third meeting for the HEUC on May 20, 2021. The Committee
meeting started at 5:30 p.m. Below is a summary of the meeting.
Attendance:
Committee members present: Cesar Covarrubias (partial participation), Rob Mitchell, Rochelle
Mills, Jose Pena (alternate to Maggie Downs), Elizabeth Hansburg (alternate to James Lott),
Mitchell Lee, Tim Graham, Natalie Rubalcava, Linda Lehnkering, Steve Lamotte, Benjamin
Hurst (partial participation)
Committee members absent: James Lawson, Rachael Mask, Todd Ament
Staff present: Joanne Hwang, Susan Kim, Andy Nogal, Bianca Alcock
Consultant present: David Barquist, Molly Mendoza, Rossina Chichiri
Staff welcomed Committee members and introduced the live Spanish translation feature for
English as second language participants. Staff then provided the opportunity for the newest
Committee members to introduce themselves to the Committee and the public.
1. Community Outreach Next Steps
The Consultant team provided an update on the status of the live online community survey. The
update included the following:
• Total number of Spanish participants
• Total number of English participants
• Close date of the survey
• Last date to submit written surveys
Staff also provided a timeline for community engagement next steps, which included:
• Stakeholder interviews
• A Community Forum
• The Public Review Draft
• Community Workshop #3
2. Annual Progress Reports
The Consultant team provided background information and an overview of the Annual Progress
Reports (APRs) process and their purpose. The team then provided an overview of the City of
2
Anaheim’s progress towards the 5 h cycle RHNA allocation, by income category, through 2019.
The presentation included a comparative table between Anaheim and other jurisdictions of
similar size and demographics in Orange and Los Angeles Counties.
The Consultant team opened the floor to comments and questions from Committee members.
Comments and questions are summarized below:
• Clarification on if numbers provided in the table (for the 5th cycle RHNA progress to date)
reflect percentages of the total RHNA allocation.
• Percentage of the permits issued that have resulted in a unit.
• Clarification on “Moderate” and “Median” income definition.
• Discussion on things that the Committee can do to make appropriate recommendations
to increase housing access for affordable housing.
• Likelihood of affordable units being built within market rate projects.
• Issues with low and very low-income units not remaining affordable.
• Clarification on whether or not the RHNA allocation include both for-sale and for-rent
housing units.
3. Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs
The consultant team provided an overview of the structure of Housing Element and its goals,
policies, and programs. The presentation included an overview of the following:
• Intent and structure of housing goals
• The process for develop policies and programs that support housing goals
• An overview of what housing policies do and what they include
• The relationship between policies, programs and the APRs
• An overview of HCD’s program requirements
• Key considerations for developing the Housing Element policy program
The Consultant team then walked through the City’s existing goals for housing and the requisite
housing policies and programs within the existing housing plan. The team also provided
narrative for the City’s guiding principles and directives for current housing goals.
4. Open Committee Member Q&A
The Consultant team and staff opened the floor to comments and questions from Committee
members. Comments and questions are summarized below:
• What are other cities doing that is successful that Anaheim is not doing?
• Is there funding available to increase housing opportunity in the City?
• When did Anaheim receive its RHNA numbers for the 6th Cycle?
• Was there consideration given to the effects of the pandemic on those numbers?
• What is the current structure of the very low and low income in the City?
• Existing program looks very comprehensive; the issue is around how to meet the low
and very low-income needs.
• The Committees role in updating this Housing Element/policy plan.
• How do we make the Housing Element process valuable statewide; housing policy
should not be done in vacuum.
3
• Policies from the past element did not work to balance housing in the City. As such, the
City needs to reevaluate existing policies and consider new policies to increase housing
balance.
• The development of affordable housing has been on City owned properties and with City
participation in those developments.
• Affordable sites identified are often being absorbed into the market. There has to be a
comprehensive approach where the developers get what they need but the City also
gets affordable housing units built in the City.
• Needs to be give and take from both the City and developers. The cost should not be a
burden on one end entirely.
• We need to find a new way to create affordable housing in the City.
5. General Public Comment
Staff opened the floor for public comments and questions and provided responses to the
questions. In addition, the members of public provided additional public comments and
questions through Q&A function. The following are summary themes of questions received:
• Low-income homeownership opportunities should be available and presented as a part
of this process.
• The context around low income is important because it informs people about who is low
income, it could be local public workers/teachers. This context can help break the stigma
around low-income housing.
• Who are stakeholders and how are they identified in this process?
• It is important to have a serious dialogue about affordable housing.
• There are many vacant units in the moderate and above moderate developments. Could
those be considered as opportunity units?
• Development of affordable housing needs to be citywide.
• Are we going to be able to see or a list of who all is here tonight?
• Can housing element language be more clearly stated so Anaheim adheres to RHNA,
aside from the 'market rate' units?
• Developers paying into senior rental assistance program as fee incentive instead of
providing affordable units should not be allowed.
• How do you intend to capture more surveys from Spanish speaking community, which is
a sizable population in Anaheim)?
• Are these housing for very low and low-income category provided through deed
restriction or non-deed restricted sector?
• Is there element language that supports ADA upgrades to current stock of housing,
specifically for our aging owning neighbors in single-family homes?
• Is there opportunity for language regrading first refusal on city owned property for
affordable developers?
• The cities who have done better at low and very low category adopted inclusionary
requirements. Wouldn’t this be a minimal starting point?
• Housing can be tied to good connections to transportation, so parking isn't a major issue,
how much is Transit Oriented Development being supported by our housing element?
Can language be drafted to encourage more collaboration with OCTA to make parking
less of a concern for wealthier neighbors?
• What is the income threshold for low and median income?
4
• Is there space during these meetings for committee members to propose action items to
be explored and voted on? Does that need a committee member to initiate?
• (Re: possible in-person HEUC meeting): Consider a hybrid with public participation
virtually with limits
• (Re: possible in-person HEUC meeting) How would public participate if full vaccination is
not possible for everyone?
6. Next steps
Staff provided an overview of next steps for the update process, information on future public
engagement opportunities, and a short discussion about potential in-person meetings. The
committee provided recommendations about in persons meetings, and tentatively decided to
host the first in person meeting in July. Staff also provided the time and date of the next HEUC
meeting.
7. Adjourn
Staff called the meeting to a close at 7:45 p.m.
1
City of Anaheim
Housing Element Update Committee
(HEUC) Agenda
Thursday, June 17th, 2021
5:30 p.m.
Location: Virtual – Zoom;
Visit https://www.anaheim.net/5877/Housing-Element-Update-Committee for
meeting access information
1. Roles and Responsibilities of the Committee
a. Committee Roles and Responsibilities
b. General Public Role
2. Community Outreach Update
a. Survey Status to Date
b. Upcoming Events
3. Best Practices for Facilitating Affordable Housing
a. Identification of Example Cities
b. Very Low-Income RHNA Progress
c. Low-Income RHNA Progress
d. Moderate-Income RHNA Progress
e. What Are Other Cities Implementing?
4. Review of Past Performance
a. Programs Completed in the 5th Cycle
b. Programs to Continue into the 6th Cycle
c. Programs to be Modified for the 6th Cycle
5. Open Committee Member Q&A
6. General Public Comments
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item related to Agenda items
or to provide comments related to the Housing Element Update Project.
7. Next Steps
a. Next Committee Meeting: Thursday, July 15th, 2021 at 5:30 pm
8. Adjourn.
2
The Housing Element Update Committee (HEUC) is an advisory body to the City staff. No formal
decisions will be made by the HEUC. The HEUC meetings are open to the public. Subsequent
City Council actions or decisions on the Housing Element will be conducted in a public hearing
in compliance with the Brown Act.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, plase contact the Planning Department at (714) 765-4479
Notification no later than 10:00 a.m. on Monday before the meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessiblity to this meeting. Spanish translations will be
provided at this meeting. For translation services other than Spanish, contact the Planning
Department no later than 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting by calling 714-765-4479.
Because many dialects and regionalisms exist, the City cannot guarantee that interpreters will
be able to interpret into a particular dialect or regionalism, and disclaims any liability alleged to
arise from such services.
1
City of Anaheim
Housing Element Update Committee
(HEUC) Meeting Summary
Thursday, June 17th, 2021
5:30 p.m.
Location: Virtual – Zoom
The City of Anaheim (City) hosted the fourth meeting for the HEUC (Committee) on June 17,
2021. The Committee meeting started at 5:30 p.m. Below is a summary of the meeting.
Attendance:
Committee members present: Cesar Covarrubias, Rochelle Mills, Maggie Downs, Elizabeth
Hansburg (alternate to James Lott), Mitchell Lee, Tim Graham, Natalie Rubalcava, Linda
Lehnkering, Adam Wood (alternate to Steve Lamotte), Rachael Mask (partial participation),
Thomas Fielder, Christina Cota, James Lawson
Committee members absent: Rob Mitchell, Todd Ament, Benjamin Hurst
City staff present: Susan Kim, Andy Nogal, Bianca Alcock, Niki Wetzel, Charles Guiam
Consultant team present: David Barquist, Molly Mendoza, Rossina Chichiri
City staff welcomed Committee members and introduced the live Spanish translation feature for
English as second language participants. City staff then provided the opportunity for the newest
Committee members to introduce themselves to the Committee and the public.
1. Roles and Responsibilities of the Committee
After roll call, the consultant team provided an overview of the expected roles of Committee
members as well as roles of the public during the Committee meetings.
2. Community Outreach Next Steps
The Consultant team provided an overview of the online community survey. The survey was in
English and Spanish, and closed for public comment on June 13, 2021. The English survey had
303 participants and the Spanish survey had 20 participants.
Committee members had questions regarding the following topics:
• How did the City advertise the survey?
• What methods did the City use to increase participation?
• Is the survey statistically significant and how will it be used in the Housing Element?
The consultant also provided an overview of the upcoming outreach and engagement events.
2
3. Best Practices for Facilitating Affordable Housing
The Consultant team provided information and an overview of the criteria the City established to
identify jurisdictions with progress towards the RHNA. The presentation included progress to
date towards the very low, low, and moderate RHNA for each identified City.
The consultant team then provided an overview of different programs, which increased housing
progress towards the 5th cycle RHNA, that the identified jurisdictions were implementing.
The Consultant team opened the floor to comments and questions from Committee members. A
summary of the comments and questions is below:
• Clarification about what the City reports to HCD as affordable for the low, very low- and
moderate-income categories.
• Do ADUs count towards the low-income housing; does Anaheim count ADUs towards
low income RHNA?
• Programs should specifically capture how to increase housing at different income levels.
• Incentives and implementation plans should be a priority in this Housing Element.
• The Housing Element should include effective programs.
• Would the City consider an affordability requirement for land that the City will rezone,
rather than a blanket ordinance for the entire City?
• Are there checks and balances with how well the plan comes together?
• What is the reporting process and progress update of the City to the state?
4. Review of Past Performance
The consultant team provided an overview of the draft review of past performance. The
presentation included the following:
• Programs that were identified as being implemented or completed and no longer needed
• Programs that either lost funding or had little progress and the City would, therefore,
need to modify.
• Programs that were successful or are required, which the City will continue into the sixth
cycle.
The Consultant team also opened the floor to the Committee for comments and questions; below is a summary:
• The permit processing timeline take a long time and the City should streamline the
process.
• What are the roadblocks and challenges to getting people into affordable units, and
expedite the process?
• There is a population who needs accessible and affordable housing, how do we provide
this? Why are there vacancies in affordable developments?
5. Open Committee Member Q&A
The Consultant team and City staff opened the floor to comments and questions from
Committee members; below is a summary:
• Has there been feedback or studies of the success of ADUs in other communities?
• Is there a city that has been successful in implementing the ADUs?
3
• Has the City looked at surplus land that the school districts or other public entities own?
• What are the considerations for a site that may not lend itself to multifamily or high
density, how can the City consider those sites?
• Important to look at programs that identify City-owned sites/properties for affordable
housing.
• In addition to churches and using houses of worship, can the City also consider other
non-profits?
• Can the City create housing programs for public/government employees?
• What are the top three things that Anaheim needs to do differently in the sixth cycle to
make more progress towards the RHNA?
• The City should consider creating a local finance trust, create local funding to leverage
county and state funding.
• How do we ensure that market rate and affordable housing move together?
6. General Public Comment
The Consultant team opened the floor for public comments and questions and provided
responses to the questions. In addition, the members of public provided additional public
comments and questions through the Q&A function. The following are summary themes of
questions received:
• How can the City make better progress this round? How will the City make a strong
document to address the shortfalls of the 5th cycle?
• How are unincorporated areas being addressed or considered?
• What different incentives were/are most successful?
• Will the Housing Element address short term rentals?
• That inability to provide avenues to engage virtually is not in the spirit of the Brown Act.
Surely the City has the technology and council members have called in to meetings.
• "A whole host of various methods"? Define with some specificity exactly where the
survey was advertised."
• This is once every 8 years. There is no second chance.
• Will this presentation be available to the public?
• How did SA [Santa Ana] do in this category?
• RE: High RHNA numbers comment - "crazy #s" as in over met need. How will this cycle
be different?
• I am familiar with permit process. Does the permit count reflect actual builds?
• Is the City considering any other workforce housing residence assistance programs?
7. Next steps
The Consultant team provided an overview of next steps for the update process, information on
future public engagement opportunities. The Committee provided recommendations about in
person meetings, and tentatively decided to host the first in person meeting in July. Staff also
provided the time and date of the next HEUC meeting.
8. Adjourn
Committee chair called the meeting to a close at 7:30 p.m.
1
City of Anaheim
Housing Element Update Committee
(HEUC) Agenda (Revised)
Thursday, July 15th 2021
5:30 p.m.
Location: Downtown Anaheim Community Center
250 E. Center Street, Anaheim, CA 928052
Visit https://www.anaheim.net/5877/Housing-Element-Update-Committee for
additional meeting information and summaries of past meetings.
1. Roles and Responsibilities of the Committee
a. Committee Roles and Responsibilities
b. Public Roles and Responsibilities
2. Community Outreach Update
a. Survey Results
b. Survey Results – Committee Direction
3. Adequate Sites Analysis
a. Recap – Overview of Adequate Sites Process
b. Existing Zoning + Center City Corridor (C3)
c. Pipeline Projects
d. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
e. Sites Analysis – Committee Direction
f. Remaining Need – Candidate Areas
4. Open Committee Member Q&A
5. General Public Comments
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item related to Agenda items
or to provide comments related to the Housing Element Update Project.
6. Next Steps
a. Upcoming Events
b. Next Committee Meeting: Thursday, August 12th, 2021 at 5:30 pm
7. Adjourn.
2
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
(TIME) (DATE)
LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED:
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE COMMITTEE
The Housing Element Update Committee (HEUC) is an advisory body to the City staff. No formal
decisions will be made by the HEUC. The HEUC meetings are open to the public. Subsequent
City Council actions or decisions on the Housing Element will be conducted in a public hearing
in compliance with the Brown Act.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, plase contact the Planning Department at (714) 765-4479
Notification no later than 10:00 a.m. on Monday before the meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessiblity to this meeting. Spanish translations will be
provided at this meeting. For translation services other than Spanish, contact the Planning
Department no later than 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting by calling 714-765-4479.
Because many dialects and regionalisms exist, the City cannot guarantee that interpreters will
be able to interpret into a particular dialect or regionalism, and disclaims any liability alleged to
arise from such services.
1
City of Anaheim
Housing Element Update Committee
(HEUC) Meeting Summary
Thursday, July 15th, 2021
5:30 p.m.
Location: City of Anaheim, Downtown Community Center
250 East Center St, Anaheim, CA 92805
The City of Anaheim (City) hosted the fifth meeting for the HEUC (Committee) on July 15, 2021.
The Committee meeting started at 5:30 p.m. Below is a summary of the meeting.
Attendance:
Committee members present: Maggie Downs, Tim Graham, Natalie Rubalcava, Linda
Lehnkering, Steve Lamotte, Thomas Fielder, Christina Cota
Committee members absent: Rob Mitchell, Todd Ament, Benjamin Hurst, Cesar Covarrubias,
Rochelle Mills, Elizabeth Hansburg (alternate to James Lott), Mitchell Lee, Rachael Mask
(partial participation), James Lawson
City staff present: Ted White, Andy Nogal, Bianca Alcock, Niki Wetzel, Charles Guiam, Kevin
Clausen
Consultant team present: David Barquist, Molly Mendoza
City staff and the consultant team welcomed Committee members and the public and provided
Spanish translation upon request.
1. Roles and Responsibilities of the Committee
The consultant team provided an overview of the expected roles of Committee members as well
as roles of the public during the Committee meetings.
2. Survey Results
The Consultant team provided an overview of the online community survey and the results
provided. The survey was in English and Spanish, and the consultant team reviewed data
results and a summary of key themes. Consultant staff indicated that they would provide a
summary survey report to Committee members and post the summary on the website.
Committee members had questions regarding the following topics:
• Why were the English and Spanish results reported separately?
• How many people took the survey?
The Consultant team then provided the intent and purpose of the survey, and how committee
members can utilize the results.
2
3. Adequate Sites Analysis
The Consultant team provided information and an overview of the sites analysis standards and
regulations as set by state legislation. The Consultant team then provided a summary of the
existing sites strategy identified for the City of Anaheim including:
• Existing Zoning
• Pipeline Projects
• Accessory Dwelling Units
The Consultant team gave direction on the goal of committee participation in the sites analysis
process. The consultant then provided an overview of future candidate areas for housing
opportunity on Citywide maps. Following this overview, the consultant asked the Committee to
review each map and provide recommendations on candidate areas, suitable densities and
housing types, and additional housing related recommendations.
The Consultant team opened the floor to comments and questions from Committee members. A
summary of the comments and questions is below:
• What does ”underutilized” site mean?
• Would the city consider sites for purchase?
• What is the rate and feasibility of acquisition?
• What is a pipeline project?
• How can the city use pipeline projects?
• What is the difference between entitled and pipeline projects?
• If a developer pulls a permit is the project counted as a unit towards RHNA?
• What is the current ratio of permits to applications, what is the likelihood that those
projects develop?
The Committee then held general discussion focused in the following key themes:
• General appropriate densities for different income levels
• Areas with high propensity for mixed use
• Areas most consistent with multifamily or single-family opportunities
• Where mixed income housing is most appropriate compared to primarily affordable or
primarily market rate
• Areas with a focus on transit and mobility opportunities
• Areas which will need infrastructure improvements or economic improvements to
support adequate housing opportunity
4. Open Committee Member Q&A
The Consultant team and City staff opened the floor to comments and questions from
Committee members; there were no additional comments.
5. Next steps
The Consultant team provided an overview of next steps for the update process, information on
future public engagement opportunities. The Consultant team also provided the time and date of
the next HEUC meeting.
3
6. General Public Comment
The Consultant team opened the floor for public comments.. The following are summary themes
of questions received:
• Have plans changed since the pandemic? Has the pandemic shown how easy it can be
to fall into the low-income bracket?
• How can the public trust that all the good work in [committee meetings] when a city
council member has filed a complaint against the State? We don’t want the good to be
undone.
• Is there opportunity to make the meetings available virtually as well as in person?
7. Adjourn
The Consultant team called the meeting to a close at 7:45 p.m.
2
The Housing Element Update Committee (HEUC) is an advisory body to the City staff. No formal
decisions will be made by the HEUC. The HEUC meetings are open to the public. Subsequent
City Council actions or decisions on the Housing Element will be conducted in a public hearing
in compliance with the Brown Act.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, plase contact the Planning Department at (714) 765-4479.
Notification no later than 10:00 a.m. on Monday before the meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessiblity to this meeting. Spanish translations will be
provided at this meeting. For translation services other than Spanish, contact the Planning
Department no later than 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting by calling 714-765-4479.
Because many dialects and regionalisms exist, the City cannot guarantee that interpreters will
be able to interpret into a particular dialect or regionalism, and disclaims any liability alleged to
arise from such services.
1
City of Anaheim
Housing Element Update Committee
(HEUC) Meeting Summary
Thursday, August 12th, 2021 5:30 p.m.
Location: Virtual; Zoom
The City of Anaheim (City) hosted the sixth meeting for the HEUC (Committee) on August 12,
2021. The Committee meeting started at 5:30 p.m. Below is a summary of the meeting.
Attendance:
Committee members present: Maggie Downs, Tim Graham, Natalie Rubalcava, Linda
Lehnkering, Thomas Fielder, Christina Cota, , Benjamin Hurst, Cesar Covarrubias, Rochelle
Mills, Elizabeth Hansburg (alternate to James Lott), Mitchell Lee, James Lawson, Adam Wood
(alternate to Todd Ament)
Committee members absent: Steve Lamotte, Rob Mitchell, Rachael Mask
City staff present: Susan Kim, Bianca Alcock, Charles Guiam,
Consultant team present: David Barquist, Ines Galmiche
Interpretation staff present: Michelle Díaz, Omar Garza
City staff and the consultant team welcomed Committee members and the public and provided
Spanish translation upon request. Additionally, the consultant reviewed the agenda for the
evening, the following question was asked by the committee:
• Is tonight’s meeting a review of progress on the Housing Element or will there be action
or recommendation take and made by the committee?
1. Roles and Responsibilities of the Committee
The consultant team provided an overview of the expected roles of Committee members as well
as roles of the public during the Committee meetings.
2. Adequate Sites Analysis Summary
The Consultant team provided an overview of the sites analysis including the following key
topics:
• A summary of the committee’s discussion regarding sites at the July 15th HEUC meeting
(5).
• An overview of pipeline projects including how the city defines the different stages of
pipeline projects and the total number of units in the pipeline.
• A review of the qualifications for sites identified to accommodate the lower income
RHNA units
2
• A review of the qualifications for sites identified to accommodate the moderate and
above moderate income RHNA units
The consultant team then provided maps of the identifies candidate sites to accommodate the
RHNA. The maps displayed the candidate sites by council district (1-6). The City then walked
through the sites identified on each map, the income category of the sites and provided
background and context for the purpose and identification of the sites. The City the provided an
overview of the sites summary table, describing the summary of units each sites category can
yield/
Committee members had the following questions:
• Can you clarify which corridors the sites identified are one?
• Are the low very low based purely on default density?
• Can you clarify how a project that was started during the 5th cycle, but was not finished,
can it be counted in the 6th cycle?
• The Kaiser site (off of lakeview), is that marked as pipeline?
• For the imperial sites, are they designated for low and very low? And is that where the
theater is? Is this just going to be a zoning change?
• It looks like the Savi Ranch option was removed, is there a reason for that?
• On La Palma and State College (northeast corner), has that site been considered for
rezoning? The mall has been dying for 20 years and it would be a good option for low
income.
• As you are identifying potential sites, in the even that they are privately owned, what is
the process?
• What does “Residential Capacity that Requires a General Plan Amendment”?
• Are general plan redesignations generally successful?
3. Draft Policies and Programs Summary
The Consultant team provided information and an overview of the draft policies and programs
for the 2021-2029 housing element. The consultant team provided a quick background on the
development of the policy program, then walked through the new draft policies for 6th cycle. The
consultant team also reviewed the policy discussion items that the City would like the committee
to discuss, including the following topics:
• Inclusionary housing
• Incentivize housing on religious institutions and community facilities
• Update community care facilities ordinance
• Continued compliance with Surplus Land Act
• Implementation of Affordable Housing policy
• Surplus Land Act (Angel’s stadium)
. A summary of committee member comments and questions is below:
• I have an issue with Housing Strategy 5A – Low Barrier Navigation Centers are not
housing, why is this mentioned? Is it mandated by the state?
• Do we have anyone on the committee or does the city have a connection to the
churches? A lot of the churches in my committee have large parking lots.
3
• The programs look good, but in the last cycle the city ended up with a disparity between
low income and market rate housing. I want to learn more about the City’s process, how
often do you revisit the Housing Element, is there check and balances internally, how
often do you revisit the Element with the public?
• In terms of opportunities for the public to weigh in, is the best opportunity the City
Council meeting for the annual review? Is there an outreach program?
• What is the intent of the discussion topics? Can you provide a clear question about what
feedback you are looking for, for each topic?
4. General Public Comment
The Consultant team opened the floor for public comments. The following are summary themes of questions received:
• Are the total units shown in the chart for lower income, are those total units that would
be built through 2029 for those incomes?
• Is there any way to differentiate between rentals and homeownership?
• Is there any covid money to support these efforts from the government?
• Inclusionary policies should be a requirement
• There should be a requirement for ownership vs. renter, in order to create a variety of
housing options.
• On the policy discussion items, I think workforce and low/moderate income housing
should be required. Inclusionary in-lieu fees should be substantial in order to fund other
affordable housing projects.
• Focus on enhancing job opportunity and protecting Anaheim residents.
• Use local work force and create policies to focus on increasing local workers and create
jobs, create a local hire component.
• I support a future inclusionary housing ordinance, the cities that have inclusionary
ordinances seem to be doing better.
• Focus on lower income housing for its community benefits and economic benefits and
because it is the right thing to do.
• ADUs and maintaining affordability is essential.
• I think the pro-housing designation is great and very important.
5. Open Committee Member Q&A
The Consultant team and City staff opened the floor to comments and questions from
Committee members; comments were received verbally and through the Q&A feature in the
zoom webinar. Below is a summary of all committee comments:
• Inclusionary requirement is a key part in getting the low and very low-income housing.
• It seems clear that the Anaheim stadium sale with go through, the deal may need to be
redone and I’m curious if the deal goes through, will it change any of the number shown
today?
• Tacking on additional cost while there already challenges to getting housing built makes
it harder for developers to create housing
• Inclusionary requirements should be used more on a discretionary basis where they can
make significant progress, but a one size fits all instrument feels like a bad policy.
4
• District 3 has done a lot to create low and very low-income housing and therefore
inclusionary housing should be applied in all areas of the city in order to disperse
affordable housing opportunity.
• Inclusionary housing policy is appropriate when looking at housing policies that creates
incentives for market rate development, if you rezone sites but don’t have an
inclusionary policy to go with you will most likely get housing production that is at market
rate.
• It is reasonable to request in exchange for highest and best use that some of the
developed housing units are affordable to low and very low-income units.
• Important to find a more nuanced and discretionary way of approaching inclusionary
housing, we need more housing, and we need to do it in a way that meets the different
needs of people in the community.
• Is there any effort being made to include permanent supportive housing?
• What are the future outreach plans and possibilities? There is concern that responses to
the survey don’t adequately reflect the concerns of low income and Spanish speaking
community.
6. Next steps
The Consultant team provided an overview of next steps for the update process, information on
future public engagement opportunities. The Consultant team also provided the time and date of
the next HEUC meeting. The following questions were asked during this time:
• When does the first draft need to go to HCD?
• The Kennedy commission just did a great workshop and, if that was taped, can the City
make it available?
• When are the workshops that the public can attend? What time are the meetings and
where is the information going to be posted?
• Can you send the information with the dates and times out to the committee members?
• Will there be a presentation at city council for the findings and recommendations of the
committee?
7. Adjourn
The Consultant team called the meeting to a close at 7:40 p.m.
Appendix C: Summary of Outreach C-12
C.8 Technical Focus Groups
This section contains the meeting summary of the four technical focus group meetings held.
Key findings from discussions and responses are summarized below:
Major Employers in the City – July 8, 2021
- Housing opportunities for workers, including entry level to executive.
- Many employees travel from far due to housing challenges.
- Integrating housing close to work is ideal.
- Need to preserve existing employer properties to preserve job growth/expansion, but integrated
development may be appropriate in some circumstances.
- Strong collaboration needed with housing developers and employers to understand needs.
- Match local housing options to local employee ability to afford them.
- Resort area workforce should have opportunities for local housing, access to transportation and
services.
Housing Advocates and Community Organizations – July 19, 2021
- Great opportunities for higher density and mixed-use developments as long as they’re in the right
areas.
- Opportunities to redevelop underutilized properties.
- Opportunities to redevelop industrial areas.
- It’s possible to preserve the single-family character or many Anaheim neighborhoods while still
developing higher density housing.
- Need for longer affordability covenants.
- Need for senior housing with services close by.
Housing and Real Estate Organizations – July 19, 2021
- City should identify which sites have infrastructure (sewer) deficiencies to make it easier for
developers in site selection process.
- City should prioritize HEU site selection in areas that can take advantage of TCAC and other state
and federal programs.
- City staff support is vital to getting a project through the process and staff will usually find the
resources to help projects they support.
- City should help disseminate information to combat stereotypes of affordable housing since
community opposition and NIMBYism is a constraint to housing development.
- Dissemination of information at the decision-making process.
- Have EIS, EIS sites already identified to make it easier for developers by reducing cost burden.
- City staff should be upfront about sites that may not work in order to save time and money.
Technical Focus Group Sessions were important in gathering information and ideas for actionable steps.
Input from discussions helped inform City Staff and the consultant team on possible Housing Plan Policies
and what priorities Technical Groups have.
VIA E-MAIL
September 1, 2021
Susan Kim, Principal Planner
City of Anaheim, Planning and Building Dept.
200 South Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Em: housingelement@anaheim.net
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
To Whom It May Concern,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Commenter” or
“Southwest Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of
Anaheima’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) draft 2021-2029 update to the City’s General
Plan Housing Element (“Draft HEU” or “Project”).
The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union
carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and
addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.
Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City
and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s
environmental impacts.
Commenters expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to
hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this
Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens
for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante
Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
Commenters expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to
hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this
Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens
for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante
Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Anaheim – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
9/1/2021
Page 2 of 5
Commenters incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR
submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City
of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected
to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by
other parties).
Moreover, Commenters request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all
notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the
California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and
21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to
any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s
governing body.
The City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce to benefit the
community’s economic development and environment. The City should require the
use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship
training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of
on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from
such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered
apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California.
Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements
can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive
economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain
percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the
length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized
economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers
reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As
environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length
from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of
construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the
reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the
project site.
City of Anaheim – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
9/1/2021
Page 3 of 5
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades
that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce
Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and
investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce
can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words,
well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and
moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Local skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies have significant
environmental benefits since they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing
the amount of and length of job commutes and their associated greenhouse gas
emissions. Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District
found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled
and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant
reductions.2
Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of
Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help
achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas
consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A
Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/
wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf.
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental
Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule –
Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule
316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve
Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10.
3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at
https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf.
City of Anaheim – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
9/1/2021
Page 4 of 5
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy
into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its
Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional
construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential
developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint
labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires
all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved,
joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As
the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely
to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced
communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would
include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle
hours traveled.6
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to
reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael
Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT
reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those
held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained
workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As
Cervero and Duncan note:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and
housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The
city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents,
4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at
https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown%
20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C).
6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6,
available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs-
housing.pdf
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-
Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association
72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT-
825.pdf.
City of Anaheim – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
9/1/2021
Page 5 of 5
especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational
training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is
voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than
3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When
needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about
negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of
approval for development permits.
The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air
quality and transportation impacts.
I. CONCLUSION
Commenters request that the City consider the aforementioned issues raised. Please
contact my Office if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
__________________________
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Attached:
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and
Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C).
EXHIBIT A
1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
March 8, 2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling
Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report
explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with
respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for
local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the
potential GHG impacts.
Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model
designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental
professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both
construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related
emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile
equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition,
truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating
activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated
with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3
1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
2
Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”)
associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod
calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT,
including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip
length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n
Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following
equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:
Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6
Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT
and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running
emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall
trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.
Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements
As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to
calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the
Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip
length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker
trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as
land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project
type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-
specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by
substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the
4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15.
5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23.
6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15.
7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9.
3
number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the
building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25
percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the
default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The
operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are:
“[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values
were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also
assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12
Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when
modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air
basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Minimum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15.
11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14.
12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21.
13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86.
4
As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8-
miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7-
miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban
worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker
trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent
upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location.
Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact
To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions,
we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in
the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail
space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified
as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip
length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s
construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10
miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be
implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17%
(see table below and Attachment C).
Local Hire Provision Net Change
Without Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77
With Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80
% Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project
could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire
requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a
reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on
the location and urbanization level of the project site.
This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG
emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related
GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on
the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and
location.
14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85.
5
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we
retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional
services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of
service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and
protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which
were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain
informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of
information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
EXHIBIT B
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for
evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills,
boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial
and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to
evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate,
asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among
other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is
an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance
impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld
directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about
pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on
more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil
Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property
Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users
Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids
Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters
thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile
organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American
Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.;
Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse,
R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis,
Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United
States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted
from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United
States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the
United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture
conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in
populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air
Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and
Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing
Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A
Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment
Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted
from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture
conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala,
Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on
Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia
Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting &
Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton
Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA
Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater
Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from
Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related
Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and
Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability
and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental
Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh
International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical
Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus
Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California
CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA
Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and
Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water
Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture
conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a
Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from
Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water
Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted
from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery
Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil
Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from
Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three
Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim
California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science
100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on
the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New
Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage
tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1,
2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San
Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation
Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,
Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of
Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on
VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of
polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the
Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts
in West Indies. 1993
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey
Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido”
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa
Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants
Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles
Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC
Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division
Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish
Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico
Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward
DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma
Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City
Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants
Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
EXHIBIT C
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine
years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science
Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from
perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of
the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement
actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports
since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water
resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic
hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the
local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and
implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins
and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.
• Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former
Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
• Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
• Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
2
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
3
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports,
conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
4
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
5
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
8
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐
2011.
9
Table B-1: Summary of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation and Adequate Sites Analysis
Extremely Low
Very Low/Low Income
Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income Total
RHNA (2021-2029) 3,767 2,397 2,945 8,344 17,453
Pipeline Projects (Table B-2) 170 884 525 13,093 14,672
Remaining Unmet RHNA 3,597 1,513 2,420 -- 2,781
Projected Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Construction
Lower Income Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income Total
Projected ADU Construction 514 227 15 756
Remaining Unmet RHNA 4,596 2,193 -- 2,025
Projected Dwelling Units on Candidate Sites (Table B-8)
Unit Capacity: Citywide No Proposed Change in General Plan Land Use Designation No Proposed Change in Zoning
556 7,606 0 8,162
Unit Capacity: Center City Corridors (C3) Specific Plan No Proposed Change in General Plan Land Use Designation Proposed Change in Zoning to C3 Specific Plan
0 1,844 0 1,844
Unit Capacity: Center City Corridors Specific Plan Proposed Change in General Plan Land Use Designation Proposed Change in Zoning to C3 Specific Plan
169 1,721 0 1,890
Unit Capacity: Citywide No Proposed Change in General Plan Land Use Designation Proposed Change in Zoning to add Residential Opportunity or Mixed Use Overlay Zone
93 614 200 907
Unit Capacity: Citywide Proposed Change in General Plan Land Use Designation Proposed Change in Zoning to add to Residential Opportunity or Mixed Use Overlay Zone
9,260 480 0 9,740
Unit Capacity: City Wide Housing Authority and Successor Agency Sites 555 7 0 562
Total on Candidate Sites 10,633 12,272 200 23,105
Total Summary
RHNA (2021-2029) 6,164 2,945 8,344 17,453
Total Units: Pipeline Projects, ADU, and Candidate Sites 12,201 13,024 13,308 38,533
Total Unit Capacity Over RHNA 98% 342% 59% 121%
Percentage of Unit Surplus 6,037 10,079 4,964 21,080
ATTACHMENT 3
1 2
P-12
P-15
P-17
P-19
P-22
P-23
P-27
P-37
P-55
P-60
P-72
P-10
P-11
P-13
P-33
P-42
P-24
BALL
CERRITOS
ORANGEDALE MAGNOLIACRESCENT
BROOKHURSTBEACHWESTERNBROADWAY
KNOTTGILBERTLINCOLN
·|}þ91
%&'(5
Candidate Site Category
Will require a General Plan Amendment to allow Residential Land
Currently allows Residential Land Use
Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Projects
0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date Created: 9-23-21
±
4
1 2
3
P-31
P-54
P-15
P-17
P-22
P-23
P-27
P-37
P-55
P-60
P-72
P-10
P-11
P-13
P-33
P-42 P-28
P-3
P-30
P-45
P-47
P-48
P-5
P-58
P-6
P-61
P-67
P-69
P-7
P-8
P-24
BALL
CERRITOS
ORANGE
KATELLADALEMAGNOLIACRESCENTBROOKHURSTBEACH HARBORWESTERNBROADWAY
EUCLIDWALNUTGILBERTLINCOLN
DISNEYLAND·|}þ91
%&'(5
Candidate Site Category
Will require a General Plan Amendment to allow Residential Land
Currently allows Residential Land Use
Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Projects
0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date Created: 9-23-21
±
2
3
P-25
P-10
P-11
P-13
P-33
P-42 P-28
P-29
P-3
P-30
P-34
P-45
P-47
P-48
P-5
P-58
P-6
P-61
P-67
P-69
P-7
P-8
P-14
P-71
P-24
BALL
LA PALMA
EASTANAHEI
MBROOKHURSTSTATE COLLEGEACACIAHARBORLEWISSUNKISTPLACENTIABROADWAY RAYMONDLINCOLN
WAGNER
SOUTH
WALNUTLINCOLN
·|}þ91
%&'(5
Candidate Site Category
Will require a General Plan Amendment to allow Residential Land
Currently allows Residential Land Use
Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Projects
0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date Created: 9-23-21
±
4
2
3 5
P-73
P-25
P-31 P-36
P-54
P-65
P-9
P-42 P-28
P-29
P-3 P-34
P-45
P-47
P-48 P-58
P-6
P-61
P-67
P-7
P-14
P-21
P-32
P-50
P-51
P-52
P-53
P-56
P-63
P-71
P-24
P-39
P-66
P-68
BALL
ORANGEWOOD EASTKATELLA ANAHEI
MSTATE COLLEGEHASTERNINTHLEWISSUNKISTWESTBROADWAY
CHAPMAN
LINCOLN
EUCLIDWAGNER
SOUTH
M
ANCHESTERWALNUTLINCOLN
GENE AUTRY
CERRITOS
DOUGLASSDISNEYLAND·|}þ57
Candidate Site Category
Will require a General Plan Amendment to allow Residential Land
Currently allows Residential Land Use
Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Projects
0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date Created: 9-23-21
±
4
3 5
P-73
P-25
P-31 P-36
P-54
P-65
P-9
P-28
P-29
P-3
P-30
P-34
P-45
P-47
P-48
P-5
P-58
P-6
P-61
P-67
P-69
P-7
P-8
P-14
P-21
P-32
P-50
P-51
P-52
P-53
P-56
P-63
P-71
P-41
P-59
P-39
P-66
P-68
ORANGEWOOD
LA PALMA
E
AS
TKATELLA LAKEVIEWANAHEI
MBL
UE
GUMSTATE COLLEGEJEFFERSONHASTERACACIAHARBORKRAE
ME
RTUSTIN
NINTHLEWISSUNKISTPLACENTIAWESTRAYMONDNO HLRANCHCHAPMAN
LINCOLN
EUCLIDRIO VISTARICHFIELDM IR A LO M A
WAGNER
SOUTH RIV ERD ALEL A P A LM A
M
ANCHESTERWALNUT O R A N G E T H O R P E
GENE AUTRY
CROWTHER
CERRITOS
G
L
A
S
S
E
L
LMI
L
L
E
RDOUGLASSDISNEYLAND LA PALMA
LINCOLN
·|}þ55
·|}þ
·|}þ57
Candidate Site Category
Will require a General Plan Amendment to allow Residential Land
Currently allows Residential Land Use
Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Projects
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Date Created: 9-23-21
±
6
P-20
P-35
P-38
P-41
P-44
P-57
P-59
P-70L
AKEVIEWIMPERIALJEFFERSONK
RAE
ME
RTUSTIN
NOHLRANCHKELLOGGYORBALINDA
RICHFIELDRIV ERD A LELA PALMA
FAIR
M
O
NT
C A N Y O N RIM
ORANGETHORPE
O A K CANYON
SERRANOWEIRCANYON
CROWTHER
GL
A
S
S
E
L
LMI
L
L
ERS A N T A A N A CANYON LA PALMA
LINCOLN
·|}þ91
·|}þ55
·|}þ241
Candidate Site Category
Will require a General Plan Amendment to allow Residential Land
Currently allows Residential Land Use
Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Projects
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Date Created: 9-23-21
±
From:Thomas Fielder
To:Housing Element
Subject:[EXTERNAL] comments on Anaheim Housing Element draft
Date:Friday, September 24, 2021 4:58:41 PM
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Anaheim didn't build nearly enough low-income and very low-income housing in the last RHNA cycle, and there is
little in this report to assure the city's residents that the city will do a better job during the new 8-year cycle. As a
member of the HEUC, I heard far too much acquiescence to "market forces" among the committee's discussions.
The market isn't going to build housing that's affordable to all city residents. The city has to do more than just
"suggest" or "encourage" such developments.
Keep in mind that Anaheim’s main economic engine is tourism, which produces a lot of low-paying jobs. If we can
make housing affordable and available for the people performing those jobs, we not only create a happier workforce
with short commutes that can be done on public transportation (thereby lowering everyone’s carbon footprint), but
we also make it easier for Disney and the other big tourist attractions to find and hire those workers.
While we’re at it, we should stop allowing dwelling units to be removed from the housing market by greedy
landlords who want to make them short-term rentals.
We all know that this report is merely aspirational and does not guarantee that a single dwelling unit will get built.
Fortunately, the state now has more tools at its disposal to ensure Anaheim's housing needs are actually met.
Everyone in Anaheim should be watching what the city leaders are doing about housing throughout this new RHNA
cycle and vote accordingly.
Thomas Fielder
NEW CORRESPONDENCE
From:Pat D
To:Jose Moreno; Jose Diaz; Harry Sidhu (Mayor)
Cc:Susan Kim
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Housing Element input
Date:Friday, September 24, 2021 5:06:51 PM
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links oropen attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Council members
I am writing to offer my input to the Housing Element update draft. I can’t believe I am thislate, especially after being in so many sessions. As I work my way through the document, I do
find it instructive but length and content make it difficult, even with all the time spentlearning/listening, to give detailed feedback, especially as a person not trained in urban
planning or architecture. However, I am very familiar with the struggles of the unhoused inour community for the last many years and your performance has been inadequate and many
lives have been lost. Anaheim is also not known for its commitment to affordable housing forour many community members who are housing insecure including educators and public
employees and most of our resort and service workers who keep this city going.
This report and the process as discussed don’t convince me Anaheim’s majority leadership
will approach meeting our RHNA goals much better then 5th cycle outcomes, even with thelegislation requiring better performance . The work of the Affordable Housing Working
Group, coming forward on Tuesday, is long overdue even with staff and some councilmembers recommending such policy and practice for years to resource affordable builds. The
dollar amounts assessed will be telling as to the seriousness of this plan to make anysignificant quantities of affordable builds possible. Had we done this many years ago there
would be money in that Housing Trust you want.
“The Working Group directed staff to develop Housing Production strategies (below) for
inclusion in the Draft Housing Element to create an Affordable Housing Development Feeapplicable to residential development projects that benefit from a General Plan amendment
and zone change that result in new or greater residential development opportunities on theproperty. The fee would be utilized to help fund an Affordable Housing Production Program
to facilitate the development of affordable housing.”
Past performance in meeting RHNA numbers has been so minimal in affordable categories it
is hard to believe or trust current leadership to move this forward. Proof will be in the watchfuleye of many who have been directly impacted by the neglect of this reality of our city.
Site identification looks sooo good but many have been listed before and not much movedforward other then above moderate builds which you include when you say “Anaheim met our
RHNA goals". Surplus and city owned land like Angel Stadium should have been dedicatedto affordable builds but we all know how that went down. The affordable units designated
there will not likely be built in my lifetime nor meet goals in this 6th RHNA cycle.
When this process started, I personally found survey outreach/response woefully inadequate as
evidenced by number of responses. Content and usability questionable. After attending the
HEUC meeting where feedback was given to content, the notes from that discussion missedsome key points from underrepresented communities. There here was very limited
notification to the wider community. And while you brag on all the public events – Yay tosome virtual even when City Council can seem to figure that out - bragging on community
participation is way off as way too few were in virtual or public rooms for city this size.
I have great concern over how the current council sees the AFFH aspect of planning. This is a
city wide, all district issue and segregating/ isolating builds in overly impacted areas will notmeet the spirit nor intent of those measures.
I know this is the first round and I am hopeful staff will continue to prepare council membersso they can make better decisions and get our city in a better position to take care of our
community members.
By the way, as resources for motel conversions are plentiful, please increase your asks and
quit celebrating projects that have taken way too long.
Finally, as a city recognized as at financial risk, fiscal responsibility and accountability are
even more important now! APRPA and CARES monies are not to clean up your bad priordecisions but provide for the community needs targeted.
Thank you
Here's to better outcomes
Pat Davis
Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and typos.
From:Linda Lehnkering
To:Housing Element
Subject:[EXTERNAL] public comment on draft housing element
Date:Friday, September 24, 2021 4:49:48 PM
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links oropen attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Hi,
The City needs to adopt an inclusionary zoning ordinance as part of its strategy to build moreaffordable housing, particularly the extremely low, very low, and low income units, to meet itsRHNA goals.
Housing Production Strategy 10 should be expanded to include all Anaheim civic employeesand public school teachers.
In Appendix B Adequate Sites Analysis, a one page table comparing districts in Anaheim andhow many units (of each housing affordability level) the City anticipates could be built wouldbe helpful.
Thank you,
Linda LehnkeringAnaheim resident-- Linda Lehnkering
"The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it wouldtrickle down to the needy. (President) Hoover didn't know that money
trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top
will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through
the poor fellow's hands." - Will Rogers
NEW CORRESPONDENCE
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
September 24, 2021
Bianca Alcock
Susan Kim
Planning Services
City of Anaheim
housingelement@anaheim.net
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
Dear City Staff,
Public Law Center (“PLC”) is a 501(c)(3) legal services organization that provides free
civil legal services to low-income individuals and families across Orange County. Our services
are provided across a range of substantive areas of law, including consumer, family,
immigration, housing, and health law. Additionally, PLC provides legal assistance to community
organizations. Further, the mission of our Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit includes
preserving and expanding affordable housing. Thus, I write on behalf of individuals in need of
affordable housing in Orange County to comment on the City of Anaheim (“the City”) Draft 6th
Cycle Housing Element.
Government Code Section 65583 requires that a housing element consist of an
identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals,
policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation,
improvement, and development of housing.1 Additionally, the housing element shall identify
adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and
emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all
economic segments of the community.2 Here, the City’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element fails
to meet all of the requirements of State Housing Element law and should be further updated to
address the issues identified below.
Emergency Shelters
The housing element shall include the identification of a zone or zones where emergency
shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit.3
The identified zone or zones shall include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for
emergency shelter.4 Additionally, each local government shall identify a zone or zones that can
1 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.
2 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.
3 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A).
4 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A).
NEW CORRESPONDENCE
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 2
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter.5 The local government may identify
additional zones where emergency shelters are permitted with a conditional use permit. 6
A local government with an existing ordinance or ordinances that comply with these
requirements shall not be required to take additional action to identify zones for emergency
shelters.7 The housing element must only describe how existing ordinances, policies, and
standards are consistent with these requirements.8
The City states that emergency shelters are permitted within its industrial zone.9 Further,
Anaheim has a permanent Salvation Army Shelter with a capacity of 325 beds and a La Mesa
Shelter with 101 beds10, for a total of 424 beds. These facts, however, are provided in the
“Review of Past Performance” section of the Draft Housing Element. For clarity, the City should
include this information in the other discussions of emergency shelters. The City should also
explain why it designated its industrial zone to permit emergency shelters, and if this zone has
the capacity to accommodate the jurisdiction’s needs.11
Multijurisdictional Agreements
A local government may satisfy all or part of its requirement to identify a zone or zones
suitable for the development of emergency shelters by adopting and implementing a
multijurisdictional agreement, with a maximum of two other adjacent communities, that requires
the participating jurisdictions to develop at least one year-round emergency shelter within two
years of the beginning of the planning period.12 The agreement shall allocate a portion of the new
shelter capacity to each jurisdiction as credit toward its emergency shelter need, and each
jurisdiction shall describe how the capacity was allocated as part of its housing element.13 Each
member jurisdiction of a multijurisdictional agreement shall describe in its housing element all
of the following:
● How the joint facility will meet the jurisdiction’s emergency shelter need.14
● The jurisdiction’s contribution to the facility for both the development and ongoing
operation and management of the facility.15
● The amount and source of the funding that the jurisdiction contributes to the facility.16
5 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A).
6 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A).
7 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(D).
8 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(D).
9 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, A-11 (August 2021).
10 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, A-11 to 12 (August 2021).
11 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A).
12 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(d)(1).
13 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(d)(2).
14 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(d)(3)(A).
15 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(d)(3)(B).
16 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(d)(3)(C).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 3
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
The aggregate capacity claimed by the participating jurisdictions in their housing
elements shall not exceed the actual capacity of the shelter.17
The City references on shelter within the City that is a County shelter with 200 beds,18
but does not reference any multijurisdictional agreement. If any of these beds are to be included
in the City’s analysis, it needs to include the required information related to multijurisdictional
agreements.
Assessing Emergency Shelter Need
The need for emergency shelter shall be assessed based on the capacity necessary to
accommodate the most recent homeless point-in-time count conducted before the start of the
planning period, the need for emergency shelter based on number of beds available on a year-
round and seasonal basis, the number of shelter beds that go unused on an average monthly basis
within a one-year period, and the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to
permanent housing solutions.19 The need for emergency shelter may be reduced by the number
of supportive housing units that are identified in an adopted 10-year plan to end chronic
homelessness and that are either vacant or for which funding has been identified to allow
construction during the planning period.20
The City provides data from a 2019 Point in Time Count Report that shows 1,202
persons experiencing homelessness within the jurisdiction, with 694 being unsheltered and 508
being sheltered.21 The City’s capacity of 424 beds is insufficient to accommodate the need for
694 unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness. The City has not stated the number of
shelter beds that go unused on an average monthly basis within a one-year period and the
percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to permanent housing solutions; the City
must do this in its next draft. The City must analyzer whether its existing shelters and existing
zoning for additional shelters has sufficient capacity to accommodate its need for emergency
shelters.
Inability to Accommodate the Need for Emergency Shelter
If the local government cannot identify a zone or zones with sufficient capacity to
accommodate the need for emergency shelter, the local government shall include a program to
amend its zoning ordinance to meet the requirements of Section 65583(a)(4)(A) within one year
of the adoption of the housing element.22
If the City cannot demonstrate that its existing shelters and existing zoning for shelters
has sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelters, then it needs to include
a program to amend its zoning ordinance and identify other zoning where shelters can be
developed without discretionary review.
17 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(d)(4).
18 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, A-10 (August 2021).
19 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7).
20 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7).
21 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-31 (August 2021).
22 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 4
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
Emergency Shelter Standards
The local government shall also demonstrate that existing or proposed permit processing,
development, and management standards are objective and encourage and facilitate the
development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. 23 Emergency shelters may only be subject
to those development and management standards that apply to residential or commercial
development within the same zone except that a local government may apply written, objective
standards that include all of the following:
● The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility.
● 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.
● The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas.
● The provision of onsite management.
● The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not
required to be more than 300 feet apart.
● The length of stay.
● Lighting.
● Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.24
These permit processing, development, and management standards shall not be deemed to be
discretionary acts within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.25
The City fails to discuss its Emergency Shelter Standards and must update its Draft to
include this information regarding Emergency Shelter Standards.
Special Housing Needs
The housing element must analyze special housing needs, such as those of the elderly;
persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability;26 large families; farmworkers;
families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency
shelter.27 An analysis of special housing needs by a city or county may include an analysis of the
need for frequent user coordinated care housing services.28
23 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A).
24 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(i)-(viii).
25 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(B).
26 “‘Developmental disability’ means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age,
continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. As
defined by the Director of Developmental Services, in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction,
this term shall include intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term shall also include
disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment similar to that
required for individuals with an intellectual disability, but shall not include other handicapping conditions that are
solely physical in nature.” Cal. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 4512. 27 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7).
28 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 5
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
Seniors
The City acknowledges that “seniors may have limited income tied to retirement
payments and high healthcare costs,” as well as being “more susceptible to mobility issues and
self-care limitations.”29 The City continues by stating that senior housing needs are generally for
“affordable housing, supportive housing with medical and/or non-medical services, group
homes, and other housing that includes a planned service component.”30
In response to these recognized challenges the City describes Housing Production
Strategy 1D: Affordable Senior Housing Programs, which states it will “encourage the
development of quality senior housing that, when feasible, includes transportation and other
appropriate supportive services specific to this population.”31 However, this program focuses
more on affordable housing for seniors in general and does not sufficiently address the need for
“supportive housing with medical and/or non-medical services, group homes, and other housing
that includes a planned service component.”32 The program simply states that the City will
encourage the development of supportive services “when feasible” and that programs will be
adjusted accordingly.33 This is much too vague and noncommittal to be considered a sufficient
answer to the supportive need of seniors. The City must provide more details, or even another
program, to address these needs.34
Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities
The City provides an apt profile of persons with physical and developmental disabilities
within the jurisdiction. The City also acknowledges several challenges that this group faces, such
as limited earning capacity, restricted mobility, having difficulties in self-care, higher healthcare
costs due to the disability, or needing to live in a supportive or assisted-living setting.35 The City
further explains that “ambulatory difficulty, having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs,
is the most widespread disability in Anaheim,” and “those with ambulatory difficulties may
require smaller single-story spaces due to a lack of ability to walk long distances.”36 Despite the
acknowledgement of these challenges, the City’s solutions and programs mainly revolve around
the affordability of housing rather than the implementation of supportive services. The City
provides Housing Production Strategy 1F: Encourage the Development of Housing for Special
Needs Households as a program that could potentially address the needs of persons with physical
and developmental disabilities.37 However, this program is too general in that it is aimed at all
special needs, and thus cannot guarantee that it can adequately meet the needs of persons with
physical and developmental disabilities. The City should consider a program that addresses the
specific needs of persons with physical and developmental disabilities in its next draft.38
29 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-21 to 22 (August 2021).
30 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-22 (August 2021).
31 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-8 (August 2021).
32 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-22 (August 2021).
33 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-8 (August 2021).
34 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7).
35 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-23 (August 2021).
36 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-23 (August 2021).
37 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-22 (August 2021).
38 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 6
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
Large Households
The City begins by explaining that large households often require a larger income to
afford, and that large families may settle for smaller, more affordable housing.39 This causes
these housing units to be susceptible to overcrowding.40 Further, large households make up 21
percent of Anaheim’s households.41 The City concludes by stating that “The provision of
affordable housing may alleviate potential overcrowding burdens experienced by these
households.”42 However, the City does not elaborate on the development of large, affordable
housing. While there are several programs concerning gathering funds for affordable housing,
these are all general and cannot guarantee the encouragement of developing affordable housing
with sufficient bedrooms for large families. The City should provide more detail on
overcrowding in Anaheim. The City should also consider a program that addresses the needs of
large families, especially since large households are a significant portion of households within
Anaheim.43
Single-Parent and Female-Headed Households
The City states that single-parent households have a “greater need for daycare services,
health care services, and other services,” and that female-headed households may “have a lower
average income due to income inequalities present in workplaces.” Further, “the City’s single-
parents female households living in poverty represent a higher proportion compared to the
proportion within Orange County as a whole,” at 10.3 percent.44 Despite these
acknowledgements, the City does not elaborate on the specific unmet needs of these groups, nor
does the City provide a sufficient program targeted towards these groups. The City must provide
an assessment of the unmet needs of these groups as well as programs to address these needs.45
Assisted Housing Developments
The housing element must include an analysis of existing assisted housing developments
that are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to
termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use.46
“Assisted housing developments” means multifamily rental housing that receives governmental
assistance under federal programs listed in Section 65863.10(a), state and local multifamily
revenue bond programs, local redevelopment programs, the federal Community Development
Block Grant Program, or local in-lieu fees; and multifamily rental units that were developed
pursuant to a local inclusionary housing program or used to qualify for a density bonus pursuant
to Section 65916.47
39 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-25 (August 2021).
40 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-25 (August 2021).
41 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-25 (August 2021).
42 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-25 (August 2021).
43Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7).
44 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-25 (August 2021). 45Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7).
46 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(9).
47 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(9).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 7
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
The jurisdiction’s analysis shall include a listing of each development by project name
and address, the type of governmental assistance received, the earliest possible date of change
from low-income use, and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be lost
from the locality’s low-income housing stock in each year during the 10-year period.48 For
purposes of state and federally funded projects, the analysis need only contain information
available on a statewide basis.49 Further, the jurisdiction must identify public and private
nonprofit corporations known to the local government that have legal and managerial capacity to
acquire and manage these housing developments.50
The jurisdiction must also identify and consider the use of all federal, state, and local
financing and subsidy programs that can be used to preserve, for lower income households, the
assisted housing developments, identified in this paragraph, including, but not limited to, federal
Community Development Block Grant Program funds, tax increment funds received by a
redevelopment agency of the community, and administrative fees received by a housing
authority operating within the community.51 In considering the use of these financing and
subsidy programs, the analysis shall identify the amounts of funds under each available program
that have not been legally obligated for other purposes and that could be available for use in
preserving assisted housing developments.52
Finally, the jurisdiction’s analysis shall include a cost analysis to estimate the total cost of
producing new rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace the units that
could change from low-income use, and an estimated cost of preserving the assisted housing
developments.53 This cost analysis for replacement housing may be done aggregately for each
five year period and does not have to contain a project-by-project cost estimate.54
While the City identifies some of these developments that are at-risk of converting to
market rate,55 it does not mention others that are classified by the National Housing Preservation
Database as at-risk. Examples include:
● Carbon Creek Shores, 3060 E Frontera St, 40 assisted units, at risk of expiration in 2027,
and
● Integrity House, 921 S Beach Blvd, 41 assisted units, at risk of expiration in 2026.56
The City should analyze whether these developments and any others identified by the National
Housing Preservation Database are at risk of conversion to market-rate.
48 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(9)(A).
49 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(9)(A).
50 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(9)(C).
51 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(9)(D).
52 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(9)(D).
53 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(9)(B).
54 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(9)(B).
55 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-68 (August 2021).
56 National Housing Preservation Database, https://preservationdatabase.org/ (last visited September 13, 2021).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 8
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
While the City identifies general sources of funding to preserve at-risk developments,57 it
does not specify whether the jurisdiction actually does or will utilize these funds to assist with
preservation or whether there is a more urgent need for the funding in another City priority. The
City should also expand it analysis to determine the actual cost to preserve the units it has
identified as at-risk of conversion to market-rate.
Preserving Assisted Housing Developments
The housing element shall include a program to preserve for lower income households
the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to Section 65583(a)(9).58 The program for
preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary, all
available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified in Section
65583(a)(9), except where a community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding
sources are not available.59 The program may include strategies that involve local regulation and
technical assistance.60
The City fails to provide a sufficient analysis for funding sources that could preserve
assisted housing developments. Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2A: Monitoring
and Preservation of “At-Risk” Units simply states that the City will “regularly monitor the over
3,805 deed-restricted, affordable housing units that exist citywide. Of these units, the City has
identified 524 units as having the potential of converting to market-rate units during the planning
period because of expiring deed restrictions.”61 A “focused effort” will be placed on at-risk
developments, and in the future the City will “collaborate with nonprofit housing providers and
develop a preservation strategy.”62 This program is extremely noncommittal, as “focused effort”
does not guarantee any actual actions towards preserving at-risk developments. Further, the
timeframe for the program simply says “ongoing,” which is too vague and even more
noncommittal.63 Considering that there are more than 524 at-risk units in the jurisdiction,64 the
City must make this program more specific so that it not only targets at-risk developments, but
also gathers funding from named sources to preserve at-risk developments.
Reducing RHNA By Units Built
A city may reduce its share of the regional housing need by the number of units built
between the start of the projection period and the deadline for adoption of the housing element.65
If the city does so, the city shall include a description of the methodology for assigning those
housing units to an income category based on actual or projected sales price, rent levels, or other
mechanisms establishing affordability.66
57 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-70 (August 2021).
58 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(6).
59 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(6).
60 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(6).
61 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-19 (August 2021).
62 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-19 (August 2021).
63 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-19 (August 2021).
64 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-68 (August 2021).
65 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.1(d).
66 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.1(d).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 9
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
The City has identified a number of pipeline projects that will yield 13,098 units in the
planning period.67 Although some projects are under construction, the City has not specified
whether any of these units will be built between the start of the projection period and the
deadline for adoption of the housing element. The City must reduce this unit count to only
include units that will be built within this period. Further, the City has not described any
methodology for assigning any units to any income category. If any units will be built within the
requisite timeframe, the City must provide a methodology for assigning those units to the
projected income levels. While many of these units cannot be used to reduce the City’s RHNA,
they can certainly be counted on the City’s Annual Progress Reports as they are built.
No Net Loss Requirements
Government Code Section 65863 requires that jurisdictions maintain adequate sites to
accommodate its remaining unmet RHNA in each income category throughout the entire
planning period. If there is a shortfall of sites to accommodate its RHNA, the jurisdiction must
either amend its site inventory to include sites that were previously unidentified or rezone sites to
meet the need.68 Failure to do so would constitute a violation of the No Net Loss law and
Housing Element law.69
To ensure a jurisdiction can accommodate its entire RHNA throughout the planning
period and avoid these violations, HCD recommends that jurisdictions include a buffer in the
housing element inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required, especially for
lower incomes.70 Alternatively, jurisdictions may create a buffer by projecting capacity less than
what is allowed from the maximum density in anticipation of reductions in density, or rezoning
additional sites above what is needed to accommodate the RHNA.71
Due to the number of units anticipated from pipeline projects, the City’s buffer is quite
high at 123%.72 However, because many of these units cannot be used to reduce the City’s
RHNA, the City’s buffer will be dramatically diminished. After reassessing its site inventory
without the unqualified pipeline project units, the City should determine whether its buffer meets
HCD’s recommendations.
Constraints
Governmental Constraints
The housing element must contain an analysis of potential and actual governmental
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income
levels, including the types of housing identified in Section 65583(c)(1),73 and for persons with
67 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, B-7 to 10 (August 2021).
68 HCD, Memorandum regarding No Net Loss Law, 4 (Oct. 2, 2019).
69 HCD, Memorandum regarding No Net Loss Law, 4 (Oct. 2, 2019).
70 HCD, Memorandum regarding No Net Loss Law, 5 (Oct. 2, 2019).
71 HCD, Memorandum regarding No Net Loss Law, 5 (Oct. 2, 2019).
72 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, B-3 (August 2021).
73 “Housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes,
housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and
transitional housing.” Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(1).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 10
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
disabilities,74 including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site
improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit
procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of
residential development.75
In this portion of the element, the City includes information regarding: 1) Land Use
Controls, 2) Residential Zones, 3) Variety of Housing Types Allowed, 4) Residential Planned
Unit Development, 6) Specific Plans, 10) On/Off Site Improvements and 11) Local Permit
Processing Procedures76 but does not mention how these constraints prevent the maintenance,
improvement or development of affordable housing. The City must include an analysis of
potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or
development of housing for all income levels as required by California state law.77
The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that
hinder the locality from meeting its share of the RHNA and from meeting the need for housing
for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters.78
Nongovernmental Constraints
The housing element must also analyze potential and actual nongovernmental constraints
upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including
the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop
housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by Section 65583.2(c), and
the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an
application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a
locality’s share of the RHNA.79
The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints
that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income
levels and the construction of that housing.80
The City provides information on the “Availability of Financing”, but does not conclude
as to whether it is a constraint on the maintenance and development of affordable housing.81 The
74 “‘Developmental disability’ means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age,
continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. As
defined by the Director of Developmental Services, in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction,
this term shall include intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term shall also include
disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment similar to that
required for individuals with an intellectual disability, but shall not include other handicapping conditions that are
solely physical in nature.” Cal. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 4512; Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7). 75 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(5).
76 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-5 to 3-33 (August 2021).
77 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(5)
78 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(5).
79 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(6).
80 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(6).
81 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft,3-3 (August 2021).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 11
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
element mentions, “Overall, persons who identified as White had higher rates of loan
applications and application approvals.”82 Considering the disparity of loan application approvals
between non-White and non-Asian applicants in the same income bracket as their White and
Asian counterparts, the element should have identified the availability of financing as a
nongovernmental constraint to the maintenance and development of affordable housing and
provide a program to reduce this constraint.83
The City identifies “Cost of Housing” as a constraint to affordable housing access and
development. According to the element, “The City does not have control over the conditions and
status of the housing market; however, it uses and will continue to use local, state and federal
funding to provide programs to support affordable housing development and access for
community members.”84 The programs dedicated to lower the cost of housing are listed and
analyzed below.
Housing Policy 1A exhibits non-committal language to remove nongovernmental
constraints to affordable housing development.85 For example, Policy 1A explains, “The City
will assess and analyze affordable housing production policy options . . . with the goal of
generating local revenue for use in affordable housing production.”86 Policy 1A’s objective is
unclear as to how “analyzing” and “assessing” policy options to generate affordable housing will
materialize into the production or maintenance of affordable housing.87 Policy 1A should adopt a
quantified objective to clarify its goal. The policy’s goal should include specific action steps to
increase funding for affordable housing productions to be completed in a specific timeframe.
Policy 1D, 1E, 1F, 1I and 1M88 exhibit the same issues, and should be amended to clarify their
goals similarly to Policy 1A.
Housing Policy 1P’s objective is to review entitlement processes, development standards,
and development fees to ensure “reasonableness and effectiveness in support of future residential
development”,89 However the City does not define what “reasonable” means in terms of
sustaining future affordable housing development.90 Policy 1P should clarify what “reasonable”
entitlement processes, development standards, and fees are or explain how the City will
determine what “reasonableness” is. This way, the City will have a quantified measurement of a
reasonable standard and make the necessary adjustments to encourage the development of
housing.
82 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-3 (August 2021).
83 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-3 (August 2021).
84 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-5 (August 2021).
85 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-7 (August 2021).
86 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-7 (August 2021).
87 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-7 (August 2021).
88 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-8 to 14 (August 2021).
89 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-15 to 16 (August 2021).
90 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-15 to 16 (August 2021).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 12
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
Housing Policy 5E is dedicated to address potential constraints to fair housing in
Anaheim.91 Such a constraint may include barriers to entry into homeownership that prevent
“disadvantaged” groups from residing in Anaheim.92 As mentioned earlier, White loan applicants
received the highest rates of approval compared to non-White applicants.93 Since People of Color
received disproportionately lower rates of loan approvals, Policy 5E should acknowledge this
disparity and create a program to mitigate discriminatory lending practices.
Site Inventory
The housing element must include an inventory of land suitable and available for
residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated
potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a
designated income level.94 A jurisdiction may identify sites by a variety of methods, such as
redesignating property to a more intense land use category, increasing the density allowed within
one or more categories, and identifying sites for accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”).95
The site inventory must provide for a variety of types of housing for all income levels,
including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for
agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters,
and transitional housing.96
Determining Site Capacity
Based on the information provided in the site inventory, a city or county shall determine
whether each site in the inventory can accommodate the development of some portion of its
share of the regional housing need by income level during the planning period.97 To determine
the number of housing units that can be accommodated on each site when the jurisdiction does
not adopt a law or regulation requiring the development of a site at a minimum density, the
jurisdiction shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for that site will be
accommodated.98
The number of units that can be accommodated on each site shall be adjusted as
necessary based on the potential and actual governmental constraints upon maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing, including land use controls and site improvements; the
realistic development capacity for the site; typical densities of existing or approved residential
developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction; and the current or planned
availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.99
91 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-30 (August 2021).
92 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-30 (August 2021).
93 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-3 (August 2021).
94 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(3); Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(a).
95 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.1(a).
96 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(1).
97 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c).
98 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(1).
99 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(2).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 13
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
Here, the City assessed site capacity based on the following factors: site size, existing
zoning requirements, vacancy and total number of units entitled, the maximum density
achievable based on history of development densities from recent projects, potential constraints
such as environmental constraints, and other factors.100 However, this methodology does not
consider the impact of other land use controls and site improvements or typical densities at each
affordability level. Before submission to HCD, the City should analyze these additional factors
and revise its reasonable capacity assumptions based on its findings.
Lower Income Sites
If a jurisdiction designates sites smaller than half an acre or sites larger than ten acres to
accommodate its lower income housing needs, the sites must satisfy extra criteria.101 The
calculation of lower income units must also meet certain requirements.102
Site Size
If a site is smaller than half an acre or larger than ten acres, it cannot be deemed adequate
to accommodate lower income housing unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of an
equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent
number of lower income housing units as projected for the site.103 Alternatively, the locality may
provide other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income
housing.104
Sites 447, 449, 450, 451, and 453 are all smaller than half an acre and designated for
lower income housing.105 Although the City provides examples of previous development, the
description of these projects do not describe the affordability levels.106 The City must provide
examples of development on sites smaller than half an acre for the same number of lower-
income units or provide other evidence that these sites can accommodate lower-income housing.
Calculating the Number of Lower Income Units
To determine the number of lower-income units, the jurisdiction shall do either of the
following: (1) provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities accommodate this
need, including, but not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or
information based on development project experience within a zone or zones that provide
housing for lower income households;107 or (2) fall into a density deemed appropriate to
accommodate housing for lower income households.108
100 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-84 to 85 (August 2021).
101 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c).
102 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(3).
103 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(2).
104 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(2).
105 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, Appendix B (August 2021).
106 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, B-14 (August 2021).
107 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(A).
108 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 14
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
As a jurisdiction within the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metropolitan Statistical
area with a population that exceeds 25,000, the City of Anaheim is considered metropolitan.109
For a metropolitan jurisdiction, the appropriate residential density would be at least 30 units per
acre.110
Sites 406, 411, 434, 435, 436, and 437 are designated for low- and very-low-income
housing but list their maximum densities as 0.111 Because these sites do not meet the second
criteria, the City should have provided an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities will
accommodate the low- and very low-income need. Although the City has explained its
methodology for calculating site capacity in general, it does not consider market demand,
financial feasibility, or information based on development project experience within a zone or
zones that provide for lower-income households.112 The City has also not provided a separate
methodology for lower-income units that consider these factors. Therefore, the City has not met
the statutory requirements for these sites and must either do so or remove the sites from its
inventory.
Nonvacant Sites
If a jurisdiction designates a site that is nonvacant, it must describe the existing use of the
property.113 If a nonvacant site is owned by the city or county, the description shall also include
whether there are any plans to dispose of the property during the planning period and how the
city or county will comply with the Surplus Lands Act.114
The City has listed a number of sites with existing uses of public utilities and schools, or
are within the Public-Institutional Land Use. The City must identify any of these sites that are
owned by the City or County, describe their existing use, and describe how the government
entity will comply with the Surplus Lands Act.
Nonvacant Methodology
For nonvacant sites, the jurisdiction shall specify the additional development potential for
each site within the planning period and explain the methodology used to determine the
development potential.115 The methodology shall consider multiple factors, including: (1) the
extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential
development; (2) the jurisdiction’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher
density residential development; (3) the current market demand for the existing use; (4) an
analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or
109 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(d); U.S. Census Bureau,
https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/metroarea/us_wall/Mar2020/CBSA_WallMap_Mar2020.pdf (last visited Mar.
16, 2021); Employment Development Department of State of California,
https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/definitions/metropolitan-statistical-areas.html (last visited Mar. 16, 2021);
Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(f).
110 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B).
111 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, Appendix B, Table B-8 (August 2021).
112 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-84 to 85 (August 2021).
113 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(b)(3).
114 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(b)(3).
115 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(g)(1).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 15
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development; (5) development trends;
(6) market conditions; and (7) regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional
residential development on these sites.116
Further, an existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development,
absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the
planning period.117
Here, the City’s methodology included factors 2, 5, and 7, but does not address factors 1,
3, 4, or 6.118 The City does state that it “conducted a parcel specific analysis of existing uses for
each of the identified sites,” which includes “indicators of a likelihood that the existing use will
redevelopment within the next eight years” that should be seen in Table B-8: All Potential
Housing Sites.119 However, Table B-8 does not actually include this explanation and the City
does not otherwise explain how it calculated this likelihood. Additionally, the City does not
provide any other evidence that existing uses will be discontinued within the next eight years.
Before submitting this draft to HCD, the City must consider the missing factors, explain how
these factors affect development potential, and provide evidence that the existing uses will not
impede residential development, such as letters of owner interest in residential development.
Nonvacant Sites for 50% or More of Housing Need
If the jurisdiction is relying on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50% or more of its
housing need for lower income households, the methodology used to determine additional
development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use identified does not constitute an
impediment to additional residential development during the planning period.120
The City acknowledges that it “does not have sufficient vacant land available to
accommodate fifty percent of the low/very-low income RHNA allocation” and notes that it
“analyzed sites within existing zoning capacity and identified additional sites, which require a
General Plan Land Use Element and/or Zoning Map Amendment.”121 The City does not,
however, provide the requisite methodology that addresses existing uses impeding development.
Before submitting to HCD, the City must explain how existing uses will not impede the
development of affordable housing during the planning period.
Sites with Current or Past Residential Uses
For sites that currently have residential uses; have had a residential use within the past
five years that have been vacated or demolished; are or were subject to a recorded covenant,
ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to very-low- or low-income residents;
are subject to any other form of rent or price control through the public entity’s valid exercise of
its police power; or are currently occupied by very-low- or low-income residents shall be subject
116 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(g)(1).
117 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(g)(2).
118 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-84 to 85 (August 2021).
119 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, B-13 (August 2021).
120 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(g)(2).
121 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, B-13 (August 2021).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 16
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
to a policy requiring the replacement of all those units affordable to the same or lower-income
level as a condition of any development on the site.122
The City has included a number of Hotel/Motel, Apartment, and Single Family Residence
sites in its inventory. The City states that existing units on nonvacant sites “were analyzed to
determine the number of existing units currently on the parcel” and that “replacement of existing
units was included as a factor to prevent no net loss of existing housing stock,” but does not
describe a policy requiring this. The City must explain whether it has an existing policy or
include a program that meets these requirements.
Accessory Dwelling Units
A jurisdiction may count an ADU for purposes of identifying adequate sites for
housing.123 The number of ADUs identified is based on the number of ADUs developed in the
prior housing element planning period, whether or not the units are permitted by right; the need
for these units in the community; the resources or incentives available for their development; and
any other relevant factors determined by HCD.124 To estimate the number of ADUs that will be
developed in the planning period, a jurisdiction must generally use a three-part approach
addressing (1) development trends, (2) anticipated affordability, and (3) resources and
incentives.125
When assessing development trends, a jurisdiction must consider the number of ADUs
developed in the prior housing element planning period, whether or not the units are permitted by
right;126 the need for these units in the community;127 the availability of ADUs and JADUs that
will be part of the rental stock, rather than used as offices or guest houses;128 and more recent
trends.129
HCD Staff has stated that the following two approaches would be accepted without
further analysis or incentives: (1) average ADU applications from the beginning of the 5th Cycle
to 2017, multiplied by five; or (2) average ADU applications from 2018, multiplied by eight. If
jurisdictions anticipate a higher ADU production, HCD will require more analysis and incentives
to show the higher production can be met.
Here, the City anticipates that 756 ADUs will be constructed during the planning
period.130 To calculate this number, the City doubled the average number of ADUs permitted
between 2018 and 2020, multiplied by each year of the planning period “to reflect the ADU
122 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(g)(3).
123 Cal. Gov. Code § 65852.2(m); Cal. Gov. Code § 65583.1(a).
124 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.1(a).
125 HCD, ADU Handbook, 19 (December 2020).
126 Cal. Gov. Code § 65583.1(a); HCD, ADU Handbook, 19 (December 2020).
127 Cal. Gov. Code § 65583.1(a).
128 HCD, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), Requisite Analysis,
https://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/accessory-dwelling-units.shtml
(last visited March 21, 2021). 129 HCD, ADU Handbook, 19 (December 2020).
130 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, B-11 (August 2021).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 17
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
growth that the City can reasonably expect, in consideration of new state legislation and policy
considerations.”131 This approach is not one of the formulas permitted by HCD and does not
consider the need for these units in the community, the availability of units that will be part of
the rental stock, or other trends. Therefore, the City must reduce its anticipated ADU count to
336 units or explain how its ADU program will double production.
Program 15 is not sufficient to accomplish this production estimate.132 Program 15 only
requires the City to partner with OCCOG and other jurisdictions “in support of creating ‘pre-
approved’ ADU Plans,” “explore additional incentives and/or program components,” and
“conduct a mid-cycle review of ADU development within the 2021-2029 planning period to
evaluate if the City is achieving its production estimates.”133 This language does not actually
commit the City to taking any concrete steps to promote ADU production. The City should
revise this program to state that it will provide pre-approved ADU plans, clearly describe the
additional incentives it will provide, and explain what will happen if the City does not achieve its
production estimates at mid-cycle reviews.
The City should implement the following resources and incentives to justify its ADUs
estimate:
● Reduce or eliminate building permit/development fees;134
● Expedited procedures;135
● Incentives for affordability;136
● Financing – construction & preservation;137 and
● Amnesty programs (SB 13).
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
California law requires that public agencies administer all “programs and activities
relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair
housing, and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively
further fair housing.”138 To affirmatively further fair housing, a public agency must do the
following:
[Take] 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
131 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, B-11 (August 2021).
132 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-17 (August 2021).
133 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-17 (August 2021).
134 SCAG, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), SCAG Housing Element Digital Workshop, 6 (August 27, 2020).
135 HCD, ADU Handbook, 19 (December 2020).
136 SCAG, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), SCAG Housing Element Digital Workshop, 6 (August 27, 2020).
137 SCAG, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), SCAG Housing Element Digital Workshop, 6 (August 27, 2020).
138 Cal. Gov. Code Section 8899.50(b).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 18
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
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.139
Meaningful action means taking significant action that is designed and reasonably expected to
achieve a material positive change that affirmatively furthers fair housing.140
Housing elements must incorporate the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing in
the following aspects: (1) outreach, (2) assessment of fair housing, (3) site inventory, (4)
identification and prioritization of contributing factors, and (5) goals, policies, and actions. Each
section is addressed below.141
Outreach
Beyond preexisting outreach requirements, jurisdictions must include a summary of their
fair housing outreach capacity.142 Jurisdictions “must describe meaningful, frequent, and ongoing
public participation with key stakeholders.”143 Moreover, jurisdictions must summarize “issues
that contributed to lack of participation in the housing element process by all economic
segments, particularly people with protected characteristics, if that proves to be the case.”144
The City must further describe its outreach efforts or make additional outreach efforts
related to fair housing. While the City describes its multiple efforts to engage residents in the
housing element update process,145 none of the described efforts seem to relate to fair housing.
The topics discussed at the meetings referenced by the City seem to focus on general housing
element requirements and specifically housing development and site identification. None of the
stakeholders referenced generally seem to indicate stakeholders connected with fair housing
expertise and insights. While the City’s online survey had one question under the category “Fair
Housing and Housing for Special Needs Groups,” the question seems to be more related to
special housing needs in the community and not necessarily to issues of fair housing. They City’s
fair housing assessment does describe some outreach related to fair housing specifically, but that
outreach was conducted prior to 2019 and in conjunction with the Impediments Analysis for the
entire County and not specific outreach for the City.146 Additionally, the City has not established
139 Cal. Gov. Code Section 8899.50(a)(1).
140 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 66
(April 2021); Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, 80 Fed. Reg. at 42354. Although the Department of Housing
and Urban Development does not enforce this federal AFFH rule, California law has adopted the federal rule. This
means that the federal AFFH rule can inform how to interpret the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing in
California law.
141 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 21
(April 2021).
142 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(i).
143 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 21
(April 2021).
144 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 22
(April 2021). 145 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, Appendix C (August 2021).
146 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-41 (August 2021).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 19
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
that it engages in “frequent” and “ongoing” public participation with key fair housing
stakeholders. City does not identify key stakeholders that were invited to engage with the City
regarding fair housing issues and fails to summarize issues that contributed to lack of
participation. The City should describe, or encourage, additional key stakeholder participation,
especially as it relates to fair housing, and address lack of participation by any key stakeholders
or demographics.
Assessment of Fair Housing
A fair housing assessment needs to have a summary of fair housing enforcement and
capacity.147 In addition, the assessment must analyze these five areas: (1) fair housing
enforcement and outreach capacity; (2) integration and segregation patterns and trends related to
people with protected characteristics; (3) racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty
(R/ECAPs) or racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs); (4) disparities in access to
opportunity for people with protected characteristics, including persons with disabilities; and (5)
disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk.148
Furthermore, each of these analyses must include local and regional patterns and trends, local
data and knowledge, and other relevant factors.149 The analyses should each arrive at conclusions
and have a summary of fair housing issues.150
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity. The City references utilizing and
contracting with Fair Housing Council of Orange County for fair housing enforcement and
outreach capacity.151 However, the City only describes the mission and work of this organization
and largely identifies efforts to educate residents and housing providers, without any description
of actual enforcement activities (other than a general reference to investigating complaints and
referring to enforcement agencies) or a description of the actual outreach capacity. The City
should include details describing actual enforcement and outreach capacity.
Segregation and Integration. “At minimum, the analysis must discuss levels of
segregation and integration for race and ethnicity, income, familial status, persons with
disabilities, and identify the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation.”152
The City must bolster its discussion of segregation and integration. While the City
analyzes some data regarding other protected classes, as it relates specifically to segregation the
City largely focuses its analysis on race and ethnicity and to some extent income, the City should
consider these segregations trends over time and consider whether there are patterns of
147 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 62
(April 2021).
148 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 27–
28, 62 (April 2021). 149 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 62
(April 2021). 150 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 62
(April 2021).
151 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-42 to 43 (August 2021).
152 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 31
(April 2021).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 20
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
segregation for other protected classes including familial status and persons with disabilities.153
While the City does some comparisons between the City, State, and County data, the City does
not actually analyze regional segregation and integration trends. The City must analyze regional
trends of segregation to determine whether the City is contributing to those trends and what
actions the City must take to have a more integrated community. While the City references some
local factors and knowledge, such as the number of residents who received fair housing services
using CDBG funding, it does not do much analysis of this local data or knowledge or consider
other local data and knowledge.154 To strengthen its analysis, the City should analyze integration
and segregation patterns and trends based on income, familial status, and disability status
currently and over time and provide additional analysis of ethnic and racial segregation over
time. The analysis should be at a local and regional level for all protected classes. Furthermore,
the City should utilize local data and knowledge and other relevant factors “beyond data that
identifies and compares concentrations of groups with protected characteristics.”155
R/ECAPs and RCAAs. Jurisdictions must identify R/ECAPs and RCAAs.156 “The analysis
must be conducted at a regional and a local level where the incidence of concentrated areas of
poverty is discussed relative to the region and within the locality. Importantly, this regional
comparison should discuss the incidence of racial concentrations in areas of affluence.”157
While the City does an analysis of R/ECAPs and maps their locations,158 the City does
not map the RCAAs it identifies in its analysis.159 Mapping these census tracts would further
should the disparities between East and West and Anaheim and the need to implement programs
to address this issue. Furthermore, the City does not analyze local data, local knowledge, or other
relevant factors as it relates to R/ECAPs and RCAAs. We recommend that the City present and
analyze all relevant regional and local data about R/ECAPs and RCAAs. The City should also
employ local data and knowledge, and other relevant factors.
Disparities in Access to Opportunity. The City’s discussion of disparities in access to
opportunity is inadequate. HCD’s Guidance Memo presents questions that the City “should, at
minimum” answer.160 These questions cover disparities in educational, transportation, economic,
and environmental opportunities, and disparities in other factors.161 While the City utilizes some
data sources regarding these factors and does an analysis of the factors, the City fails to connect
153 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-43 to 47 (August 2021).
154 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-43 (August 2021).
155 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 25
(April 2021). 156 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 32–34
(April 2021).
157 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 32
(April 2021).
158 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-44 to 46 (August 2021).
159 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-48 to 49 (August 2021). 160 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 35
(April 2021). 161 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 35–36
(April 2021).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 21
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
the factors to data related to protected classes and whether there are disparities related to
members of protected classes and access to opportunities. Additionally, the City has included
transportation- and environmental-specific data, but no data specifically addressing educational
opportunities, other than composite data that includes education factors in its assessment.162 The
City should analyze educational opportunities specifically in addition to analyzing all categories
as they impact protected classes.
Disproportionate Housing Needs, Including Displacement. Jurisdictions must analyze
both disproportionate housing needs and displacement.163 “[C]ategories of housing need are
based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and
substandard housing conditions.”164
The City touches on cost burden, severe cost burden, and overcrowding, but only does a
comparison of this date between the City, County, and the State.165 There is no discussion as to
whether members of protected classes living in the City are experiencing these housing needs at
greater rates than other residents and what factors are contributing to those disproportionate
housing needs among protected classes, similar to the City’s analysis by race and ethnicity of
residents relying publicly funded housing.166 Substandard housing seems to only be addressed as
the age of housing units.167 The City should do more analysis of issues regarding substandard
housing in the City, particularly as it impacts protected classes. There is no analysis of
homelessness as it relates to fair housing and impacts on protected classes, which the City must
consider. We recommend following HCD’s Guidance Memo and analyzing the aforementioned
disproportionate housing needs, especially as they relate to protected classes.
Additionally, the City only touches on displacement as it relates to assisted affordable
housing complexes at risk of conversion to market rate.168 The City should revise this section
analyze the history of displacement in the City and the risk of displacement for not just residents
in assisted housing developments, but also in naturally occurring affordable housing. The City
should also analyze displacement as it specifically impacts protected classes. Additionally, the
City still identifies the majority of its housing sites in areas of concentrations of lower-income
families and racial and ethnic minorities. An influx of new units in these areas, including new
market rate units into low-income and segregated communities, creates the risk of indirect
displacement and the City should analyze and address this potential.
Conclusion and Summary of Fair Housing Issues. None of the City’s sections conclude
and summarize fair housing issues, likely because the City does not actually connect the analysis
of the various factors to fair housing issues and the impacts on protected classes. The City should
162 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-49 to 57 (August 2021). 163 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(ii).
164 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 39
(April 2021). 165 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-58 to 61 (August 2021).
166 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-58 (August 2021). 167 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-62 (August 2021).
168 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-62 to 71 (August 2021).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 22
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
revise its assessment of fair housing and provide conclusions and summaries of the fair housing
issues experienced by its residents.
Site Inventory
A jurisdiction’s site inventory must be consistent with the jurisdiction’s obligation to
affirmatively further fair housing.169 “Sites must be identified and evaluated relative to the full
scope of the assessment of fair housing.”170 The jurisdiction should consider the following during
its site inventory analysis:
● how identified sites better integrate the community;
● how identified sites exacerbate segregation;
● whether the jurisdiction concentrated the RHNA by income group in certain areas
of the community;
● whether local data and knowledge uncover patterns of segregation and
integration; and
● how other relevant factors can contribute to the analysis.171
The identified sites must attempt to improve conditions related to integration and
segregation patterns and trends related to people with protected characteristics; racially or
ethnically concentrated areas of poverty or affluence; disparities in access to opportunity for
people with protected characteristics, including persons with disabilities; and disproportionate
housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk.172 Moreover, the jurisdiction
must map the number of units at identified sites and include the sites’ assumed affordability.173
The jurisdiction should also address whether it groups sites near areas of concentrated affluence
or areas of concentrated poverty.174
The City provides several maps of its site inventory in relation to concentrations of ethnic
and racial minorities and lower-income residents.175 It is clear from the City’s analysis that it
went to great lengths to assign as affordable a higher percentage of the few units in the areas of
higher income residents and higher concentrations of White residents in an attempt to
affirmatively further fair housing. While this is commendable, it is a red herring as the City still
largely identifies its sites in general and its low-income sites in areas with greater concentrations
of lower-income and non-White households. So while the City made an attempted to further fair
169 Cal. Gov. Code § 65583.2(a); HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and
for Housing Elements, 45 (April 2021).
170 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 3, 45
(April 2021).
171 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 45–46
(April 2021). 172 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 46, 63
(April 2021); Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii). 173 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 46, 63
(April 2021).
174 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 48
(April 2021).
175 Cit City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-73 to 79 (August 2021).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 23
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
housing among the sites identified, the fact that the vast majority of sites are in lower-income
and non-White areas of the City shows that the City ultimately fails to affirmatively further fair
housing in the selection of the sites. The City should make a greater effort to identify sites
throughout the community, especially identifying more sites in the higher resource areas of the
community.
Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors
As a result of a jurisdiction’s assessment of fair housing, the jurisdiction must identify
and prioritize significant contributing factors to fair housing issues.176 The jurisdiction must
explain how it prioritized contributing factors.177 “A fair housing contributing factor means a
factor that creates, contributes to, perpetuates, or increases the severity of one or more fair
housing issues.”178 The jurisdiction must follow these steps:
(1) identify fair housing issues and significant contributing factors;
(2) prioritize contributing factors, giving highest priority to those factors that
(a) deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity or
(b) negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance; and
(3) discuss strategic approaches to inform and strongly connect these contributing
factors to goals and actions.179
The City seems to only summarize or make conclusions from its assessment of fair
housing and identify these conclusions as contributing factors.180 This is likely is due to the fact
that the City fails to fully assess fair housing and just provides data in attempt to satisfy the State
requirements. Additionally, the City does not prioritize contributing factors. The City must do so
to comply with State law. We suggest the City consult HCD’s Guidance Memo for further
details.
Goals, Policies, and Actions
Jurisdictions must provide goals, policies, and a schedule of actions during the planning
period to affirmatively further fair housing.181 These goals, policies and actions must be based on
the jurisdiction’s identification and prioritization of contributing factors.182 The jurisdiction’s
actions may address, but are not limited to, the following areas:
● mobility enhancement,
176 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 49
(April 2021); Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iii).
177 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 51
(April 2021). 178 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 49
(April 2021).
179 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 49
(April 2021).
180 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-72 (August 2021).
181 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 51
(April 2021).; Cal. Gov. Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv)–(v).
182 Cal. Gov. Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv)–(v); AFFH Guidance Memo 63 (April 2021).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 24
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
● new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas,
● place-based strategies for preservation and revitalization,
● displacement protection, and
● other program areas.183
The jurisdiction’s actions must be meaningful and sufficient to overcome identified
patterns of segregation and to affirmatively further fair housing.184 Accordingly, actions must
commit to specific deliverables, measurable metrics, or specific objectives.185 Actions must also
have definitive deadlines, dates, or benchmarks for implementation.186 In contrast, “programs
that ‘explore’ or ‘consider’ on an ‘ongoing’ basis are inadequate . . . .”187 Moreover, adequate
actions must be “in addition to combatting discrimination” and “well beyond a continuation of
past actions.”188
The City’s goals, policies, and actions fall below the requirements of California law. The
City’s goals are just to “collaborate with appropriate capable organizations” to review fair
housing complaints and refer them to the appropriate and agencies and to “continue to work with
the community to address potential constraints to fair housing.”189 While the City mentions
potential actions that may be taken, such as analyzing barriers or reviewing historic policies, it
does not actually commit to take specific actions. The City should consider goals that will
actually result in beneficial impacts to the community and that actually address the fair housing
issues in the City. Also, the City has a goal to inform and educate the community regarding fair
housing issues and rights,190 but this alone is not enough to enforce fair housing rights and to
address the fair housing issues in the City. Generally the City’s goals, policies, and actions are
noncommittal and generally the City’s fair housing goals lack measurable objectives and specific
timelines for implementation. For most of its goals, the City designates the timeframes as
“ongoing”—a feature that renders goals inadequate.191 We suggest identifying actions that go
beyond providing information and beyond continuing past actions. We also recommend that the
City add specific metrics and milestones to its goals. We again refer the City to HCD’s Guidance
Memo.
Conclusion
183 Cal. Gov. Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv)–(v); AFFH Guidance Memo 63 (April 2021).
184 Cal. Gov. Section 8899.50(a)(1), (b); AFFH Guidance Memo 51–53 (April 2021).
185 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 52
(April 2021). 186 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 52
(April 2021).
187 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 52
(April 2021).
188 Cal. Gov. Code Section 8899.50(a); HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public
Entities and for Housing Elements, 52 (April 2021).
189 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-30 (August 2021).
190 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-31 (August 2021).
191 City of Anaheim, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-30 to 31 (August 2021).
RE: City of Anaheim Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 24, 2021
p. 25
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157
The housing element process is an opportunity for jurisdictions to meet the needs of
California’s residents, including needs for housing that is accessible to seniors, families, and
workers and the needs of extremely-low-, very-low-, and low-income families for affordable
housing. We encourage the City to revise its Housing Element to comply with state law and to
specifically make an effort to assess the fair housing needs of its community and identify sites
that affirmatively further fair housing and not perpetuate patterns of segregation. We look
forward to working with the City in this effort to ensure that the housing needs of all residents of
the City are addressed.
Sincerely,
THE PUBLIC LAW CENTER, BY:
Richard Walker, Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit, Senior Staff Attorney
Alexis Mondares, Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit, Legal Fellow
Susan Kim, Principal Planner
City of Anaheim
200 S Anaheim Blvd
Anaheim, CA 92805
September 24, 2021
RE: Comments of first draft of Anaheim’s Housing Element
Dear Ms. Kim,
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the City of Anaheim's Housing
Element Update Committee. Your staff and consultants have put forth a great deal
of effort to involve and inform the public and gather feedback from housing
developers, builders, and advocates. Anaheim’s process was one of the most
accessible and transparent in Orange County, and your team should be commended
for their efforts.
Additionally, thanks to you and your team for the time they took to meet with me
and Jon Wizard, Policy Director for the Campaign for Fair Housing Elements, earlier
today. We are encouraged by the thoughtful approach your team is taking to
balancing the competing priorities cities are facing. We are equally impressed by the
1
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County.
peopleforhousing.org
NEW CORRESPONDENCE
increase in zoned capacity that the city is planning; Anaheim is clearly open to new
development!
After reviewing the draft in conjunction with the Campaign for Fair Housing
Elements , we would like to share the following areas of concern:
1.Some data sources are outdated.
a.Some of the data sources required for inclusion in the housing element are
dated and do not lend themselves to the analysis needed to fully
understand the current distribution of not only race, ethnicity, and income,
but also household wealth, health outcomes, and housing tenure. We would
suggest the following sources as additional options. From this data, we hope
that the city will have a more holistic picture of who is living in each
neighborhood and take proactive steps to create new housing opportunities
for low and middle income households in Anaheim’s higher resource
neighborhoods to promote integrated housing.
i.Orange County Equity Map
https://www.advanceoc.com/orange-county-equity-map/
ii.Racial Dot Map The Racial Dot Map: One Dot Per Person for the
Entire U.S. (coopercenter.org)
iii.Mapping Opportunity Mapping Opportunity CA
iv.Opportunity Atlas The Opportunity Atlas
v.HUD AFFH Map HUD AFFH
vi.HCD AFFH Maps AFFH Data and Mapping Resources (arcgis.com)
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County.
peopleforhousing.org
2
2.Lack of specificity and commitment within program descriptions.
a.Programs use words such as encourage , facilitate , collaborate , explore ,
partner , and support . These are not specific actions and allude only to vague
descriptions, not defined activities. Without more specific commitments, it
will be difficult to determine if the city took action on these programs, and
whether whatever action taken was sufficient and accomplished the
program. In sum, there is no way to be accountable for these activities.
b.Timelines are too vague. Three (3) years is too long to explore or study the
element’s programs. There needs to be tighter timelines.
c.It is unclear which programs are new and which are continuations of
previous programs from the 5th cycle. It would be helpful to identify and call
out new programs, especially as they relate to the production of affordable
housing. Since the city had a significant gap in production between market
rate and affordable homes in the 5th cycle, identifying new programs and
their estimated contributions to the production of affordable housing would
be an excellent way to define progress and ensure accountability.
3.Estimates of “realistic capacity” are questionable.
a.All sites are estimated at 80%. This number seems unusually high and
unusually uniform. Is this number based on past performance? Are the
current uses of individual sites taken into account? If so, it would be helpful
to state as much, as well as complete an analysis on the likelihood that the
site’s current use will be discontinued, as directed by HCD’s Site Inventory
Guidebook . When we compare Anaheim’s estimate to other cities’ estimates
of their sites’ capacities, Anaheim’s is significantly higher, and the uniformity
of its sites’ capacity lends itself to only a superficial analysis.
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County.
peopleforhousing.org
3
4.ADU production lacks accountability.
a.There is no mid-cycle review of ADU production. While the assumption of 84
ADUs per year during the 8-year planning period may be a safe assumption,
there is no mid-cycle review or automatic adjustment to ensure the city
actually meets that goal. If production falls below this estimate, what
specific programs will the city implement to ensure this sustained yield? If
outreach is a program, which neighborhoods will be prioritized, and how
does that prioritization square with the city’s duty to affirmatively further
fair housing? If the city is confident it can achieve permitting 84 ADUs per
year, programs that remove constraints and catalyze ADU construction that
are automatically triggered by such a shortfall should not be a concern
because the city believes it will never face a shortfall in production.
b.We offer the following feedback from ADU advocates working with our
coalition: “Pre-approved ADU plans” are often over-engineered in order to
ensure meet the needs of every site. This can lead to added expenses that
may not be necessary if the homeowner uses site-specific plans. We are
concerned that these added costs will be a barrier for homeowners who
might otherwise be interested in building ADUs and that pre-approved plans
will not remove constraints but instead become the equivalent of
workshops and pamphlets.
c.The city identifies a partnership with OCCOG to develop pre-approved ADU
plans. Does the city have a contingency program in the event OCCOG fails to
develop pre-approved ADU plans in the timely fashion? This is an example
of where the city should insert an automatic adjustment to its calculations
because it cannot control whether OCCOG ever develops pre-approved
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County.
peopleforhousing.org
4
plans, which affects Anaheim’s expected performance and achievement of
its quantified objectives.
5.The map of available sites for affordable housing falls far short of the requirement
for cities to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) through their housing element.
a.The vast majority of affordable housing sites are concentrated in areas of
high racially and economically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP), as
shown on the 2021 TCAC map of Orange County. Building the critical mass
of affordable housing in existing low-income areas furthers economic and
racial segregation.
b.There is a paltry number of sites for affordable housing in the highest
resource area of the city, District 6. What will the city do to expedite the
development of these few sites? Will the city contribute matching funds
towards the affordable housing developed on the District 6 sites? Will the
city ensure that the sites will be developed at their maximum zoned
capacity? Will the city establish minimum zoning densities? Can the city
develop design guidelines or even a specific plan(s) such that the sites in
District 6 can be pre-approved for affordable housing development?
Many thanks for the opportunity to comment on the city’s draft housing element
prior to submission to HCD. This letter summarizes our highest priority concerns. We
encourage the city of Anaheim to use the housing element planning process to
implement land use decisions that create diverse and inclusive neighborhoods.
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County.
peopleforhousing.org
5
Best regards,
Elizabeth Hansburg
Co-Founder and 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
6
September 24, 2021
Susan Kim, Principal Planner
Planning and Building Department
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
RE: City of Anaheim Draft Housing Element
Ms. Kim:
The Kennedy Commission (the Commission), a broad-based coalition of residents and community
organizations, advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than
$27,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has successfully partnered
and worked with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing and land-use policies that
have led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower-income working families.
The Commission is submitting the following initial comments to the City of Anaheim’s Draft
Housing Element dated August 2021.
Affordable homes are urgently needed for lower income residents given the increasing cost of
housing in Anaheim and Orange County. According to the California Housing and Community
Development Department, the County’s annual median income for a family of four at the extremely
low-income level is $40,350, $67,250 as very low income and up to $107,550 as low-income.1 The
median income for Anaheim residents in 2019 was $76,075. The City of Anaheim’s Demographic
Profile data indicates that about 65% of the occupations in the city have average incomes that fall
into the lower income categories, with the vast majority (about 50%) in the extremely low and very
low income. 2 Based on these figures, it is clear that many Anaheim residents and workers are
struggling to afford housing and fall into the extremely low, very low income and low-income
categories.
Additionally, the city is currently experiencing a deficit of affordable housing at the very low- and
low-income levels. For the 2014-2021 Housing Element planning period, the city has a RHNA of
1,256 very low- and 907 low-income households. To-date, the city has built 308 or 25% of the
1,256 very low-income units and 160 or 18% of the 907 low-income units.3 However, for the above
moderate-income units, the city outperformed and exceeded the RHNA by constructing 7,644 or
306% of the 2,501 above moderate-income RHNA.4 The City has a remaining RHNA need of 1,695
lower income homes for the current planning period. The City’s history of over-producing above
moderate housing and poor performance producing lower income housing is an indication that the
city needs to focus on prioritizing affordable housing.
Additionally, with a new RHNA allocation of 6,164 lower income units for the 2021-2029 Housing
Element period, it is imperative that the City of Anaheim focus on the development of affordable
housing opportunities for lower-income residents in the development of its Housing Element. The
1 California Department of Housing and Community Development “State Income Limits for 2020,” p. 9, April 26, 2021.
2 City of Anaheim Demographic Profile, Summer 2021. 3 City of Anaheim’s 2020 Annual Housing Element Progress Report, March 22, 2021. 4 City of Anaheim’s 2020 Annual Housing Element Progress Report, March 22, 2021.
www.kennedycommission.org
17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949 250 0909
Working for systemic change resulting in the production of homes affordable to Orange County’s extremely low-income households
NEW CORRESPONDENCE
Housing Element Update Recommendations
September 24, 2021July 30, 202030, 2020y 30, 2020
Page 2 of 4
importance of this need is compounded by the City’s analysis that demonstrates that the 2021-2029
RHNA for the higher income categories will already be met by the approved and pipeline projects
in process. Given the urgent need for affordable housing, the city must prioritize the
production of lower income housing.
For the 2021-2029 Housing Element, the Commission recommends that the City adopt new
affordable housing priorities and policies that will help develop affordable housing for the
City’s lower income families and create balanced housing opportunities in the city. The
Commission has the following recommendations:
1. The city should continue to conduct a robust public participation process as it moves forward
and incorporate the Commission, community organizations, affordable housing advocates, and
residents of low-income communities in the next stage of the update and the implementation. We
believe that you will achieve a stronger Housing Element update through diverse community
participation, outreach, and community planning process.
2. The city should prioritize creating a Housing Element that will facilitate and actively
promote affordable housing developments for households with extremely low income (four person
households earning less than $40,350) and very low income (four person households earning less
than $67,250).
3. Density alone will not produce affordable housing. The City should ensure that proper
zoning is implemented as well as a policy that will encourage the production of affordable housing
to meet the needs of lower income residents. The city must “review the previous element to evaluate
the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this
review in the revised element. “While the element includes a program-by-program review of
implementation in the prior planning period, the review of past programs should also analyze the
cumulative effectiveness of programs on addressing special housing needs over the previous
planning period. As the 5th Cycle progress indicates, the city’s housing policies have developed
housing in an unbalanced way and prioritized market-rate housing over housing for low-income
families. For the upcoming 6th Cycle, we recommend that the city include policies with stronger
affordability requirements, instead of continuing to hope that the market will deliver affordable
housing by identifying higher density sites for lower-income RHNA needs. This strategy has proven
to be ineffective and has only produced luxury, market-rate housing that is unaffordable to most
Anaheim’s residents. The city needs to ensure opportunity sites are not simply up zoned or rezoned
without including affordable housing policies that will capture the financial and land use incentives
being given to property owners and market rate developers.
As the city moves forward with Housing Element update, the Commission urges the city to adopt
the following affordable housing policies:
Policy Recommendations
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - The Commission strongly recommends the city adopt an
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance within the next year to ensure that identified sites are truly feasible
Housing Element Update Recommendations
September 24, 2021
Page 3 of 4
and effectively provide affordable housing in a balanced manner. We recommend that the ordinance
include a 15% requirement of affordable housing production at extremely low, very low- and low-
income categories and that it apply to all residential projects. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
should be implemented no later than one years from the adoption of the Housing Element.
Affordable Housing Overlay -The Commission strongly recommends that the city adopt an
Affordable Housing Overlay that requires a minimum of 15% of units be set aside for housing at the
very low- and low-income level on sites identified for rezoning our up zonings at densities of 30+
units to the acre. This will ensure that identified sites are truly feasible and effectively provide
affordable housing in a balanced manner. In addition, an overlay can also be developed to identify
sites that would only be available if 100% of the site would be developed with lower income
affordable housing. The Affordable Housing Overlay should be implemented no later than one year
after the adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
4. Greater analysis is needed on the potential transition and feasibility of sites proposed to meet
the lower income needs, especially on sites proposed for rezoning or identified for an overlay. Most
sites are currently not zoned for housing development and may not have amenities and services that
are needed to serve lower income communities and may also make it difficult to qualify for funding
that is necessary for the development affordable housing. In addition, existing uses need to be
analyzed for potential environmental constraint from past and current uses and surrounding zoning.
The city should also identify additional sites in higher opportunity areas that would be more
appropriate for quality affordable housing to be developed.
5. The city should also further analyze the City’s development patterns, zoning, housing
policies and land use that have led to such a disparity in creating new housing opportunities. This
disparity is demonstrated by the city’s RHNA process in the current planning period. The City’s
Annual Housing Element Progress Report indicates that the city has exceeded by over 300% its
above moderate RHNA allocation but produced only a fraction of that housing for lower income
households in the current planning period. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requires an
adequate analysis and recommendations on how the city will address contributing factors to Fair
housing issues in the city. The city should consider:
Trends, and Disproportionate Housing Needs, Analysis and summary of fair housing issues utilizing
available federal, state, and local data and knowledge. The analysis must address: Integration and
segregation; Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; Disparities in access to
opportunity. Disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. 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.
Most importantly, there should be programs with a schedule of actions with timelines and specific
commitment to have a “beneficial impact” within the planning period to achieve the goals and
objectives of addressing contributing factors to Fair housing issues.
Housing Element Update Recommendations
September 24, 2021July 30, 202030, 2020y 30, 2020
Page 2 of 4
6. Most of the affordable housing development opportunities have been identified and planned
in lower resourced areas of Anaheim. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requires that cities
promote the creation of affordable housing in high resource areas that provide important amenities
such as schools, grocery stores, and medical services while also encouraging investment and
conservation in low resource areas. Affordable housing should be planned and integrated evenly
throughout the city to provide equitable growth and access to opportunities.
We look forward to working with the City of Anaheim to encourage effective housing policies that
will help create balanced housing development and create much-needed affordable housing in our
local communities. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or
cesarc@kennedycommission.org.
Sincerely,
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
cc: Ms. Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, Housing Policy Development, CA HCD
Mr. Paul McDougall, Housing Manager, CA HCD
ID 1.What is your association to the City of Anaheim?Please submit comments on Section 1 (Introduction) here.Please submit comments on Section 2 (Community Profile) here.Please submit comments on Section 3 (Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing) here.Please submit comments on Section 4 (Housing Plan) here.Please submit comments on the Appendices here.Please submit any additional comments you would like to send to the project team here.1I am a resident RHNA allocations to Anaheim is not done by any measurable method. These numbers are not reasonable and when compared to adjacent cites / counties to Anaheim. While this draft plan does a reasonable good effort to meet the latest RHNA, the residents and contributors to this plan will be out of the loop on its progress.The city staff was very good in their presentation, addressing public requests (Having Spanish translation), and capturing all public comments without bias. The City Staff did everything possible to share and communicate zoom meetings and in person meetings. Unfortunately Public Participation was quite low. We need more neighborhood advocates to get the residents involved.Housing cost values on Table 2‐33 are way off. If you get the absolute current housing cost, 75% of all residents cannot afford a house.Need more efforts on socializing "ADUs" to the community.ADUs should apply to large lots with a small bungalow or smaller sized house.A conversation with the Church community to leverage parking lots for a few ADUs should be considered. Please keep this conversation active.Recently passed SB9 and SB10 concerns are not addressed in the draft plan. In general a process to address all in SB or changes throughout the this time period is needed.Addressing home affordability for civil service professions such as teachers and public service needs to have a vision plan. Many of these folks are critical to the city but are underpaid to afford local housing.Not all 6 Districts are getting equal affordable housing distribution. We need affordable, ADA compliant, transitional / halfway / reform housing in every 6 Districts.This HECU addresses future housing plans but not address existing housing condition upgrades on existing units. Do residents in lower condition housing get a priority on new affordable housing units?Part of the problem with many people is seeing older affordable housing units decaying or not kept up.The plan in itself is decent. This document is way too big for the average public reader to comment. All previous meetings to be referenced through a link. An abstract should be present in this document to guide the reader.It would be appropriate to show what was present prior to an affordable housing development. Especially on a blight or outdated building being redevelop into a new housing unit.Since once the plan is approved to the the 8 years, I would highly suggest that the City Staff retain a few Committee members (Voluntarily) to continue to get updates and changes beyond this plan.Very good work by the City Staff. I do appreciate everyone's professionalism.2I am a resident It seems that the data from the 5th Cycle indicates that there was a plan and no efforts to ensure the plan was on course to meet the intended housing goals. From the previous 5th cycle results, there needs to be a better plan for quarterly communications to everyone and a plan course correction.A continued population growth seems unrealistic; sooner of later the rate of the increase will slow as the entire city will be saturated. I understand this is about housing but planning an increase in low income and Poverty status and Homelessness is ok but more efforts should be made to ensure a reduction in those areas with assistance.If any affordable housing is developed and the area that is already impacted with parking, the surrounding areas should have permit parking for the neighborhood residents for X years paid by the City.The housing plan indicates the housing goals and the potential locations. Once this plan is approved, there are no additional or deletions of any locations of the for next 8 years. How would this plan address emerging available properties or properties that are no longer under consideration?C‐1It was great that the City Staff captured the public comments exactly as stated.Still a very noticeable lack of public participation. We all need to figure out a good communications plan for all City meetings. Unfortunately this HEUC effort faces the same issues as other departments with a lack of public participation. But overall, this HEUC City Staff did an outstanding job.Thank You!!Comments Received via the Housing Element Update Online Form through September 27, 2021
3 resident and studentI appreciate the inclusion of all the Elements of the General Plan for the city because it gave me a better sense of the City's values. It states later that the RHNA proposed a total of 17,453 housing units; Almost 50% of those units have been designated to be of use for above‐moderate income housing at market value. Based on the income ranges of Anaheim's population in Section 2, I suggest a reconsideration of the housing units committed to very low‐income and low‐income housing and inclusion of a physical map of where these proposed sites will be with the income value labeled as well in appendices.The census data was well presented, but the community demographics compiled in section 2 should be provided with some context on a map to see the areas that have lower and higher‐income ranges. It would also be effective to see the areas that have households with housing issues between renters and homeowners on a map to give the council a better notion of the areas that need improvement in their housing since conservation and preservation is a core policy strategy area. Incorporating the special needs populations into housing was also highlighted, but there were no specifically proposed housing opportunities that would be offered; rather they are considered. Most of the section felt like it was an explanation of definitions and policy constraints that would be difficult to understand without prior knowledge of housing policy. It should also be highlighted that throughout the discussion on the variety of housing types allowed there was not a proposal, assessment, or explanation on how many housing units should be provided by each and for which demographics. It is especially concerning, personally, that there are no proposed plans for houseless populations throughout the housing element but is mentioned as a population of concern. Based on the maps provided that distinguish ethnicity and income range populations with the proposed sites labeled, it's evident there are concentrated areas for low and moderate‐income housing. Is this in alignment with the Fair Housing Act? Are there other factors at play, such as constraints and resources being evaluated, when proposing these concentrated areas?The Housing policy considerations are well‐intended, but broad language used in policy allows free room for accountability not to be taken. Although there are many factors being considered in the policy, there is no accountability or security in the descriptions to ensure that it will be advised before the council. A proposal of an inclusionary housing ordinance could incentivize the council and contractors to reconsider the allocation of housing units, similar to the City of Santa Ana's Housing Opportunity Ordinance. As well as incentivizing existing programs, such as Section 8 voucher programs, so that waiting lists for housing and financing is addressed. It was mentioned very briefly that previous Housing cycles that did not fulfill the units proposed by the RHNA could be used under certain conditions it met for lower‐income housing. Do the previous cycle RHNA housing units add onto the new RHNA units proposed? How are they accounted for? The quantified objective of the housing units at the end is helpful, but a breakdown of where the number of units are coming from should be included when explaining the policy strategy to ensure accountability. Based on the maps provided, many sites are designated as needing an amendment to the General Plan to permit residential use. Will these amendments be in place or decided by the council? Are these sites guaranteed an amendment to the General Plan or is it dependent on the council to approve? I would like to thank you for the work putting this together because it is not easy. It is also great to see the input of the community be considered; it makes us feel heard. 4I am a community organizerIn the this document you state that about 56% of the population is in the low, very & extremely low income. Yet you are planning on only allocating about 10% of each of the respective categories and more than half of the proposed projects are going to be for market price. Seeing that a grand majority of the Anaheim residents are working minimum wage paying jobs, there needs to be in my opinion a bigger percentage of Affordable Housing. Not just 10%. It was very concerning to see that a grand majority of the proposed projects where highly concentrated in Districts 4 & 5 and there was almost no plans for there to be projects in district 6. I definitely think that these project should be spread out through out all the districts. One of the thing that should be considered is insuring that this document is accessible in other languages. Especially since about 54.3% of the population is Hispanic/Latino. Also in this process I found it personally difficult to find some of meetings that where held via Zoom. So I'd hardly say there was a good community outreach.
5I am a residentAnaheim didn't build nearly enough low‐income and very low‐income housing in the last RHNA cycle, and there is little in this report to assure the city's residents that the city will do a better job during the new 8‐year cycle. As a member of the HEUC, I heard far too much acquiescence to "market forces" among the committee's discussions. The market isn't going to build housing that's affordable to all city residents. The city has to do more than just "suggest" or "encourage" such developments. We all know that this report is merely aspirational and does not guarantee that a single dwelling unit will get built. Fortunately, the state now has more tools at its disposal to ensure Anaheim's housing needs are actually met. Everyone in Anaheim should be watching what the city leaders are doing about housing throughout this new RHNA cycle and vote accordingly.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2021
SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2021-00179 AND ADJUSTMENT NO. 3 TO THE EAST CENTER STREET DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-2 (SPN90-2C) CODE STREAMLINING AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Anaheim
REQUEST: This is a City-initiated request to amend various chapters of Title 18
(Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Code) to provide clarity, create consistency of terms and definitions, streamline approval processes and amend Code requirements to reflect current market trends. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA) includes adjustments to the East Center Street Development Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, by motion, determine that the proposed actions are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and, recommend City Council approval of ZCA2021-00179, including
Adjustment No. 3 to the East Center Street Development Specific Plan No. 90-2
(SPN90-2C). BACKGROUND: In 2004, the City comprehensively updated its Zoning Code. Since that time, the City has amended the Code on an as-needed basis as the result of staff’s
periodic review of the Code. These periodic amendments have evolved into the
Planning and Building Department’s award winning “Code Streamlining and Improvement Program.” This program strategically evaluates and amends the Zoning Code on a continuous basis in response to market and business trends. Such amendments included the consolidation and streamlining of the regulatory permit
process, reduction in the level of review required for several land uses, creation of an
administrative permit process for reviewing requests for shared parking, and the creation of a Minor Conditional Use Permit.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS: In a continued effort to provide regulatory relief,
staff has reviewed Anaheim’s existing Zoning Code and permitting practices to identify additional potential changes to further streamline the entitlement process for existing and new businesses in the City. The Zoning Code includes several chapters of Zoning and Development Standards for the City’s specific plans. The City processes
modifications to these specific plan chapters as Specific Plan Adjustments.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2021-00179
September 27, 2021 Page 2 of 2
Similar to previous amendments, this request includes modifications to permitted land uses, development standards, procedures, and definitions contained in the Zoning Code. Attachment 1 to this staff report shows the redlined changes to Title 18; Attachment 2 provides a description of each
amendment and an analysis of why the Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council approve the amendment.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the
proposed ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This determination is pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to this section, the proposed amendments and adjustments fit within the general rule that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In that, the
proposed amendments and adjustments would provide clarity, create consistency of terms and
definitions, streamline approval processes, and amend Code requirements to reflect current market trends, the proposed adjustments and amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment; and, therefore, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
CONCLUSION: Staff recommends approval of this request, for the reasons set forth in Attachment No. 2, which in summary are to provide staff, decision makers, and members of the public with clearer standards, procedures and definitions.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Christine Nguyen Niki Wetzel, AICP
Associate Planner Deputy Planning and Building Director
Attachments: 1. Draft Redline Ordinance 2. Summary of Amendments
1
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
CHAPTERS 18.04 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES); 18.06 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES); 18.08 (COMMERCIAL ZONES); 18.36 (TYPES OF USES); 18.38 (SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS); 18.40 (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS); 18.42 (PARKING AND
LOADING); 18.46 (LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING); 18.92 (DEFINITIONS); 18.110 (EAST CENTER STREET DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 90-2) ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) OF TITLE 18 (ZONING) OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE; AND FINDING AND
DETERMINING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS TO PREPARE ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION PER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES, SECTION 15061(B)(3) BECAUSE IT WILL NOT HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
(ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2021-00179) (ADJUSTMENT NO. 3 TO THE EAST CENTER STREET DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN
NO. 90-2 (SP 90-2) (SPN90-2C)) (DEV2021-00138)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City’s police power, as granted broadly under Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council")
has the authority to enact and enforce ordinances and regulations for the public peace, morals and welfare of the City of Anaheim (the "City") and its residents; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”) and the State of California Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the “State CEQA Guidelines”), the City is the “lead agency” for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that this ordinance is exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because the proposed amendments and adjustments would provide clarity, create consistency of terms and definitions, streamline approval processes, and amend Code requirements to reflect current market trends, and the proposed amendments and adjustments will
not have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that this ordinance is a matter of City-wide importance and necessary for the preservation and protection of the public peace, health, safety
ATTACHMENT 1
2
and/or welfare of the community and is a valid exercise of the local police power and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable State and local laws and requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Table 4-A (Primary Uses – Single-Family Residential) of Section
18.04.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows:
Table 4-A
PRIMARY USES: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
P=Permitted by Right
C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited
RH- 1 RH- 2 RH- 3 RS-1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-4 Special Provisions
Residential Classes of Uses
Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities (Small)
P P P P P P P
Community Care Facilities–Licensed (Small)
P P P P P P P
Community Care Facilities–Unlicensed (Small)
P P P P P P P Subject to §§ 18.16.058 and 18.38.123
Dwellings–Single-Family Detached P P P P P P C
Mobile Home Parks N N N N N C N
Senior Living Facilities
(Small)
P P P P P P P
Sober Living Homes (Small) P P P P P P P Subject to §§ 18.16.058 and 18.38.123
Supportive Housing (6 or fewer persons) P P P P P P P
Supportive Housing (7 or more persons) C C C C C C C
Transitional Housing (6 or fewer persons) P P P P P P P
Transitional Housing (7
or more persons)
C C C C C C C
Note on Table 4-A - Residential Classes of Uses:
Residential Classes of Uses: New Residential Development. All new residential development within 600 feet of any railroad, freeway, expressway, major arterial, primary arterial or secondary arterial, as designated by the Circulation Element of the General Plan, is subject to the provisions of § 18.40.090.
Non-Residential Classes of Uses
3
Table 4-A PRIMARY USES: SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONES
P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required
N=Prohibited
RH-
1
RH-
2
RH-
3
RS-1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-
4
Special
Provisions
Agricultural Crops P P N N N N N
Alcoholism or Drug
Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities (Large)
C C C C C C C
Antennas–Private Transmitting P P P P P P P Subject to 18.38.040
Antennas–Telecommunications– Stealth Building–Mounted
C C C C C C C Subject to § 18.38.060.040
Antennas–Telecommunications– Stealth Ground–Mounted
N N N N N N N
Antennas–Telecommunications– Ground–Mounted
N N N N N N N
Automotive–Sales Agency Office (Wholesale)
P P P P P P P Subject to § 18.16.055 for office use only; no on-site storage, display or parking of any vehicle being held as inventory
Bed & Breakfast Inns N N N C C N N Must be located on an arterial highway; subject to 18.38.080
Beekeeping C N N N N N N
Boarding House N N N N N N N
Community Care
Facilities–Licensed (Large)
C C C C C C C
Community Care Facilities–Unlicensed (Large)
C C C C C C C Subject to § 18.38.123
Community & Religious Assembly C C C C C C N Shall comply
with subsection
18.40.040.040
(Uses Adjacent
to Residential
4
Table 4-A PRIMARY USES: SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONES
P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required
N=Prohibited
RH-
1
RH-
2
RH-
3
RS-1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-
4
Special
Provisions
Zones or
Residential Uses)
Convalescent & Rest Homes N N N C C C N
Day Care Centers C C C C C C C Shall comply
with subsection
18.40.040.040
(Uses Adjacent
to Residential
Zones or
Residential Uses)
Educational Institutions–General C C C C C C C Shall comply
with subsection
18.40.040.040
(Uses Adjacent
to Residential
Zones or
Residential Uses)
Golf Courses & Country Clubs C C C C C C N
Oil Production N N N N N C N Subject to 18.38.180
Public Services C C C C C C C
Recreation–Low-Impact C C C C C C C
Senior Living Facilities (Large) C C C C C C C
Sober Living Homes (Large) C C C C C C C Subject to § 18.38.123
Transit Facilities C C C C C C C
Utilities–Minor C C C C C C C
SECTION 2. That Section 18.04.080 (Floor Area) of Chapter 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is
hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows:
18.04.080 FLOOR AREA
.010 Floor Area. The minimum livable floor area per dwelling, exclusive of garage area,
for single-family residential zones is shown in Table 4-G.
5
Table 4-G MINIMUM FLOOR AREA: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Zone Minimum Floor Area
Residential Single-Family Hillside
RH-1 1,700 square feet
RH-2 1,700 square feet
RH-3 1,700 square feet
Residential Single-Family
RS-1 1,700 square feet
RS-2 1,225 square feet
RS-3 1,225 square feet
RS-4 1,225 square feet, but may be modified pursuant to 18.04.160
.020 Detached Accessory Buildings and Structures. The maximum cumulative square
footage of all enclosed accessory structures, as identified in Table 4-B (Accessory Uses
and Structures: Single-Family Residential Zones) of this chapter, shall be limited to the
minimum livable floor area of the main dwelling for the underlying zone, as identified in
Table 4-G above, and shall not exceed the square footage of the main dwelling. Any
detached garage spaces that are required by this Code shall not be counted towards this
limitation.
SECTION 3. That Table 6-A (Primary Uses – Multiple-Family Residential Zones) of
Section 18.06.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.06 (Multi-Family Residential Zones) of Title 18 (Zoning)
of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows:
Table 6-A
PRIMARY USES: MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
P=Permitted by Right
C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited
T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required
RM-1 RM-2 RM-3 RM-3.5 RM-4 Special Provisions
Residential Classes of Uses
Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities (Small)
P P P P P
Community Care Facilities–Licensed (Small)
P P P P P
6
Table 6-A PRIMARY USES: MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit
Required N=Prohibited
T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required
RM-1 RM-2 RM-3 RM-3.5 RM-4 Special Provisions
Community Care Facilities–Unlicensed (Small)
P P P P P Subject to §§ 18.16.058 and 18.38.123
Dwellings–Multiple
Family
C P P P P Subject to § 18.38.100;
affordable housing may be developed pursuant to Chapter 18.50
Dwellings–Single-Family Attached C P C C C Dwellings requiring a conditional use permit
are subject to § 18.06.160
Dwellings–Single-Family Detached C P P P P (a) Allowed only when combined with single-family attached
dwellings within the same project; in the RM-1 Zone, attached housing must be oriented toward any major or primary arterial or (b) one single-family detached dwelling allowed on one legal lot in existence on the effective date of Ord. 5920, using the RS-2 and
RS-3 Zone based on lot size
Mobile Home Parks N C C C C
Senior Citizen Housing C C C C C Subject to Chapter 18.50
Senior Living Facilities (Small) P P P P P
Sober Living Homes (Small) P P P P P Subject to §§ 18.16.058 and 18.38.123
Supportive Housing C P P P P
Transitional Housing C P P P P
Note on Table 6-A - Residential Classes of Uses: New Residential Development. All new residential development within 600 feet of any railroad,
freeway, expressway, major arterial or primary arterial, as designated by the Circulation Element of the General Plan, is subject to the provisions of § 18.40.090.
Non-Residential Classes of Uses
7
Table 6-A PRIMARY USES: MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit
Required N=Prohibited
T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required
RM-1 RM-2 RM-3 RM-3.5 RM-4 Special Provisions
Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities (Large)
C C C C C
Antennas–Broadcasting C C C C C
Antennas–Private
Transmitting
C C C C C Subject to § 18.38.040
Antennas–
Telecommunications - Stealth Building-Mounted
T T T T T Subject to §§ 18.38.060
and 18.62.020
Antennas– Telecommunications -
Stealth Ground-Mounted
C C C C C Subject to § 18.38.060
Antennas–Telecommunications - Ground-Mounted
N N N N N
Non-Residential Classes of Uses
Automotive–Sales Agency Office (Wholesale)
P P P P P Subject to § 18.16.055 for office use only; no on-site storage, display or parking of any vehicle being held as inventory
Bed & Breakfast Inns N C C C C Subject to § 18.38.080
Boarding House C C C C C
Community Care
Facilities–Licensed (Large)
C C C C C
Community Care Facilities–Unlicensed (Large)
C C C C C Subject to § 18.38.123
Community & Religious Assembly C C C C C Shall comply with subsection 18.40.040.040
(Uses Adjacent to Residential Zones or Residential Uses)
Convalescent & Rest Homes N N N N C
Day Care Centers C C C C C Shall comply with subsection 18.40.040.040
8
Table 6-A PRIMARY USES: MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit
Required N=Prohibited
T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required
RM-1 RM-2 RM-3 RM-3.5 RM-4 Special Provisions
(Uses Adjacent to Residential Zones or Residential Uses)
Educational Institutions–
General
N N C C C Shall comply with
subsection 18.40.040.040 (Uses Adjacent to Residential Zones or Residential Uses)
Golf Courses & Country
Clubs
N N C C C
Oil Production N C C C C Subject 18.38.180
Public Services C C C C C
Recreation–Low-Impact C C C C C
Recreation–Swimming & Tennis C C C C C
Senior Living Facilities (Large) C C C C C
Sober Living Homes (Large) C C C C C Subject to § 18.38.123
Transit Facilities C C C C C
Utilities–Minor C C C C C
SECTION 4. That Subsection .080 of Section 18.06.090 (Structural Setbacks) of Chapter
18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows: .080 Allowable encroachments into the required setbacks in this section are set forth
below. Any encroachment that conflicts with the Uniform Building Code or other codes,
as adopted by the City, shall not be permitted. Any encroachment, except as described in
subsection .0802 below, shall not be permitted within required setbacks abutting single-
family residences or streets.
.0801 A patio cover or canopy may encroach into the required setbacks abutting
interior property lines and setbacks between buildings, but not into the required interior
landscape setbacks when located within an existing ground-floor private patio area.
.0802 Cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills, buttresses and fireplaces may encroach
into a required setback along an interior property line not more than four (4) inches for
9
each one (1) foot of the width of the interior setback, and may encroach into a required
street setback not more than thirty (30) inches.
.0803 Fixed awnings may encroach into a required setback along an interior
property line no more than three (3) feet.
.0804 Open, unenclosed balconies may encroach into a required street setback not
more than three (3) feet.
.0805 Private patios for ground-floor residential units may encroach not more than
eight (8) feet into required street setbacks and setbacks abutting interior property lines.
Private patios for ground-floor residential units may encroach into required setbacks
between buildings.
.0806 Covered or uncovered porches or landings that do not extend above the level
of the first floor of the building, and that include an open railing not more than thirty-six
(36) inches in height, may encroach into any required setback not more than five (5) feet.
.0807 Decorative guard railings for safety protection around hazardous areas may
encroach into any required setback.
.0808 The placement of outdoor recreational facilities may encroach into required
setbacks between buildings on the same building site.
.0809 Trees, shrubs, flowers or plants shall be permitted in any required setback.
.0810 Fences and walls that comply with Section 18.46.110 of Chapter 18.46
(Landscaping and Screening) may encroach into required setbacks.
.0811 For properties developed with existing ground-floor private patio areas, a
maximum ten (10) foot high patio cover may be permitted over the existing permitted patio
area when outside of street setbacks.
SECTION 5. That Section 18.06.100 (Recreational-Leisure and Storage Areas) of Chapter
18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows: 18.06.100 RECREATIONAL-LEISURE AND STORAGE AREAS
.010 Recreational-Leisure Areas. Recreational-leisure areas for multiple-family
residential zones shall be provided as set forth in this section. The size of the areas is
shown in Table 6-I.
Table 6-I MINIMUM SIZE OF RECREATIONAL-LEISURE AREAS: MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Zone Minimum Area
RM-1 350 square feet for each dwelling unit; amounts may be modified
pursuant to § 18.06.160
RM-2 1,000 square feet for each dwelling unit
RM-3 350 square feet for each dwelling unit
RM-3.5 275 square feet for each dwelling unit
RM-4 200 square feet for each dwelling unit
10
.020 The recreational-leisure areas required by Table 6-I may be provided by private
areas, common areas, or a combination of both. shall be provided in a combination of
private and common areas. A minimum of 10% of the required recreational-leisure areas
shall be provided in a common area centrally located within the project area.
.0201 Private Recreational-Leisure Areas. For all multiple-family residential
zones other than the "RM-4" Zone, any private patios for ground floor units shall be not
less than two hundred (200) square feet in area, with a minimum dimension of ten (10)
feet. In the "RM-4" Zone, any private patios for ground floor units shall be not less than
one hundred (100) square feet in area, with a minimum dimension of eight (8) feet. In all
multiple-family residential zones, private balconies for dwelling units located entirely
above the ground floor shall be not less than seventy (70) square feet in area, with a
minimum dimension of seven (7) feet. Balcony rails shall be fifty percent (50%) finished
with a permanent building material that matches or is otherwise compatible with the
building.
.0202 Common Recreational-Leisure Areas. All common recreational-leisure
areas shall be conveniently located and readily accessible from all dwelling units located
on the building site and shall be integrated with, and contiguous to, other common areas
on the building site. The common recreational-leisure area may be composed of active or
passive facilities, and may incorporate any required setback areas other than street setback
areas and required landscape setbacks, but shall not include or incorporate any driveways
or parking areas, trash pickup or storage areas or utility areas. The common recreational-
leisure area shall have a minimum dimension of ten (10) feet.
.0203 Improvement of Common Recreational-Leisure Areas. All common
recreational-leisure areas shall be landscaped with lawn, trees, shrubs or other plants, as
set forth in Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening), with the exception of reasonably
required pedestrian walkways and paved recreational facilities, such as swimming pools
and decks and court game facilities. Fountains, ponds, waterscape, sculpture, planters,
benches and decorative screen-type walls installed incidentally to the primary plants in the
landscaping shall be permitted and encouraged. All required common recreational-leisure
areas and other required open space areas shall be developed and professionally maintained
in accordance with approved landscape and irrigation plans.
.030 Storage Areas. General storage cabinets with a minimum size of one hundred (100)
cubic feet capacity shall be required for each dwelling unit, and may be provided adjacent
to private recreational-leisure areas or located in close proximity to the unit.
SECTION 6. That Table 8-A (Primary Uses – Commercial Zones) of Section 18.08.030
(Uses) of Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows:
11
Table 8-A PRIMARY USES: COMMERCIAL ZONES P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required M=Minor Conditional Use Permit
Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required
C- NC C-R C-G
O-L O-H Special Provisions
Residential Classes of Uses
Alcoholism or Drug
Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities (Small)
N N N N N
Community Care Facilities–Licensed
(Small)
N N N N N
Community Care
Facilities–Unlicensed (Small)
N N N N N
Dwellings–Multiple Family N N C N N Dwellings–Multiple Family subject to 18.38.215
Dwellings–Single-Family Attached N N N N N
Dwellings–Single-Family Detached N N N N N
Mobile Home Parks N N C N N
Senior Citizens' Housing C C C N N Senior Citizens' Apartment projects subject to Chapter 18.50
Senior Living Facilities (Small) N N N N N
Sober Living Homes (Small) N N N N N
Supportive Housing N N C N N Supporting Housing subject to 18.38.215
Transitional Housing N N C N N Transitional Housing subject to 18.38.215
Non-Residential Classes of Uses
Agricultural Crops N N N N N
Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing N P/C P/C N N Subject to § 18.38.025. Buildings larger than 6,000 square feet are subject to a Conditional Use Permit.
12
Table 8-A PRIMARY USES: COMMERCIAL ZONES P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required M=Minor Conditional Use Permit
Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required
C- NC C-R C-G
O-L O-H Special Provisions
Alcoholic Beverage Sales–Off-Sale P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C Conditional use permit not required if use is in conjunction with Markets–Large. In O-L and O-H Zones, must be clearly accessory to and integrated with an office building
Alcoholic Beverage Sales–On-Sale M/C M/C M/C M/C M/C Permitted with minor conditional use permit if accessory to a primary restaurant use
Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities (Large)
C C C C C
Ambulance Services N C C N N
Animal Boarding P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C Permitted without a
conditional use permit when conducted entirely indoors subject to § 18.38.270
Animal Grooming P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C Permitted without a
conditional use permit when conducted entirely indoors subject to § 18.38.270
Antennas–Broadcasting P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C Permitted without a
conditional use permit if designed similar to stealth telecommunications facility as defined in § 18.38.060.030.0312
Antennas–Private Transmitting N N N N N
Antennas–Telecommunications- Stealth Building-
Mounted
T T T T T Subject to § 18.38.060 and § 18.62.020
Antennas–
Telecommunications-
T T T T T Subject to § 18.38.060
13
Table 8-A PRIMARY USES: COMMERCIAL ZONES P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required M=Minor Conditional Use Permit
Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required
C- NC C-R C-G
O-L O-H Special Provisions
Stealth Ground-Mounted
Antennas–
Telecommunications Ground-Mounted (Non-Stealth)
N N N N N
Automatic Teller Machines
(ATM’s)
P/M P/M P/M P/M P/M Permitted without a minor conditional use permit if
located inside and existing business or an exterior building wall.
Automotive–Vehicle Sales, Lease & Rental N N C N N
Automotive–Sales Agency Office (Retail) N N C C C Subject to § 18.38.065
Automotive–Sales Agency Office
(Wholesale)
P/M/C P/M/C P/M/C P/M/C P/M/C Subject to §§ 18.16.055 and 18.38.065. Minor
conditional use permit required for on-site storage, display or
parking of one or two vehicles being held as inventory. Conditional use
permit required for on-site storage, display or parking of three or more vehicles being held as inventory
Automotive–Impound Yards N N N N N
Automotive–Public Parking M M M M M
Automotive–Parts Sales P P P N N
Automotive–Repair & Modification: Major C C C N N
Automotive–Repair & Modification: Minor M M M N N
Automotive–Vehicle Storage M/C M/C M/C M/C M/C Permitted for up to one year by minor conditional
14
Table 8-A PRIMARY USES: COMMERCIAL ZONES P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required M=Minor Conditional Use Permit
Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required
C- NC C-R C-G
O-L O-H Special Provisions
use permit, with optional one year extensions to permit the use for up to five years; conditional use permit required to permit the use for over five years.
Automotive–Service Stations C C C C C Subject to § 18.38.070
Automotive–Washing N C C C C In O-L and O-H Zones, must be accessory to an Automotive–Service Station use
Banquet Halls C C C C C
Bars & Nightclubs C C C C C In O-L and O-H Zones, must be accessory to and
integrated with an office building
Bed & Breakfast Inns C C C C C Subject to § 18.38.080
Beekeeping N N N N N
Billboards N N N N N
Boarding House N N C N N
Building Material Sales N N N N N
Business & Financial Services P P P P P
Cemeteries N N N N N
Commercial Equestrian Establishments N N N N N
Commercial Retail Centers–Large P/C P/C P/C N N Subject to § 18.38.115; otherwise a Conditional Use Permit is required.
Commercial Retail Centers–Small P/C P/C P/C N N Subject to § 18.38.115; otherwise a Conditional Use Permit is required.
Community Care Facilities–Licensed (Large)
C C C C C
Community Care Facilities–Unlicensed (Large)
C C C C C Subject to § 18.38.123
15
Table 8-A PRIMARY USES: COMMERCIAL ZONES P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required M=Minor Conditional Use Permit
Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required
C- NC C-R C-G
O-L O-H Special Provisions
Community & Religious Assembly C C C C C Shall comply with subsection 18.40.040.040 (Uses Adjacent to Residential Zones or Residential Uses)
In O-H Zone, must be clearly accessory to and integrated with an office building
Computer Internet & Amusement Facilities N N N N N
Convalescent & Rest Homes C C C N N
Convenience Stores P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C Subject to § 18.38.110; otherwise a Conditional Use Permit is required. In O-L and O-H Zones, must be clearly accessory to and integrated with an office building.
Dance & Fitness Studios–Large N P P P P In O-H Zone, must be clearly accessory to and integrated with an office building
Dance & Fitness Studios–Small P P P P P In O-H Zone, must be clearly accessory to and integrated with an office building, otherwise requires a conditional use permit
Day Care Centers C C C P/C P/C Shall comply with subsection 18.40.040.040 (Uses Adjacent to Residential Zones or Residential Uses)
Permitted without Conditional Use Permit if lintegrated within a multi- tenant office building as
16
Table 8-A PRIMARY USES: COMMERCIAL ZONES P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required M=Minor Conditional Use Permit
Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required
C- NC C-R C-G
O-L O-H Special Provisions
an accessory use to serve office tenants
Drive-Through
Facilities
C C C C C Permitted without a
conditional use permit as an accessory use if in conjunction with Business and Financial Services as the primary use
Educational Institutions–Business P/M P/M P/M P/M P/M Institutions with ten students or less do not require a conditional use permit
Educational
Institutions–General
N C C C C Shall comply with
subsection 18.40.040.040 (Uses Adjacent to Residential Zones or Residential Uses)
Educational
Institutions–Tutoring
P P P P P Subject to §
18.36.040.050
Emergency Shelters (50
or fewer occupants)
N N N N N
Entertainment Venue C C C C C In O-L and O-H Zones,
must be clearly accessory to and integrated with an office building
Equipment Rental–Large P/C P/C P/C N N Permitted if equipment is completely screened from
view. Conditional Use Permit required if equipment cannot be
screened.
Equipment Rental–
Small
P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C In O-H and O-L Zones,
must be clearly accessory to and integrated with an office building.
Conditional Use Permit required if conducted outdoors.
Farmers Market M M M M M
17
Table 8-A PRIMARY USES: COMMERCIAL ZONES P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required M=Minor Conditional Use Permit
Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required
C- NC C-R C-G
O-L O-H Special Provisions
Golf Courses & Country Clubs N N N N N
Helipads & Heliports N N C N N
Hospitals N N C C C
Hotels N C C N C
Hotels, Full Kitchen Facilities N N C N C
Industry N N N N N
Industry–Heavy N N N N N
Junkyards N N N N N
Markets–Large P P P N N
Markets–Small P/C P/C P/C C C Subject to § 18.38.155, otherwise a Conditional Use Permit is required.
Medical & Dental Offices P P P P P
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries N N N N N
Mortuaries N N C N N
Motels N C C N N
Offices–Development P P P P P
Offices–General P P P P P
Oil Production N N N N N
Outdoor Storage Yards N N N N N
Personal Services–
General
P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C Laundromats are subject
to § 18.38.150; otherwise a Conditional Use Permit is required. In O-L and O-
H Zones, must be clearly accessory to and integrated with an office building. Massage subject to § 18.16.070.
Personal Services–Restricted C C C C C In O-L and O-H Zones, must be clearly accessory to and integrated with an office building
18
Table 8-A PRIMARY USES: COMMERCIAL ZONES P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required M=Minor Conditional Use Permit
Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required
C- NC C-R C-G
O-L O-H Special Provisions
Plant Nurseries N P/C P/C N N Subject to §§ 18.38.190, 18.38.200 and 18.38.205; otherwise a Conditional Use Permit is required.
Public Art and Murals P/M P/M P/M P/M P/M Minor conditional use permit required when visible to the public right- of-way.
Public Services C C P C C
Recreation–Billiards P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C In O-L and O-H Zones,
must be clearly accessory to and integrated with an office building. Facilities
with alcohol consumption require a Conditional Use Permit. Subject to § 18.38.085, otherwise a Conditional Use Permit is required.
Recreation–Commercial Indoor C C C C C In O-L and O-H Zones, must be clearly accessory to and integrated with an office building
Recreation–Commercial Outdoor C C C C C
Recreation–Low-Impact P P P P P In O-L and O-H Zones, must be clearly accessory to and integrated with an
office building
Recreation–Swimming
& Tennis
P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C Permitted without
Conditional Use Permit when conducted completely indoors
Recuperative Care/Medical Respite N N N N N
Recycling Facilities–General N N N N N
Recycling Facilities–Processing N N N N N
19
Table 8-A PRIMARY USES: COMMERCIAL ZONES P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required M=Minor Conditional Use Permit
Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required
C- NC C-R C-G
O-L O-H Special Provisions
Repair Services–General P N P N N
Repair Services–
Limited
P P P C C In O-L and O-H Zones,
must be clearly accessory to and integrated with an office building
Research & Development N P P P P
Restaurants–Full Service P P P C C
Restaurants–General P P P C C
Restaurants–Outdoor Dining P P P P P Subject to § 18.38.220
Retail Sales–General P P P P P
Retail Sales–Kiosks M M M M M
Retail Sales–Outdoor C C C N N Subject to § 18.38.190 and § 18.38.200
Retail Sales–Used Merchandise P P P N N
Self-Storage N N C N N Subject to City Council Policy No. 7.2
Senior Living Facilities (Large) C C C C C
Sober Living Homes (Large) C C C C C Subject to § 18.38.123
Smoking Lounge P/C P/C P/C N N Subject to § 18.16.080;
otherwise a Conditional Use Permit is required.
Sex-Oriented Businesses N N P N N Subject to Chapter 18.54
Smoking Lounge P/C P/C P/C N N Subject to § 18.16.080; otherwise a Conditional Use Permit is required.
Studios–Broadcasting P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C Permitted without a Conditional Use Permit if
there is no live audience.
Studios–Recording N N P C C In O-L and O-H Zones,
must be clearly accessory
20
Table 8-A PRIMARY USES: COMMERCIAL ZONES P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required M=Minor Conditional Use Permit
Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required
C- NC C-R C-G
O-L O-H Special Provisions
to and integrated with an office building
Towing Services N N N N N
Transit Facilities C C C C C
Truck Repair & Sales N N N N N
Utilities–Major C C C N C
Utilities–Minor P P P P P
Veterinary Services P/C P/C P/C N N Subject to § 18.38.270;
otherwise a Conditional Use Permit is required.
Warehousing & Storage–Enclosed N N N N N
Wholesaling N C C N N Shall be accessory to a Retail Sales use
Wine Bars C C C C C
SECTION 7. That Subsection .080 (Conversion of Residential Structures) of (Section
18.08.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows: .080 Conversion of Residential Structures. In addition to the provisions of Table 8-A,
the conversion or continued use of a residential structure within the "C-G" or "O-L" zone
to a commercial use requires a conditional use permit. and compliance with Section 18.38.120 (Commercial Use of a Residential Structure) of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations).
SECTION 8. That Section 18.36.040 (“D” Use Classes) of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses)
of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows: 18.36.040 “D” USE CLASSES
Dance & Fitness Studios–Large. This use class consists of the use of a space four thousand (4,000) or more square feet in gross floor area for dance classes, exercise programs, health club, and general fitness training. Dance & Fitness Studios–Small. This use class consists of the use of a space less
than four thousand (4,000) square feet in gross floor area for dance classes, exercise
programs, health club, and general fitness training.
21
Day Care Centers. This use class consists of day care centers, as defined in Section 1596.76 of the California Health and Safety Code, where day care is provided for more
than fourteen (14) children less than eighteen (18) years of age for periods of fewer than twenty-four (24) hours per day. This use class also includes and day care facilities for adults, as defined in Chapter 18.92 (Definitions). Drive-Through Facilities. This use class consists of establishments that are designed or operated to serve a patron who is seated in an automobile or similar vehicle.
This use class is intended to be applied in conjunction with another use class that defines the service or goods being provided.
SECTION 9. That Table 38-A (Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards) of Section 18.38.015 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Accessory Dwelling Units – Junior) of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be,
and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows:
Table 38-A: Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit Accessory Dwelling Unit 800 square feet Accessory Dwelling Unit > 800 square feet
Minimum Unit Size 150 square feet. 150 square feet. 150 square feet.
Maximum Unit Size 500 square feet.1
1 Up to 150 square feet may be added to an existing main dwelling unit to accommodate ingress or egress, but the overall unit size shall not exceed 500 square feet.
800 square feet. Attached
50% of main
dwelling unit2
or
1,200 square feet (whichever is less).
2Studio and one-bedroom units permitted up to 850 square feet. Two bedroom units permitted up to 1,000 square feet.
1,200 square feet.
Detached
1,200 square feet.
Lot Coverage The standards of the underlying
zone shall apply.
Not Applicable. The standards of the
underlying zone shall apply.
Structural Setbacks The standards of the underlying zone shall apply.
Front: Underlying zone3 Attached Detached
22
Side: 4 feet
Rear: 4 feet
3A detached Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be located no closer to the front property line than the
front-most building wall of the main dwelling unit; except for Accessory Dwelling Units resulting from the conversion of an existing garage, carport, or covered parking structure.
An attached Accessory Dwelling Unit located above an existing nonconforming structure within the required front setback shall not be
subject to the front setback standards of the underlying zone when located in the same location and to the same dimension as the existing structure.
Front:
Underlying Zone
Side: 4 Feet
Rear: 4 Feet
Front: Underlying
Zone4
Side: 4 feet
Rear: 4 feet
4A detached
Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be located no closer to the front property line than the front-
most building wall of the main dwelling unit; except for
Accessory Dwelling Units
resulting from the conversion of an existing garage, carport, or
covered parking structure.
Structural Height The standards of the underlying zone shall apply.
Attached
The standards of the underlying zone shall apply.
Detached
The maximum height is 16 feet or the height of the main dwelling unit, whichever is greater.
Attached
The standards of the underlying zone shall apply.
Detached
The maximum height is 16 feet or the height of the main dwelling unit, whichever is greater.
Building Separation Not Applicable. A detached Accessory Dwelling Unit shall have a minimum
separation of 10 feet between the main dwelling unit and the detached Accessory Dwelling Unit.
A detached Accessory Dwelling Unit shall have a minimum
separation of 10 feet between the main dwelling unit and the detached Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Access Must have independent entrance from the exterior into the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Must have independent entrance from the exterior into the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Must have independent entrance from the exterior into the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Minimum Kitchen
Requirements
Efficiency Kitchen. Efficiency Kitchen. Efficiency Kitchen.
23
Sanitation
Facility
May share
Sanitation Facility with main
dwelling unit.5
or
May have separate Sanitation Facility.
5When sharing Sanitation
Facilities with the main dwelling unit, interior access shall be
provided between the main dwelling
unit and the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Sanitation Facility. Sanitation Facility.
SECTION 10. That Subsection .070 (Design) of Section 18.38.015 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Accessory Dwelling Units – Junior) of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and
restated to read in full as follows:
.070 Design. An Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit shall conform to the following design standards: .0701 Exterior stairs and doors shall not be visible from any public right-of-way,
excluding alleys;
.0702 The design of an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be architecturally compatible with the main dwelling unit. .0702 The design, color, material and texture of the roof shall be substantially the same as the main dwelling unit;
.0703 The color, material and texture of all building walls shall be similar to, and compatible with, the main dwelling unit; .0704 The architectural style of the Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be the same or similar to the main dwelling unit, or, if no architectural style can be identified, the design of the Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit shall be architecturally compatible with the main dwelling unit, and shall maintain the scale and appearance of the main dwelling unit; .0705 If the Accessory Dwelling Unit is constructed above the main dwelling unit or garage, all windows and doors shall be designed to minimize the privacy impacts onto adjacent properties including, but are not limited to, window placement above eye level,
windows and doors located toward the existing on-site residence; .0706 Permitted driveways and walkways shall occupy no more than fifty percent (50%) of the required street setback area, in compliance with Section 18.46.100.050.0501;
24
.0707 When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure that is visible from any public right-of-way is converted or demolished in conjunction with the construction of
an Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit, the design shall incorporate features to match the scale, materials and landscaping of the original main dwelling unit that preserve the existing streetscape and character of the surrounding neighborhood; and .0708 Adequate access by emergency services to the main dwelling unit,
Accessory Dwelling Unit, and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be provided. .080 Parking. Parking for the Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.42.030 (Residential Parking Requirements).
SECTION 11. That Subsection .090 (Historic Buildings) of Section 18.38.015 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Accessory Dwelling Units – Junior) of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows:
.090 Historic Buildings. .0901 An Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit proposed for any lot that includes a building listed in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Places, or the City of Anaheim's local historic inventory shall conform to the requirements for the historic structure;
.0902 An Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit proposed for a property under a Mills Act Contract must comply with all Mills Act guidelines, including design conformance with the United States Secretary of the Interior Standards; .0903 An Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit proposed for any lot that includes a building listed in the National Register of Historic Places,
California Register of Historic Places, or the City of Anaheim's local historic inventory are encouraged to comply with the design guidelines outlined in the City of Anaheim Citywide Historic Preservation Plan and other historic preservation plans as may be approved by the City Council; and .0904 Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the City Council acts to establish
mandatory design standards for historically classified structures, the Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit shall conform to the mandatory standards. .0905 An Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit proposed for a property within a historic district shall be architecturally compatible with the main dwelling unit.
SECTION 12. That Section 18.38.095 (Carnivals and Circuses) of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, deleted in full as follows:
18.38.095 (Repealed by Ord. XX, Date) CARNIVALS AND CIRCUSES. .010 General. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to establish, set up, maintain, exhibit, conduct or carry on in the City of Anaheim any carnival, circus, fair, menagerie, wild animal show, trained animal show, rodeo, ferris wheel, merry-go-round, traveling show, or other similar or related type of public amusement place, unless
a special event permit to do so has been issued as hereinafter provided and is in full force
25
and effect. Where permitted in the underlying zone, all temporary carnivals and circuses are subject to the provisions of this section, Chapter 3.32 (Miscellaneous Business
Activities), including Section 3.32.030 (Circuses/Carnivals), of Title 3 (Business Licenses and Section 18.38.240 (Special Events) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. .015 Carnival Definition. A carnival is any event, promotion or sale sponsored by a business, shopping center or organization but operated by a third party vendor which is held outside the confines of a building, whether or not a business license is required, and
which may include (or be limited to) the outdoor display of merchandise, the display of temporary signs, flags, banners or fixed balloons, or rides, games, booths or similar amusement devices, whether or not a fee or admission is charged for such event. .020 Location Requirements. .0201 Distance. No amusement activity governed hereby shall be located in any
zone where such activity is specifically prohibited by the zoning regulations of the City of Anaheim. No part of any amusement activity, including rides, booths, exhibits, concession stands, equipment, or other facilities connected therewith, shall be located closer than three hundred (300) feet to any occupied dwelling. Carnivals, fairs, and other amusement activities operated by schools, churches and other local nonprofit,
educational, or charitable organizations, may be exempted from this requirement by the Chief of Police provided that the amusement activity will not, in the judgment of the Chief of Police, be a nuisance to residents within the three hundred foot radius of such activity. .0202 Streets. No amusement activity, or any equipment used in connection
therewith, shall be operated or be located upon a public street or alley, except that a parade operating under specific authority from the City, in accordance with all terms and conditions of any permit granted for the same, may operate on public streets and alleys according to the terms of such permit. .030 Maximum Number of Annual Permits. No more than two (2) permits for a
carnival or circus shall be issued for any project site during any calendar year; except that up to four (4) permits for a carnival or circus may be issued for commercially zoned properties which are a minimum of twelve (12) acres and that are not directly adjacent to residentially zoned properties or residential uses. Project sites include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
.0301 Vacant Site. Any vacant parcel or any group of adjoining vacant parcels. .0302 Any Business or Commercial Retail Center. For the purposes of this section the term, “Business or Commercial Retail Center” shall mean one (1) or more businesses that are either (i) located on a single parcel of property or (ii) located on a group of parcels which are developed as a single project with shared vehicle access,
driveways and/or parking. .0303 Any single parcel developed with a single land use or group of uses other than a business or commercial retail center. .0304 Any group of adjoining parcels developed with a group of land uses other than a business or commercial retail center, and which parcels are developed as a single
project with shared vehicle access, driveways and/or parking. .040 Prohibited Carnivals or Circuses. Under no circumstances shall a permit be issued for a carnival or circus on the same project site for which the maximum number of permits for special events, as defined in Section 18.92.220 (“S” Words, Terms and Phrases), has already been issued during the same calendar year. The limitation
contained in this section shall not apply to commercially zoned properties which are a
26
minimum of twelve (12) acres and that are not directly adjacent to residentially zoned properties or residential uses.
.050 Duration. No permit for a carnival or circus shall be issued for more than ten (10) consecutive days. .060 Required Site Plan. Prior to issuance of a permit for a carnival or circus, the applicant shall submit information on a plan, or plans, to the Planning Services Division for review and approval as required on the application, to verify that the carnival or circus
use of the site is not likely to have an adverse impact on surrounding land uses. The plan(s) shall accurately and clearly depict the site on which the carnival or circus is proposed. No permit shall be issued for a carnival or circus if the submitted plan(s) are not approved. .070 Parking. As part of the determination as to whether the proposed location of an
amusement activity is suitable or not, the Planning Director shall take into account the availability of off-street parking areas to accommodate the automobiles which can be reasonably be anticipated in connection with the amusement activity. The Planning Director will verify that any use of such parking areas does not reduce the number of parking spaces to less than the number of spaces reasonably required for the existing
businesses and uses. No permit shall be issued for a carnival or circus if the site does not have adequate parking. .080 Operational Standards. The carnival and circus shall continually adhere to the following operational standards for the duration of the event: .0801 Amplified Sound. All sound amplifying equipment used in conjunction
with any amusement activity regulated hereby shall comply with the following regulations: (a) The only sounds permitted are music and human speech. (b) The human speech and music amplified shall not be profane, lewd, indecent or slanderous.
(c) The volume of sound shall be controlled so that it will not be audible for a distance in excess of two hundred feet from its source, and so that said volume is not unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing or a nuisance to persons within the area of audibility. (d) No sound amplifying equipment shall be operated with an excess
of fifteen watts of power in the last stage of amplification. .0802 Building and Fire Codes. All amusement activities shall comply with the Building and Fire Codes and ordinances of the City of Anaheim. Upon request, permittees shall furnish proof to the City of Anaheim that all equipment, rides, tents and structures utilized in connection with any amusement activity have been inspected and
are in compliance with applicable State and City laws and regulations, and shall cooperate with the inspection thereof by local police, fire, building, health or other public officials and personnel. In the event any tent shall be used as a public assemblage, the following rules shall apply: (a) No flammable or explosive liquid or gas shall be stored or used in,
or within fifty feet of, such tent. (b) Smoking shall not be permitted within any such tent, and NO SMOKING signs shall be prominently displayed throughout such tent, and at each entrance thereof. (c) Such tent and bunting, flammable decorations and sawdust therein
or thereabout shall be entirely treated with a fire-retardant solution.
27
(d) All weeds and flammable vegetation in or within thirty feet of such tent shall be removed and prevented from regrowing.
(e) The grounds both inside and outside of tents shall be kept free and clear of combustible waste, which shall either be stored in closed metal containers or removed from the premises, unless allowed pursuant to a permit from the Fire Department. (f) Any condition that presents a fire hazard or would contribute to the
rapid spread of fire, or would delay or interfere with the extinguishment of a fire, shall be immediately abated, eliminated, or corrected as ordered by the Fire Department. .0803 Cleaning Area. Any person granted a permit to conduct or carry on an amusement activity regulated hereby shall be responsible for keeping the area or parcel of land used for the amusement activity including off-street parking areas, free and clear of
all rubbish, waste matter and debris during the time such amusement activity is carried on or conducted. .0804 Clean Up Required. In order to insure that all areas used for amusement activities are kept free and clear of all rubbish, waste matter and debris and are properly cleaned up and cleared of all such material at the termination of the amusement activity,
every applicant for a permit shall pay a fee in an amount determined by the Planning Director for an inspection of the property at the termination of the activity. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that the property is cleaned up after any event. .0805 Emergency Lighting. The area around and between tents, facilities and
equipment of any amusement activity shall be well lighted at all times during the operation of such amusement activity or any part thereof. An emergency lighting system approved by the Building Department to provide adequate lighting for orderly evacuation in event of disaster or emergency shall be provided by the permittee when required by the City Building Department. The operation of any amusement activity at any time such
requirements are not being fully met is prohibited. .0806 Fencing and Pedestrian Control. The Chief of Police may, in the interest of public safety, require fencing of all or a portion of the amusement activity site in order to control pedestrian movement to and from the said site. He may also designate the means of pedestrian ingress and egress for the said amusement activity.
.0807 Health and Sanitation. The amusement activity, and each portion thereof, shall conform to the health and sanitation requirements established by the County Health Officer, and by applicable State, County and City laws. .0808 Hours of Operation. No amusement activity regulated by this chapter shall operate between twelve midnight and 8:00 a.m. of the following morning. The Chief
of Police may further restrict the hours of operation of any amusement activity if such restriction in his judgment is necessary to protect surrounding residential areas. .0809 Liability Insurance. As a condition precedent to granting a permit hereunder, the applicant shall furnish to the Risk Manager a policy of insurance issued by a company licensed to do business in California evidencing comprehensive public
liability insurance with a minimum of one million dollars combined single limit per occurrence. The applicant shall furnish the Risk Manager an endorsement to said policy naming the City of Anaheim, its officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. The said endorsement shall be signed by an authorized representative of the insurance company and shall indicate that the insurance shall be effective during the period the
amusement activity is being conducted in the City of Anaheim.
28
.0810 Lighting. All lights and illumination of an amusement activity regulated hereby, including facilities, equipment and rides, shall be arranged so as to reflect the
light and glare away from any adjacent residential properties. .0811 Paving. All areas or parcels of land used for any amusement activity regulated hereby, including off-street parking areas, shall be either paved with a permanent paving material, such as portland cement concrete or asphaltic concrete, or be treated with some type of temporary ground cover, such as oil, wood chips or gravel, in order to inhibit
dust. In order to insure that adjoining areas are adequately protected from such dust, the City Building Department may prescribe the type of amusement activity, the type of area being used, its proximity to other areas, and the length of time for which the permit is issued.
SECTION 13. That Section 18.38.120 (Commercial Use of a Residential Structure) of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, deleted in full as follows:
18.38.120 (Repealed by Ord. XX, Date) COMMERCIAL USE OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
Commercial Use of Residential Structure. The conversion of a residential structure within the
"C-G" or "O-L" zone to a commercial use shall comply with the following provisions:
.010 Uses. Use of the structure shall be limited to the following:
.0101 Business service firms including architectural, engineering, drafting services,
market research and other similar firms;
.0102 Business agencies including advertising, travel, credit, finance, employment and
other similar agencies;
.0103 Business offices including accounting, bookkeeping, insurance, law or legal
services, real estate, public utilities, consultants and other similar offices;
.0104 Financial offices and institutions including banks, trust companies, savings and
loan associations, security and commodity exchanges and other similar companies;
.0105 Medical-dental offices;
.0106 Antique shops or art galleries;
.0107 Barber or beauty shops;
.0108 Bookstores;
.0109 Gift or hobby shops;
.0110 Restaurants, General or Outdoor Dining, with or without accessory bar and/or
on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, but not an “Entertainment Venue”;
.0111 Bed and Breakfast Inns; and
.0112 Community and Religious Assembly.
.020 Additional Code Requirements. All structures shall comply with the following additional
requirements:
.0201 All provisions of Title 15 (Building and Housing Code) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code; and
.0202 All provisions of Fire Zone No. 2, except as modified in whole or in part by the
Fire Chief.
.030 Parking. All parking shall be provided to the rear or non-street side of the main structure.
29
.040 Landscaping. The required front setback of the residential structure shall be maintained
and landscaped in accordance with the landscaping provisions of the underlying zone.
.050 Frontage. All parcels shall have frontage on an arterial highway as designated by the
Circulation Element of the General Plan.
SECTION 14. That Section 18.38.160 (Mechanical and Utility Equipment – Ground Mounted) of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows: 18.38.160 MECHANICAL AND UTILITY EQUIPMENT – GROUND MOUNTED
.010 Ground-mounted mechanical or utility equipment and other such similar equipment
shall be screened from view from all public rights-of-way, public property, and adjacent
non-industrially zoned properties, as may be seen from a point six (6) feet above ground level on the adjacent non-industrially zoned property. .020 The screening shall be provided by architectural building features, fencing or landscaping, where appropriate and as approved by the Planning Department.
.030 Electrical transformers, backflow prevention devices, and double check detector
assemblies The equipment shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from the property line, except in single-family zones, and shall be screened with live landscaping if located within a required structural setback area abutting any public or private street. The landscaping must fully screen the equipment within one year of planting and shall not be
located in a required structural setback area abutting any public or private street. and shall
be fully maintained at all times. .040 Site, elevation and landscape plans showing the screening for all new utility devices visible from all public rights-of-way, public property, and adjacent non-industrially zoned properties, as may be seen from a point six (6) feet above ground level on the adjacent non-
industrially zoned property, public right-of-way or public property, shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for review and approval. Additionally, plans for equipment over eighteen (18) inches in height shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, for line-of-sight visibility at unsignalized street intersections or at the intersection of vehicular and pedestrian pathways. No building permit will be
issued without conformance with this subsection.
.050 Exception. Setback Location and screening requirements for public utility
equipment and electric vehicle chargers may be modified by the Planning Director and
Public Utilities Director or his or her designee for life safety and/or access reasons, or as
otherwise established by guidelines adopted by the City.
SECTION 15. That Subsection .040 (Surface Conditions) of Section 18.38.200 (Outdoor
Storage) of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows: .040 Surface Conditions. The storage area shall be properly graded and a layer of gravel crushed angular rock at least one three-inches thick, or a layer of concrete or approved
asphaltic material or similar substance shall be placed over the entire surface, or as approved by City staff. Additional limitations may be imposed if vehicles, such as trucks or forklifts, are regularly used in this area.
30
SECTION 16. That Section 18.38.220 (Restaurants – Outdoor Seating and Dining) of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal
Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows: 18.38.220 RESTAURANTS – OUTDOOR SEATING AND DINING
Outdoor Dining and Outdoor sSeating and Outdoor dining shall be permitted as an accessory uses to a restaurants in all zones where restaurants are permitted or
conditionally permitted. .010 Outdoor Seating. Outdoor sSeating, as defined in Chapter 18.92 (Definitions), shall comply with all the following provisions and plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval showing compliance with this section:
.0101 Furnishings may include tables, chairs, decorative benches and umbrellas. .0102 Furnishings shall not exceed one (1) table and two (2) seats for every five (5) lineal feet of building or unit frontage, up to a cumulative maximum of five (5) seven (7) tables and ten (10) fifteen (15) seats.
.0103 Furnishings shall not be placed on or allowed to hang over any public right-of-way, required pedestrian accesswaywalkway, required setback or parking area. .0104 A minimum four (4) foot wide pedestrian walkway shall be
maintained to provide unobstructed pedestrian access on the sidewalk in compliance with
ADA requirements. .0105 All required emergency access/exits or fire lanes shall be provided and maintained as required by the Anaheim Fire Department. .0106 An oOutdoor sSeating area provided in compliance with the
provisions of this section shall not be included in the gross floor area of a restaurant to
determine its parking requirements. .0107 Portable or non-fixed furnishings shall not be set up outside the restaurant more than one-half (0.5) hour prior to the opening of business, and shall be removed no later than one-half (0.5) hour after closing. Permanent or fixed furnishings
may remain overnight.
.0108 No advertising or identification of any type shall be permitted on any outdoor furniture including umbrellas by illustration, text or any other means of communication. Furnishings shall not contain advertising or depict any product or product name, logo, trademark, or similar identification or advertising display. The
design, color and material of the furnishings shall be compatible with the building.
.0109 At least one (1) trash receptacle shall be provided. The design, color and material of the receptacle(s) shall be compatible with the building. .0110 The restaurant manager or business owner shall be responsible for the removal of all trash and debris, or spilled food or beverage items, and shall maintain
the outdoor seating area and its adjacent area in a clean, sanitary and trash-free manner.
.020 Outdoor Dining. Outdoor dDining, as defined in Chapter 18.92 (Definitions), shall comply with the following: .0201 The outdoor dining area shall be immediately adjacent to, and take primary access from, in full visibility, and under the control, of the restaurant. Where the
sale of alcohol is proposed in conjunction with the outdoor dining area, the outdoor
dining area shall be immediately adjacent to and take access to the restaurant.
31
.0202 The outdoor dining area shall not encroach into any public right-of-way or any required setback, yard, landscaping or parking area.
.0203 The outdoor dining area shall be used exclusively for the seating and consumption of meals and/or beverages by patrons of the restaurant. .0204 The outdoor dining area shall be enclosed by permanent improvements such as landscape planters, fencing, decks, patio or shade structures, and/or other decorative barriers, which physically define and/or separate the outdoor
dining area from other open or public areas entirely enclosed by landscape planters, fencing or other decorative barriers that physically separate the outdoor dining area from other open or public areas. .01 The enclosure fence shall be at least 36-inches high or as otherwise required by Alcohol Beverage and Control for the consumption of alcohol.
.02 Emergency exits shall be maintained (as required by the Uniform Fire Code) but shall not be utilized by patrons and/or employees other than in an emergency. .0205 The oOutdoor dining areas over 1,000 square feet shall be included in the gross floor area of a restaurant to determine parking requirements.
.0206 A conditional use permit shall be required for any outdoor entertainment provided in an outdoor dining area. .0207 The sale and/or consumption of any beer, wine or other alcoholic beverages in an outdoor dining area shall be permitted only if the main restaurant has a valid permit for on-site alcohol sales.
.0208 The activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of the outdoor dining area shall not cause a noise disturbance to surrounding properties or businesses. .0209 No advertising or identification of any type shall be permitted on any outdoor furniture including umbrellas by illustration, text or any other means of
communication. .0210 Any accessory outdoor cooking facilities shall be well maintained in a neat and orderly manner. Any facilities not used on a regular basis shall be stored indoors. .0211 The business is responsible for maintaining free of litter the area
adjacent to the outdoor dining area over which they have control. .0212 A minimum four (4) foot wide pedestrian walkway shall be maintained to provide unobstructed pedestrian access on the sidewalk in compliance with ADA requirements. .0213 Outdoor furniture and accessories shall be kept clean, neatly
maintained, with no ripped or faded material. Any un-maintained or damaged furniture or accessories shall be repaired or replaced immediately.
SECTION 17. That Section 18.38.225 (Special Events – Flags and Banners) of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be,
and the same is hereby, added to read in full as follows:
18.38.225 SPECIAL EVENTS – FLAGS AND BANNERS
No person, business, or organization shall conduct Special Events – Flags and Banners without having first applied for and obtained a special event permit pursuant to
this section.
32
.010 “Special Events–Flags and Banners”. The outdoor display of temporary signs, flags, banners or fixed balloons for the promotion of business activities that will be
conducted within a building. The following types of banners are also considered Special Events – Flags and Banners: .0101 Grand Opening Banners. . 0102 Seasonal Banners. . 0103 Service-Bay Banners.
. 0104 Public Construction Project Banners. . 0105 Special Event - Flags or Banners in Residential Zones. . 0106 Banners in conjunction with a Business Name Change. .020 Exceptions. The following are not subject to a special event permit: .0201 Traditional non-commercial holiday decorations; provided that the
decorations do not contain advertising and comply with all applicable City Fire Codes. .0202 The display of the flag of a nation, state, county or city or any official flag or banner of any bona fide religious or fraternal organization; provided, however, that no more than three such flags or banners shall be displayed at the same time at any single location within the City. The display of a business flag as defined in Section
18.44.030.085 may be permitted as one of the three flags subject to the provisions set forth in Section 18.44.065 (Business Flag) of Chapter 18.44 (Signs). .0203 Private occasional parties which are not open to the public. .030 Center Street Promenade. Special events on Center Street Promenade between Anaheim Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard shall be processed in accordance with
the application requirements listed in 18.38.240. .030 Special events on Center Street Promenade are not limited to the events or requirements listed in 18.38.225 and 18.38.230 and are subject to approval of the Planning and Building Director. .040 Location–Special Events–Flags and Banners may be allowed in any
commercial zone; in any industrial zone subject to compliance with the provisions of subsection 18.38.225.070; and, in any residential zone, in conjunction with the sale, rent, or lease of residential units, in compliance with the provisions of subsection 18.38.225.070. .050 Duration. Special events permits shall be permitted for the following time periods:
.0501 Unless otherwise expressly permitted by this Code, no special event permit shall be issued for a period in excess of nine (9) consecutive calendar days. .0502 No business or organization may be issued more than four (4) special event permits during any calendar year. .060 Multiple addresses for one business shall not be utilized in order to acquire
additional special event permits beyond the four (4) per year allowed.. Change of business ownership at an address shall not automatically entitle the new business owner to additional special event permits beyond the four (4) maximum amount per year allowed. .070 Regulations for Conduct of Special Events - Flags and Banners. .0701 Height. No fixed balloon shall exceed fifty (50) feet in height as
measured from finished grade. .0702 Balloons. Metallic balloons, feather or sail-type banners, household linens utilized as banners, and roof-mounted banners and roof-mounted balloons and inflatables are prohibited. .0703 Location. All flags and banners that are visible to the public shall
be subject to this section and shall at all times be maintained in good and attractive condition and removed prior to deterioration. Unless otherwise regulated by the following
33
subsections, banners shall not be displayed in a required setback area, in any landscape area or on any fence and must be attached to and parallel with the face of the building for
which the banner is intended and secured at all four corners of the banner. .0704 Size. The maximum area per banner shall be thirty-six (36) square feet. .0705 Number. The maximum number of banners permitted is one per street frontage.
.080 Grand Opening Banners. Grand opening banners for new businesses may be allowed, subject to a special event permit. These banners may be displayed for thirty (30) days in connection with a new structure or operation of a new business. Not more than one (1) banner is allowed per street frontage or one (1) per elevation, limited to a maximum of two (2) on the property. A grand opening banner permit does not count
toward the annual limit of special event permits regulated by subsection 18.38.225.60. .090 Promotional Banners. Promotional banners advertising sales and promotions may be allowed, subject to a special event permit. .100 Seasonal Banners. Seasonal pageantry banners with no advertising may be allowed, subject to a special event permit, provided they are mounted on light poles within
shopping centers that have a minimum of one thousand (1,000) parking spaces, or two hundred thousand (200,000) square feet of business space. The banners shall be mounted in a vertical alignment with an area no greater than six (6) square feet, with no more than one banner per pole, except that two (2) banners may be on one pole if their total area is not greater than (6) square feet. Seasonal banner displays shall be limited to fourteen (14)
days maximum at any one time, and no more than four (4) times per year. Banners may include decorative designs and or the name of the commercial center, but shall not include the name of any individual business or product. .110 Service-Bay Banners. Banners across service bays in auto repair facilities, service stations, and similar uses require a special event permit if visible to the public right-
of-way. The maximum area per banner shall be twenty-four (24) square feet. .120 Public Construction Project Banners. A banner may be allowed, subject to a special event permit, for a commercial retail business in any zone where the applicant for such permit can demonstrate that a public road or utility construction project has had the effect of blocking visibility to permanent signage identifying the business and/or vehicular
access to said business. Approval of the permit shall be subject to the following provisions: .1201 The permit shall be limited to one (1) banner, not to exceed thirty-six (36) square feet in area; .1202 The banner shall advertise only the name of the business and, if the public project has blocked vehicular access, directions for access to the business;
.1203 The banner shall be removed upon removal of barriers blocking visibility and/or vehicular access; and .1204 Only one (1) special event permit is required for the duration of the construction project. .130 Special Event–Flags or Banners in Residential Zones. Special Event–Flags
or Banners are permitted in all residential zones , subject to a special event permit, provided such display shall be limited to advertising the sale of residential units in subdivisions and the rent or lease of apartment units and all such displays are located subject property. The display shall be subject to the following provisions. .1301 Duration of Permits.
.01 Apartment buildings containing five or more units are eligible for Special Events–Flags and Banners for one three-day weekend, Friday through Sunday,
34
for a total of twelve (12) permits per calendar year, to promote the availability of rental units, subject to the approval of a special event permit. There shall be a minimum of three
(3) weeks between Special Events–Flags and Banners permits for apartments. .02 The initial sale of new homes or condominiums, or the initial rent or lease of new apartments are permitted to display flags and banners for up to two (2) years six (6) months from the date of permit issuance. A total of four (4) permits may be granted to advertise new for-sale residential tracts and new condominium complexes.; and
a New rental of apartment complexes are permitted to display flags and banners to advertise new complexes for a total of six (6) months to advertise new rental apartment complexes from the date of permit issuance or permit final. .1302 Display. The display shall be subject to the following provisions: .01 No more than ten (10) total flags shall be permitted or displayed
for any such project or development. No flag shall exceed twelve (12) square feet in area or six (6) feet in any one dimension. .02 One banner per building elevation facing a public or private street, or parking lot serving the development, shall be permitted for apartment or condominium projects. The maximum area for a banner is 0.5 square feet per lineal foot of
building frontage facing the street or seventy-five (75) square feet per building elevation, whichever is less. .03 All flags and banners shall be placed on ground-mounted poles not exceeding twenty (20) feet in height or, if attached to a building, shall not exceed the height of the highest portion of that building. Flags and banners shall not be placed on the
roof. .1303 Banner in conjunction with a Tent. A single banner may be placed on a tent authorized by a special event permit, provided such banner is not placed on top of the tent. .1304 Banners in conjunction with a Business Name Change. Banners
shall be allowed by special event permit for the covering of a permanent sign with a banner in the event of a business name or ownership change during the interim period when a new permanent sign has not been installed. Such banners shall be permitted for a period of no longer than sixty (60) days and shall not count towards the annual limit of special event permits regulated by subsection 18.38.225.60.
.140 Application for Permit. An application for a special event permit shall be filed on a form approved by the Planning Director. The application shall be filed with the Planning Department not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the opening date of any such event involving rides, games, booths, or similar amusement devices. An application for a permit involving only the display of any temporary signs, flags, banners, fixed balloons,
trailers, Christmas tree lot or pumpkin patch or outdoor sales promotion shall be filed with the Planning Department at any time prior to said display. .150 Issuance or Denial of Permit. If the Planning Department determines that all applicable provisions of the law and of the Anaheim Municipal Code, including the provisions of this section are, or will be, complied with, and that the granting of the permit
will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, then a permit shall be issued; otherwise, the application shall be denied. .160 Permit Fee. A fee may be charged per Chapter 18.80 (Fees); provided, however, that charitable, nonprofit organizations recognized as such by the State of California shall be exempt from payment of the fee except for carnivals, circuses,
Christmas tree lots or pumpkin patches.
35
.170 Revocation of Permit. The Planning Director shall have the authority to revoke a special event permit if he or she finds and determines such action is in the public
interest, safety or general welfare. A decision of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Repeat violators of Special Event Permit requirements may be denied the issuance of future special event permits and may be subject to payment of community preservation inspection costs. .180 Special Circumstances Waiver. The Planning Director shall have the
authority to issue a special circumstances waiver to modify or waive any regulation contained in this section with regard to any specific application if the Planning Director finds and determines such modification or waiver would serve the public interest, safety or general welfare or that extraordinary circumstances are present. .1801 Fees. Petitions for a special circumstances waiver shall be
accompanied by the payment of a fee as set forth in Chapter 18.80 (Fees). .1802 Time Period. The Planning Director shall render a decision on the petition for a special circumstances waiver within fourteen (14) days following receipt by the Planning Department of a complete application for review. .1803 Notification. Upon rendering a decision with respect to a petition
for a special circumstances waiver, the Planning Director shall notify the applicant and the City Clerk of such decision. .1804 Decision. The decision of the Planning Director shall be final unless appealed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures). .190 Penalty for Violations. Any violation of any provision of this chapter shall
be an infraction punishable in accordance with applicable provisions of the California Penal Code. Failure of any permittee to conform to all applicable provisions of this chapter shall constitute sufficient grounds for denial of a subsequent permit under this chapter.
SECTION 18. That Section 18.38.230 (Special Events – Outdoor Activity) of Chapter
18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, added to read in full as follows:
18.38.230 SPECIAL EVENTS – OUTDOOR ACTIVITY
No person, business, or organization shall conduct Special Events – Outdoor
Activity without having first applied for and obtained a special event permit pursuant to
this section.
.010 “Special Events–Outdoor Activity”. Any event, promotion or sale sponsored by a business, shopping center or organization, or as a fundraiser for a school or other charitable non-profit organization, which is held outside the confines of a building but on the same property, whether or not a business license is required, and which may include (or be limited to) the outdoor display of merchandise, the display of
temporary signs, flags, banners or fixed balloons, or rides, games, booths or similar amusement devices, whether or not a fee or admission is charged for such event. .020 Exceptions. The following are not subject to a special event permit: .0201 Traditional non-commercial holiday decorations; provided that the
decorations do not contain advertising and comply with all applicable City Fire Codes.
.0202 The display of the flag of a nation, state, county or city or any official flag or banner of any bona fide religious or fraternal organization; provided, however, that no more than three such flags or banners shall be displayed at the same time at any single location within the City. The display of a business flag as defined in
36
Section 18.44.030.085 may be permitted as one of the three flags subject to the provisions set forth in Section 18.44.065 (Business Flag) of Chapter 18.44 (Signs).
.0203 Private occasional parties which are not open to the public. .030 Location - Special Events – Outdoor Activity. Special Events – Outdoor Activity may be allowed, subject to a special event permit, in the following locations: .0301 Any property where the use is one for which a conditional use permit has been issued authorizing a use which is permitted or conditionally permitted in
any commercial zone; .0302 Any public or private elementary, junior high or senior high school; .0303 Any location that has a conditional use permit for community and religious assembly.
.0304 For auto dealerships adjacent to a freeway that is over five (5) acres in size, the following special events may be permitted in locations approved by the Planning Services Division outside of landscaped setbacks, visitor parking areas and vehicular line of sight triangles: .01 One weekend outdoor event each month.
.02 One canopy/tent to be erected for a period of one month, four times per year. .03 One ground-mounted inflatable to be displayed for a period of one month, four times per year. .04 Non-metallic balloons on displayed vehicles for sale.
.05 “Snow cone” banners with sign copy, or other merchandising material on light standards within vehicle display areas and light standards along the perimeter landscaping of each site. .06 One banner with a maximum size of 120 square feet on each building elevation.
.0305 Center Street Promenade. Special events on Center Street Promenade between Anaheim Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard shall be processed in accordance with the application requirements listed in 18.38.240. .0305 Special events on Center Street Promenade are not limited to the events or requirements listed in 18.38.225 or 18.38.230 and are subject to approval of the
Planning and Building Director. .040 Duration. Special Events – Outdoor Activity permits shall be permitted for the following time periods: .0401 Unless otherwise expressly permitted by this Code, no Special Events – Outdoor Activity shall be issued for a period in excess of nine (9) consecutive
calendar days. .0401 No business or organization shall be issued more than four (4) special event permits during any calendar year. .0402 Multiple addresses for one business shall not be utilized in order to acquire additional special event permits beyond the four (4) per year allowed.
.0403 Change of business ownership at an address shall not automatically entitle the new business owner to additional special event permits beyond the four (4) per year allowed. .050 Regulations for Conduct of a Special Event. .0501 Special Events – Outdoor Activity.
.01 Permitted Sales. The sale and display of products shall be directly related to the business located on the same property and said products shall
37
constitute a minimum of twenty five percent (25%) of the total gross receipts of the business.
.02 Parking lots. If use of a parking area is intended, a site plan showing parking and fire lanes shall be submitted to determine that any use of the parking area serving the principal land use is not reduced below the parking reasonably required for such principal land use. Activities located in a parking area shall not obstruct any Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) required paths of travel, including
market walkways, and/or parking stalls. The site plan shall indicate the area proposed for the special event, including any area for installation or storage of all equipment. Special events are not permitted in or on parking structures. .03 Height. No structure or amusement device or any fixed balloon shall exceed fifty (50) feet in height as measured from finished grade.
.04 Structures. Prior to erection of any structures, including tents and structures for amusement devices and rides, approval must be obtained from various City departments and divisions including, but not limited to, the Building Division, the Fire Department, and the Electrical Engineering Division (if the use of electricity is proposed). All applicable regulations shall be complied with. Rides,
amusement devices or concessions shall not be put into operation until approved by the Fire Department and the Electrical Engineering Division. .05 Temporary Living Quarters. Temporary living quarters or other temporary structures to provide security for the special event, such as trailers, vans, or motorhomes may be permitted on the premises solely at the discretion of the Planning
Director, and shall be subject to inspection and approval of the Fire Department, Building Division and the Electrical Engineering Division to assure compliance with requirements of all related codes. .06 Hours of Operation. The conduct of any special event (other than the display of temporary signs, flags, banners and fixed balloons) shall be
confined to the hours when the business establishment or shopping center is normally open for business, and in no event shall the special event be operated before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. Outdoor activities that may adversely affect adjacent or nearby uses will not be permitted. .07 Music. Live or amplified music shall comply with
Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 6.70 (Sound Pressure Levels) and shall not cause disturbance to surrounding uses. .08 Signs. Outdoor events are permitted to display one sign advertising the outdoor event. Said sign shall be removed at the conclusion of the special event.
.060 Application for Permit. An application for a special event permit shall be filed on a form approved by the Planning Director. The application shall be filed with the Planning Department not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the opening date of any such event involving rides, games, booths, or similar amusement devices. An application for a permit involving only the display of any temporary signs, flags, banners, fixed
balloons, trailers, Christmas tree lot or pumpkin patch or outdoor sales promotion shall be filed with the Planning Department at any time prior to said display. .070 Issuance or Denial of Permit. If the Planning Department determines that all applicable provisions of the law and of the Anaheim Municipal Code, including the provisions of this section are, or will be, complied with, and that the granting of the
permit will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, then a permit shall be issued; otherwise, the application shall be denied.
38
.080 Permit Fee. A fee may be charged per Chapter 18.80 (Fees); provided, however, that charitable, nonprofit organizations recognized as such by the State of
California shall be exempt from payment of the fee except for carnivals, circuses, Christmas tree lots or pumpkin patches. .090 Revocation of Permit. The Planning Director shall have the authority to revoke a special event permit if he or she finds and determines such action is in the public interest, safety or general welfare. A decision of the Planning Director may be appealed
to the Planning Commission. Repeat violators of Special Event Permit requirements may be denied the issuance of future special event permits and may be subject to payment of community preservation inspection costs. .100 Special Circumstances Waiver. The Planning Director shall have the authority to issue a special circumstances waiver to modify or waive any regulation
contained in this section with regard to any specific application if the Planning Director finds and determines such modification or waiver would serve the public interest, safety or general welfare or that extraordinary circumstances are present. .1001 Fees. Petitions for a special circumstances waiver shall be accompanied by the payment of a fee as set forth in Chapter 18.80 (Fees).
.1002 Time Period. The Planning Director shall render a decision on the petition for a special circumstances waiver within fourteen (14) days following receipt by the Planning Department of a complete application for review. .1003 Notification. Upon rendering a decision with respect to a petition for a special circumstances waiver, the Planning Director shall notify the applicant and
the City Clerk of such decision. .1004 Decision. The decision of the Planning Director shall be final unless appealed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures). .110 Penalty for Violations. Any violation of any provision of this chapter shall be an infraction punishable in accordance with applicable provisions of the
California Penal Code. Failure of any permittee to conform to all applicable provisions of this chapter shall constitute sufficient grounds for denial of a subsequent permit under this chapter.
SECTION 19. That Section 18.38.235 (Special Events – Christmas Tree Lots and Pumpkin
Patches) of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, added to read in full as follows: 18.38.235 SPECIAL EVENTS – CHRISTMAS TREE LOT AND PUMPKIN PATCHES
No person, business, or organization shall conduct Special Events – Christmas Tree Lot and Pumpkin Patches without having first applied for and obtained a special event permit pursuant to this section. .010 Exceptions. The following are not subject to a special event permit: .0101 Traditional non-commercial holiday decorations; provided that the
decorations do not contain advertising and comply with all applicable City Fire Codes. .0102 The display of the flag of a nation, state, county or city or any official flag or banner of any bona fide religious or fraternal organization; provided, however, that no more than three such flags or banners shall be displayed at the same time at any single location within the City. The display of a business flag as defined in
Section 18.44.030.085 may be permitted as one of the three flags subject to the provisions set forth in Section 18.44.065 (Business Flag) of Chapter 18.44 (Signs).
39
.0103 Private occasional parties which are not open to the public. .020 Location - Christmas tree lots and pumpkin patches may be allowed in any
commercial zone, “T” (Transition) Zone or “I” (Industrial Zone). .030 Duration - Christmas Tree Lots and Pumpkin Patches. The sale or disposition of Christmas trees or Halloween pumpkins shall expire on the 7th day of January of the year immediately following the Christmas or Halloween for which the permit was approved and issued. For lots that are solely used for pumpkin sales, the
permit shall expire ten (10) business days after Halloween. .040 Signs. One event sign may be permitted in conjunction with the Christmas tree lot or pumpkin patch and remain on the property for the duration of the special event. .050 Equipment. There shall be maintained in each premises within which
Christmas trees or Halloween pumpkins are sold or offered for sale a fire extinguisher in good order and condition and of a water type approved by the Chief of the Fire Department. .060 Operator. A person of at least eighteen years of age shall be on duty at all times during the sale or disposition of Christmas trees or Halloween pumpkins and all
sales shall be made from the premises. .070 Site. The premises shall not be established until adequate parking has been provided for the use of the customers of such premises. Such parking provisions shall not result in the creation of dust conditions. .080 Security. If guards or watchmen are provided for the purpose of watching
Christmas trees or Halloween pumpkins on any premises, such guards or watchmen shall be at least eighteen years of age. .090 Sanitation. Temporary sanitary facilities may be provided by the permittee for the use of guards, watchmen and other persons connected with the sale or disposition of such Christmas trees or Halloween pumpkins, remaining on the premises.
Such sanitary facilities shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works. .100 Temporary Structures. Provisions may be made by the permittee for the placement of temporary structures, house trailers or tents on the premises for the use of the permittee or his agents. No such temporary structure, house trailer or tent shall be
permitted on the premises unless the same shall have been expressly approved by the Building Division. .110 Inspections. For Christmas tree lots and pumpkin patches, after the approval of said permit and upon the establishment of such premises, the Fire Department shall inspect said premises to insure said premises are in all respects in conformity with
the provisions of Title 16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. If the inspection reveals that said premises do not conform to the aforementioned provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, such premises shall not be operated for the purpose of the temporary sale or disposition of Christmas trees or Halloween pumpkins until such time as said premises do conform to such provisions.
.120 Clean Up Required. In order to insure that all areas used for Christmas tree lots and pumpkin patches are kept free and clear of all rubbish, waste matter and debris and are properly cleaned up and cleared of all such material at the termination of the amusement activity, every applicant for a permit shall pay a fee in an amount determined by resolution of the City Council for an inspection of the property at the
termination of the activity. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that the property is cleaned up after any event.
40
.130 Application for Permit. An application for a special event permit shall be filed on a form approved by the Planning Director. The application shall be filed with the
Planning Department not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the opening date of any such event involving rides, games, booths, or similar amusement devices. An application for a permit involving only the display of any temporary signs, flags, banners, fixed balloons, trailers, Christmas tree lot or pumpkin patch or outdoor sales promotion shall be filed with the Planning Department at any time prior to said display.
.140 Issuance or Denial of Permit. If the Planning Department determines that all applicable provisions of the law and of the Anaheim Municipal Code, including the provisions of this section are, or will be, complied with, and that the granting of the permit will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, then a permit shall be issued; otherwise, the application shall be denied.
.150 Permit Fee. A fee may be charged per Chapter 18.80 (Fees); provided, however, that charitable, nonprofit organizations recognized as such by the State of California shall be exempt from payment of the fee except for carnivals, circuses, Christmas tree lots or pumpkin patches. .160 Revocation of Permit. The Planning Director shall have the authority to
revoke a special event permit if he or she finds and determines such action is in the public interest, safety or general welfare. A decision of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Repeat violators of Special Event Permit requirements may be denied the issuance of future special event permits and may be subject to payment of community preservation inspection costs.
.170 Special Circumstances Waiver. The Planning Director shall have the authority to issue a special circumstances waiver to modify or waive any regulation contained in this section with regard to any specific application if the Planning Director finds and determines such modification or waiver would serve the public interest, safety or general welfare or that extraordinary circumstances are present.
.1701 Fees. Petitions for a special circumstances waiver shall be accompanied by the payment of a fee as set forth in Chapter 18.80 (Fees). .1702 Time Period. The Planning Director shall render a decision on the petition for a special circumstances waiver within fourteen (14) days following receipt by the Planning Department of a complete application for review.
.1703 Notification. Upon rendering a decision with respect to a petition for a special circumstances waiver, the Planning Director shall notify the applicant and the City Clerk of such decision. .1704 Decision. The decision of the Planning Director shall be final unless appealed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures).
.180 Penalty for Violations. Any violation of any provision of this chapter shall be an infraction punishable in accordance with applicable provisions of the California Penal Code. Failure of any permittee to conform to all applicable provisions of this chapter shall constitute sufficient grounds for denial of a subsequent permit under this chapter.
SECTION 20. That Section 18.38.240 (Special Events) of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, deleted in full as follows:
18.38.240 (Repealed by Ord. XX, Date) SPECIAL EVENTS
41
No person, business, or organization shall conduct Special Events – Outdoor Activity or
Special Events – Flags and Banners without having first applied for and obtained a
special event permit pursuant to this section.
.010 “Special Events–Outdoor Activity”. Any event, promotion or sale sponsored by a business, shopping center or organization, or as a fundraiser for a school or other charitable non-profit organization, which is held outside the confines of a building but on the same property, whether or not a business license is required, and which may include (or be limited to) the outdoor display of merchandise, the display of temporary signs,
flags, banners or fixed balloons, or rides, games, booths or similar amusement devices, whether or not a fee or admission is charged for such event. The display of temporary signs, flags, banners or fixed balloons may be permitted as accessory to the outdoor activity. The following types of events are also considered a “Special Event–Outdoor Activity”:
.0101 Christmas tree lot or pumpkin patch. .0102 Carnivals and Circuses. All temporary carnivals and circuses are subject to the provisions of Chapter 3.32 (Miscellaneous Business Activities), including Section 3.32.030 (Circuses/Carnivals), of Title 3 (Business Licenses) and Section 18.38.095 (Carnivals and Circuses) of Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
.020 “Special Events–Flags and Banners”. The outdoor display of temporary signs,
flags, banners or fixed balloons for the promotion of business activities that will be conducted within a building. The following types of banners are also considered Special Events – Flags and Banners: .0201 Grand Opening Banners.
.0202 Seasonal Banners.
.0203 Service-Bay Banners. .0204 Public Construction Project Banners. .0205 Special Event - Flags or Banners in Residential Zones. .0206 Banners in conjunction with a Business Name Change.
.030 Exceptions. The following are not subject to a special event permit:
.0301 Traditional non-commercial holiday decorations; provided that the decorations do not contain advertising and comply with all applicable City Fire Codes. .0302 The display of the flag of a nation, state, county or city or any official flag or banner of any bona fide religious or fraternal organization; provided, however, that no
more than three such flags or banners shall be displayed at the same time at any single
location within the City. The display of a business flag as defined in Section 18.44.030.085 may be permitted as one of the three flags subject to the provisions set forth in Section 18.44.065 (Business Flag) of Chapter 18.44 (Signs). .0303 Private occasional parties which are not open to the public.
.040 Location - Special Events – Outdoor Activity. Special Events – Outdoor Activity may be allowed, subject to a special event permit, in the following locations: .0401 Any property where the use is one for which a conditional use permit has been issued authorizing a use which is permitted or conditionally permitted in any commercial zone;
.0402 Any public or private elementary, junior high or senior high school; .0403 Any location that has a conditional use permit for community and religious assembly. .0404 For Christmas tree lots and pumpkin patches, any commercial zone, “T”
(Transition) Zone or “I” (Industrial Zone).
42
.0405 For Carnivals and Circuses, locations identified in Section 18.38.095 (Carnivals and Circuses) of this Chapter.
.0406 For auto dealerships adjacent to a freeway that is over five (5) acres in size, the following special events may be permitted in locations approved by the Planning Services Division outside of landscaped setbacks, visitor parking areas and vehicular line of sight triangles: .01 One weekend outdoor event each month.
.02 One canopy/tent to be erected for a period of one month, four times per year. .03 One ground-mounted inflatable to be displayed for a period of one month, four times per year. .04 Non-metallic balloons on displayed vehicles for sale.
.05 “Snow cone” banners with sign copy, or other merchandising material on light standards within vehicle display areas and light standards along the perimeter landscaping of each site. .06 One banner with a maximum size of 120 square feet on each building elevation.
.0407 Center Street Promenade. Special events on Center Street Promenade between Anaheim Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard shall be processed in accordance with the application requirements listed in 18.38.240. .01 Special events on Center Street Promenade are not limited to the events or requirements listed in 18.38.240 and are subject to approval of the Planning and
Building Director. .050 Location–Special Events–Flags and Banners. Special Events–Flags and Banners may be allowed in any commercial zone; in any industrial zone subject to compliance with the provisions of subsection 18.38.240.070.0702; and, in any residential zone, in conjunction with the sale, rent, or lease of residential units, in compliance with the
provisions of subsection 18.38.240.070.0702.11. .060 Duration. Special events permits shall be permitted for the following time periods: .0601 Special Event–Outdoor Activity and Special Events–Flags and Banners. Unless otherwise expressly permitted by this Code, no special event permit shall be
issued for a period in excess of nine (9) consecutive calendar days. No business or organization shall be issued more than four (4) special event permits during any calendar year. Multiple addresses for one business shall not be utilized in order to acquire additional special event permits beyond the four (4) per year allowed. Change of business ownership at an address shall not automatically entitle the new business owner
to additional special event permits beyond the four (4) per year allowed. .0602 Christmas Tree Lots and Pumpkin Patches. The sale or disposition of Christmas trees or Halloween pumpkins shall expire on the 7th day of January of the year immediately following the Christmas or Halloween for which the permit was approved and issued. For lots that are solely used for pumpkin sales, the permit shall expire ten
(10) business days after Halloween. .0603 Carnivals and Circuses shall be permitted for a period of time as identified in Section 18.38.095. .070 Regulations for Conduct of a Special Event. .0701 Special Events – Outdoor Activity.
43
.01 Permitted Sales. The sale and display of products shall be directly related to the business located on the same property and said products shall constitute a
minimum of twenty five percent (25%) of the total gross receipts of the business. .02 Parking lots. If use of a parking area is intended, a site plan showing parking and fire lanes shall be submitted to determine that any use of the parking area serving the principal land use is not reduced below the parking reasonably required for such principal land use. Activities located in a parking area shall not
obstruct any Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) required paths of travel, including market walkways, and/or parking stalls. The site plan shall indicate the area proposed for the special event, including any area for installation or storage of all equipment. Special events are not permitted in or on parking structures. .03 Height. No structure or amusement device or any fixed balloon
shall exceed fifty (50) feet in height as measured from finished grade. .04 Structures. Prior to erection of any structures, including tents and structures for amusement devices and rides, approval must be obtained from various City departments and divisions including, but not limited to, the Building Division, the Fire Department, and the Electrical Engineering Division (if the use of electricity is
proposed). All applicable regulations shall be complied with. Rides, amusement devices or concessions shall not be put into operation until approved by the Fire Department and the Electrical Engineering Division. .05 Temporary Living Quarters. Temporary living quarters or other temporary structures to provide security for the special event, such as trailers, vans, or
motorhomes may be permitted on the premises solely at the discretion of the Planning Director, and shall be subject to inspection and approval of the Fire Department, Building Division and the Electrical Engineering Division to assure compliance with requirements of all related codes. .06 Hours of Operation. The conduct of any special event (other than
the display of temporary signs, flags, banners and fixed balloons) shall be confined to the hours when the business establishment or shopping center is normally open for business, and in no event shall the special event be operated before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. Outdoor activities that may adversely affect adjacent or nearby uses will not be permitted. .07 Music. Live or amplified music shall comply with Anaheim
Municipal Code Chapter 6.70 (Sound Pressure Levels) and shall not cause disturbance to surrounding uses. .08 Signs. Outdoor events are permitted to display one sign advertising the outdoor event. Said sign shall be removed at the conclusion of the special event.
.0702 Special Events–Flags and Banners. .01 Height. No fixed balloon shall exceed fifty (50) feet in height as measured from finished grade. .02 Balloons. Metallic balloons, feather or sail-type banners, household linens utilized as banners, and roof-mounted banners and roof-mounted
balloons and inflatables are prohibited. .03 Location. All flags and banners that are visible to the public shall be subject to this section and shall at all times be maintained in good and attractive condition and removed prior to deterioration. Unless otherwise regulated by the following subsections, banners shall not be displayed in a required setback area, in any
landscape area or on any fence and must be attached to and parallel with the face of the building for which the banner is intended and secured at all four corners of the banner.
44
.04 Size. The maximum area per banner shall be thirty-six (36) square feet.
.05 Number. The maximum number of banners permitted is one per street frontage. .06 Grand Opening Banners. Grand opening banners for new businesses may be allowed, subject to a special event permit. These banners may be displayed for thirty (30) days in connection with a new structure or operation of a new
business. Not more than one (1) banner is allowed per street frontage or one (1) per elevation, limited to a maximum of two (2) on the property. A grand opening banner permit does not count toward the annual limit of special event permits regulated by subsection 18.38.240.030. .07 Promotional Banners. Promotional banners advertising sales and
promotions may be allowed, subject to a special event permit. .08 Seasonal Banners. Seasonal pageantry banners with no advertising may be allowed, subject to a special event permit, provided they are mounted on light poles within shopping centers that have a minimum of one thousand (1,000) parking spaces, or two hundred thousand (200,000) square feet of business space. The banners
shall be mounted in a vertical alignment with an area no greater than six (6) square feet, with no more than one banner per pole, except that two (2) banners may be on one pole if their total area is not greater than (6) square feet. Seasonal banner displays shall be limited to fourteen (14) days maximum at any one time, and no more than four (4) times per year. Banners may include decorative designs and or the name of the commercial
center, but shall not include the name of any individual business or product. .09 Service-Bay Banners. Banners across service bays in auto repair facilities, service stations, and similar uses require a special event permit if visible to the public right-of-way. The maximum area per banner shall be twenty-four (24) square feet. .10 Public Construction Project Banners. A banner may be allowed,
subject to a special event permit, for a commercial retail business in any zone where the applicant for such permit can demonstrate that a public road or utility construction project has had the effect of blocking visibility to permanent signage identifying the business and/or vehicular access to said business. Approval of the permit shall be subject to the following provisions:
(a) The permit shall be limited to one (1) banner, not to exceed thirty-six (36) square feet in area; (b) The banner shall advertise only the name of the business and, if the public project has blocked vehicular access, directions for access to the business;
(c) The banner shall be removed upon removal of barriers blocking visibility and/or vehicular access; and (d) Only one (1) special event permit is required for the duration of the construction project. .11 Special Event–Flags or Banners in Residential Zones. Special
Event–Flags or Banners are permitted in all residential zones , subject to a special event permit, provided such display shall be limited to advertising the sale of residential units in subdivisions and the rent or lease of apartment units and all such displays are located subject property. The display shall be subject to the following provisions. (a) Duration of Permits.
(1) Apartment buildings containing five or more units are eligible for Special Events–Flags and Banners for one three-day weekend, Friday
45
through Sunday, for a total of twelve (12) permits per calendar year, to promote the availability of rental units, subject to the approval of a special event permit. There shall
be a minimum of three (3) weeks between Special Events–Flags and Banners permits for apartments. (2) The initial sale of new homes or condominiums, or the initial rent or lease of new apartments are permitted to display flags and banners for up to six (6) months from the date of issuance,. A total of four (4) permits may be granted
to advertise new for-sale residential tracts and new condominium complexes; and a total of one (1) permit may be granted to advertise new rental apartment complexes. (b) Display. The display shall be subject to the following provisions. (1) No more than ten (10) total flags shall be permitted
or displayed for any such project or development. No flag shall exceed twelve (12) square feet in area or six (6) feet in any one dimension. (2) One banner per building elevation facing a public or private street, or parking lot serving the development, shall be permitted for apartment or condominium projects. The maximum area for a banner is 0.5 square feet per lineal foot
of building frontage facing the street or seventy-five (75) square feet per building elevation, whichever is less. (3) All flags and banners shall be placed on ground-mounted poles not exceeding twenty (20) feet in height or, if attached to a building, shall not exceed the height of the highest portion of that building. Flags and banners shall not
be placed on the roof. .12 Banner in conjunction with a Tent. A single banner may be placed on a tent authorized by a special event permit, provided such banner is not placed on top of the tent. .13 Banners in conjunction with a Business Name Change. Banners
shall be allowed by special event permit for the covering of a permanent sign with a banner in the event of a business name or ownership change during the interim period when a new permanent sign has not been installed. Such banners shall be permitted for a period of no longer than sixty (60) days and shall not count towards the annual limit of special event permits regulated by subsection 18.38.240.060.
.0703 Christmas tree lots and pumpkin patches. .01 Signs. One event sign may be permitted in conjunction with the Christmas tree lot or pumpkin patch and remain on the property for the duration of the special event. .02 Equipment. There shall be maintained in each premises within
which Christmas trees or Halloween pumpkins are sold or offered for sale a fire extinguisher in good order and condition and of a water type approved by the Chief of the Fire Department. .03 Operator. A person of at least eighteen years of age shall be on duty at all times during the sale or disposition of Christmas trees or Halloween pumpkins
and all sales shall be made from the premises. .04 Site. The premises shall not be established until adequate parking has been provided for the use of the customers of such premises. Such parking provisions shall not result in the creation of dust conditions. .05 Security. If guards or watchmen are provided for the purpose of
watching Christmas trees or Halloween pumpkins on any premises, such guards or watchmen shall be at least eighteen years of age.
46
.06 Sanitation. Temporary sanitary facilities may be provided by the permittee for the use of guards, watchmen and other persons connected with the sale or
disposition of such Christmas trees or Halloween pumpkins, remaining on the premises. Such sanitary facilities shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works. .07 Temporary Structures. Provisions may be made by the permittee for the placement of temporary structures, house trailers or tents on the premises for the
use of the permittee or his agents. No such temporary structure, house trailer or tent shall be permitted on the premises unless the same shall have been expressly approved by the Building Division. .08 Inspections. For Christmas tree lots and pumpkin patches, after the approval of said permit and upon the establishment of such premises, the Fire Department
shall inspect said premises to insure said premises are in all respects in conformity with the provisions of Title 16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. If the inspection reveals that said premises do not conform to the aforementioned provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, such premises shall not be operated for the purpose of the temporary sale or disposition of Christmas trees or Halloween pumpkins until such time as said
premises do conform to such provisions. .09 Clean Up Required. In order to insure that all areas used for Christmas tree lots and pumpkin patches are kept free and clear of all rubbish, waste matter and debris and are properly cleaned up and cleared of all such material at the termination of the amusement activity, every applicant for a permit shall pay a fee in an
amount determined by resolution of the City Council for an inspection of the property at the termination of the activity. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that the property is cleaned up after any event. .080 Application for Permit. An application for a special event permit shall be filed on a form approved by the Planning Director. The application shall be filed with the
Planning Department not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the opening date of any such event involving rides, games, booths, or similar amusement devices. An application for a permit involving only the display of any temporary signs, flags, banners, fixed balloons, trailers, Christmas tree lot or pumpkin patch or outdoor sales promotion shall be filed with the Planning Department at any time prior to said display.
.090 Issuance or Denial of Permit. If the Planning Department determines that all applicable provisions of the law and of the Anaheim Municipal Code, including the provisions of this section are, or will be, complied with, and that the granting of the permit will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, then a permit shall be issued; otherwise, the application shall be denied.
.100 Permit Fee. A fee may be charged per Chapter 18.80 (Fees); provided, however, that charitable, nonprofit organizations recognized as such by the State of California shall be exempt from payment of the fee except for carnivals, circuses, Christmas tree lots or pumpkin patches. .110 Revocation of Permit. The Planning Director shall have the authority to revoke a
special event permit if he or she finds and determines such action is in the public interest, safety or general welfare. A decision of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Repeat violators of Section 18.38.240 may be denied the issuance of future special event permits and may be subject to payment of community preservation inspection costs.
.120 Special Circumstances Waiver. The Planning Director shall have the authority to issue a special circumstances waiver to modify or waive any regulation contained in this
47
section with regard to any specific application if the Planning Director finds and determines such modification or waiver would serve the public interest, safety or general
welfare or that extraordinary circumstances are present. .1201 Fees. Petitions for a special circumstances waiver shall be accompanied by the payment of a fee as set forth in Chapter 18.80 (Fees). .1202 Time Period. The Planning Director shall render a decision on the petition for a special circumstances waiver within fourteen (14) days following receipt by the
Planning Department of a complete application for review. .1203 Notification. Upon rendering a decision with respect to a petition for a special circumstances waiver, the Planning Director shall notify the applicant and the City Clerk of such decision. .1204 Decision. The decision of the Planning Director shall be final unless
appealed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures). .130 Penalty for Violations. Any violation of any provision of this chapter shall be an infraction punishable in accordance with applicable provisions of the California Penal Code. Failure of any permittee to conform to all applicable provisions of this chapter shall constitute sufficient grounds for denial of a subsequent permit under this chapter.
SECTION 21. That Section 18.38.240 (Special Events – Carnivals and Circuses) of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, added to read in full as follows:
18.38.240 SPECIAL EVENTS – CARNIVAL AND CIRCUSES .010 General. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to establish, set up, maintain, exhibit, conduct or carry on in the City of Anaheim any carnival, circus, fair, menagerie, wild animal show, trained animal show, rodeo, ferris
wheel, merry-go-round, traveling show, or other similar or related type of public amusement place, unless a special event permit to do so has been issued as hereinafter provided and is in full force and effect. Where permitted in the underlying zone, all temporary carnivals and circuses are subject to the provisions of this section, Chapter 3.32 (Miscellaneous Business Activities), including Section 3.32.030
(Circuses/Carnivals), of Title 3 (Business Licenses) and Section 18.38.240 (Special
Events) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. .015 Carnival Definition. A carnival is any event, promotion or sale sponsored by a business, shopping center or organization but operated by a third party vendor which is held outside the confines of a building, whether or not a business license is required,
and which may include (or be limited to) the outdoor display of merchandise, the display of temporary signs, flags, banners or fixed balloons, or rides, games, booths or similar amusement devices, whether or not a fee or admission is charged for such event. .020 Location Requirements. .0201 Distance. No amusement activity governed hereby shall be located
in any zone where such activity is specifically prohibited by the zoning regulations of the City of Anaheim. No part of any amusement activity, including rides, booths, exhibits, concession stands, equipment, or other facilities connected therewith, shall be located closer than three hundred (300) feet to any occupied dwelling. Carnivals, fairs, and other amusement activities operated by schools, churches and other local nonprofit,
educational, or charitable organizations, may be exempted from this requirement by the Chief of Police provided that the amusement activity will not, in the judgment of the
48
Chief of Police, be a nuisance to residents within the three hundred foot radius of such activity.
.0202 Streets. No amusement activity, or any equipment used in connection therewith, shall be operated or be located upon a public street or alley, except that a parade operating under specific authority from the City, in accordance with all terms and conditions of any permit granted for the same, may operate on public streets and alleys according to the terms of such permit.
.030 Maximum Number of Annual Permits. No more than two (2) permits for a carnival or circus shall be issued for any project site during any calendar year; except that up to four (4) permits for a carnival or circus may be issued for commercially zoned properties which are a minimum of twelve (12) acres and that are not directly adjacent to residentially zoned properties or residential uses. Project sites include, but are not
necessarily limited to, the following: .0301 Vacant Site. Any vacant parcel or any group of adjoining vacant parcels. .0302 Any Business or Commercial Retail Center. For the purposes of this section the term, “Business or Commercial Retail Center” shall mean one (1) or more
businesses that are either (i) located on a single parcel of property or (ii) located on a group of parcels which are developed as a single project with shared vehicle access, driveways and/or parking. .0303 Any single parcel developed with a single land use or group of uses other than a business or commercial retail center.
.0304 Any group of adjoining parcels developed with a group of land uses other than a business or commercial retail center, and which parcels are developed as a single project with shared vehicle access, driveways and/or parking. .040 Prohibited Carnivals or Circuses. Under no circumstances shall a permit be issued for a carnival or circus on the same project site for which the maximum number
of permits for special events, as defined in Section 18.92.220 (“S” Words, Terms and Phrases), has already been issued during the same calendar year. The limitation contained in this section shall not apply to commercially zoned properties which are a minimum of twelve (12) acres and that are not directly adjacent to residentially zoned properties or residential uses.
.050 Duration. No permit for a carnival or circus shall be issued for more than ten (10) consecutive days. .060 Required Site Plan. Prior to issuance of a permit for a carnival or circus, the applicant shall submit information on a plan, or plans, to the Planning Services Division for review and approval as required on the application, to verify that the carnival
or circus use of the site is not likely to have an adverse impact on surrounding land uses. The plan(s) shall accurately and clearly depict the site on which the carnival or circus is proposed. No permit shall be issued for a carnival or circus if the submitted plan(s) are not approved. .070 Parking. As part of the determination as to whether the proposed location
of an amusement activity is suitable or not, the Planning Director shall take into account the availability of off-street parking areas to accommodate the automobiles which can be reasonably be anticipated in connection with the amusement activity. The Planning Director will verify that any use of such parking areas does not reduce the number of parking spaces to less than the number of spaces reasonably required for the existing
businesses and uses. No permit shall be issued for a carnival or circus if the site does not have adequate parking.
49
.080 Operational Standards. The carnival and circus shall continually adhere to the following operational standards for the duration of the event:
.0801 Amplified Sound. All sound amplifying equipment used in conjunction with any amusement activity regulated hereby shall comply with the following regulations: (a) The only sounds permitted are music and human speech. (b) The human speech and music amplified shall not be
profane, lewd, indecent or slanderous. (c) The volume of sound shall be controlled so that it will not be audible for a distance in excess of two hundred feet from its source, and so that said volume is not unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing or a nuisance to persons within the area of audibility.
(d) No sound amplifying equipment shall be operated with an excess of fifteen watts of power in the last stage of amplification. .0802 Building and Fire Codes. All amusement activities shall comply with the Building and Fire Codes and ordinances of the City of Anaheim. Upon request, permittees shall furnish proof to the City of Anaheim that all equipment, rides, tents and
structures utilized in connection with any amusement activity have been inspected and are in compliance with applicable State and City laws and regulations, and shall cooperate with the inspection thereof by local police, fire, building, health or other public officials and personnel. In the event any tent shall be used as a public assemblage, the following rules shall apply:
(a) No flammable or explosive liquid or gas shall be stored or used in, or within fifty feet of, such tent. (b) Smoking shall not be permitted within any such tent, and NO SMOKING signs shall be prominently displayed throughout such tent, and at each entrance thereof.
(c) Such tent and bunting, flammable decorations and sawdust therein or thereabout shall be entirely treated with a fire-retardant solution. (d) All weeds and flammable vegetation in or within thirty feet of such tent shall be removed and prevented from regrowing. (e) The grounds both inside and outside of tents shall be kept
free and clear of combustible waste, which shall either be stored in closed metal containers or removed from the premises, unless allowed pursuant to a permit from the Fire Department. (f) Any condition that presents a fire hazard or would contribute to the rapid spread of fire, or would delay or interfere with the extinguishment
of a fire, shall be immediately abated, eliminated, or corrected as ordered by the Fire Department. .0803 Cleaning Area. Any person granted a permit to conduct or carry on an amusement activity regulated hereby shall be responsible for keeping the area or parcel of land used for the amusement activity including off-street parking areas, free and
clear of all rubbish, waste matter and debris during the time such amusement activity is carried on or conducted. .0804 Clean Up Required. In order to insure that all areas used for amusement activities are kept free and clear of all rubbish, waste matter and debris and are properly cleaned up and cleared of all such material at the termination of the
amusement activity, every applicant for a permit shall pay a fee in an amount determined by the Planning Director for an inspection of the property at the termination of the
50
activity. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that the property is cleaned up after any event.
.0805 Emergency Lighting. The area around and between tents, facilities and equipment of any amusement activity shall be well lighted at all times during the operation of such amusement activity or any part thereof. An emergency lighting system approved by the Building Department to provide adequate lighting for orderly evacuation in event of disaster or emergency shall be provided by the permittee when required by the
City Building Department. The operation of any amusement activity at any time such requirements are not being fully met is prohibited. .0806 Fencing and Pedestrian Control. The Chief of Police may, in the interest of public safety, require fencing of all or a portion of the amusement activity site in order to control pedestrian movement to and from the said site. He may also designate
the means of pedestrian ingress and egress for the said amusement activity. .0807 Health and Sanitation. The amusement activity, and each portion thereof, shall conform to the health and sanitation requirements established by the County Health Officer, and by applicable State, County and City laws. .0808 Hours of Operation. No amusement activity regulated by this
chapter shall operate between twelve midnight and 8:00 a.m. of the following morning. The Chief of Police may further restrict the hours of operation of any amusement activity if such restriction in his judgment is necessary to protect surrounding residential areas. .0809 Liability Insurance. As a condition precedent to granting a permit hereunder, the applicant shall furnish to the Risk Manager Planning Services Division a
policy of insurance issued by a company licensed to do business in California evidencing comprehensive public liability insurance with a minimum of one million dollars combined single limit per occurrence. The applicant shall furnish the Risk Manager Planning Services Division an endorsement to said policy naming the City of Anaheim, its officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. The said endorsement shall be
signed by an authorized representative of the insurance company and shall indicate that the insurance shall be effective during the period the amusement activity is being conducted in the City of Anaheim. .0810 Lighting. All lights and illumination of an amusement activity regulated hereby, including facilities, equipment and rides, shall be arranged so as to
reflect the light and glare away from any adjacent residential properties. .0811 Paving. All areas or parcels of land used for any amusement activity regulated hereby, including off-street parking areas, shall be either paved with a permanent paving material, such as portland cement concrete or asphaltic concrete, or be treated with some type of temporary ground cover, such as oil, wood chips or gravel, in
order to inhibit dust. In order to insure that adjoining areas are adequately protected from such dust, the City Building Department may prescribe the type of amusement activity, the type of area being used, its proximity to other areas, and the length of time for which the permit is issued. .080 Application for Permit. An application for a special event permit shall be
filed on a form approved by the Planning Director. The application shall be filed with the Planning Department not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the opening date of any such event involving rides, games, booths, or similar amusement devices. An application for a permit involving only the display of any temporary signs, flags, banners, fixed balloons, trailers, Christmas tree lot or pumpkin patch or outdoor sales promotion shall be
filed with the Planning Department at any time prior to said display.
51
.090 Issuance or Denial of Permit. If the Planning Department determines that all applicable provisions of the law and of the Anaheim Municipal Code, including the
provisions of this section are, or will be, complied with, and that the granting of the permit will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, then a permit shall be issued; otherwise, the application shall be denied. .100 Permit Fee. A fee may be charged per Chapter 18.80 (Fees); provided, however, that charitable, nonprofit organizations recognized as such by the State of
California shall be exempt from payment of the fee except for carnivals, circuses, Christmas tree lots or pumpkin patches. .110 Revocation of Permit. The Planning Director shall have the authority to revoke a special event permit if he or she finds and determines such action is in the public interest, safety or general welfare. A decision of the Planning Director may be appealed
to the Planning Commission. Repeat violators of Section 18.38.240 Special Event Permit requirements may be denied the issuance of future special event permits and may be subject to payment of community preservation inspection costs. .120 Special Circumstances Waiver. The Planning Director shall have the authority to issue a special circumstances waiver to modify or waive any regulation
contained in this section with regard to any specific application if the Planning Director finds and determines such modification or waiver would serve the public interest, safety or general welfare or that extraordinary circumstances are present. .1201 Fees. Petitions for a special circumstances waiver shall be accompanied by the payment of a fee as set forth in Chapter 18.80 (Fees).
.1202 Time Period. The Planning Director shall render a decision on the petition for a special circumstances waiver within fourteen (14) days following receipt by the Planning Department of a complete application for review. .1203 Notification. Upon rendering a decision with respect to a petition for a special circumstances waiver, the Planning Director shall notify the applicant and
the City Clerk of such decision. .1204 Decision. The decision of the Planning Director shall be final unless appealed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures). .130 Penalty for Violations. Any violation of any provision of this chapter shall be an infraction punishable in accordance with applicable provisions of the
California Penal Code. Failure of any permittee to conform to all applicable provisions of this chapter shall constitute sufficient grounds for denial of a subsequent permit under this chapter.
SECTION 22. That Section 18.38.245 (Special Event Regulations within the Platinum
Triangle) of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows: 18.38.245 SPECIAL EVENT REGULATIONS WITHIN THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE.
In addition to the provisions contained in Sections 18.20.150, 18.38.225 and 18.38.230 18.38.240, the following shall also apply to the area described as The Platinum Triangle as described in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .010 Temporary display of banners shall be limited to the following: .0101 One banner shall be allowed to be displayed on the premises,
provided that the banner is used in association with an on-site special event; the message
on the banner will be limited to the name, logo of the business and/or the event.
52
.020 Prohibited advertising and display. .0201 Outdoor displays and/or sales of merchandise or promotional
materials in a location that is visible from a public right-of-way and/or adjacent property; .0202 Inflatable advertising displays; .0203 Outdoor advertising of merchandise, products and/or services; .0204 Roof-mounted displays of flags, banners, balloons, inflatable devices, or similar displays;
.0205 Display of pennants or pennant-type banners in a location that is visible from a public right-of-way and/or adjacent properties; .0206 Flags, banners or balloons displayed in a landscape area or on a fence; and .0207 Balloons, worn, frayed or faded flags.
.030 Carnivals & Circuses. In addition to the requirements contained in Section 18.38.240 18.38.095 (Carnivals and Circuses) a conditional use permit shall be required for Carnivals & Circuses. .040 Stadium District and Arena District. Special Events in these districts shall be processed in accordance with the application requirements listed in 18.38.240 (Special
Events). .030 Special Event Permits in Stadium District Sub-Area A in the Arena District are not limited to the events or requirements listed in 18.38.240 18.38.225 and 18.38.230 and are subject to approval of the Planning and Building Director. .0301 Special Event Permits in Stadium District Sub-Area A in the Arena
District are not limited to the events or requirements listed in 18.38.240 and are subject to approval of the Planning and Building Director. .040 Application for Permit. An application for a special event permit shall be filed on a form approved by the Planning Director. The application shall be filed with the Planning Department not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the opening date of any
such event involving rides, games, booths, or similar amusement devices. An application for a permit involving only the display of any temporary signs, flags, banners, fixed balloons, trailers, Christmas tree lot or pumpkin patch or outdoor sales promotion shall be filed with the Planning Department at any time prior to said display. .050 Issuance or Denial of Permit. If the Planning Department determines that
all applicable provisions of the law and of the Anaheim Municipal Code, including the provisions of this section are, or will be, complied with, and that the granting of the permit will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, then a permit shall be issued; otherwise, the application shall be denied. .060 Permit Fee. A fee may be charged per Chapter 18.80 (Fees); provided,
however, that charitable, nonprofit organizations recognized as such by the State of California shall be exempt from payment of the fee except for carnivals, circuses, Christmas tree lots or pumpkin patches. .070 Revocation of Permit. The Planning Director shall have the authority to revoke a special event permit if he or she finds and determines such action is in the public
interest, safety or general welfare. A decision of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Repeat violators of Special Event Permit requirements may be denied the issuance of future special event permits and may be subject to payment of community preservation inspection costs. .080 Special Circumstances Waiver. The Planning Director shall have the
authority to issue a special circumstances waiver to modify or waive any regulation contained in this section with regard to any specific application if the Planning Director
53
finds and determines such modification or waiver would serve the public interest, safety or general welfare or that extraordinary circumstances are present.
.0801 Fees. Petitions for a special circumstances waiver shall be accompanied by the payment of a fee as set forth in Chapter 18.80 (Fees). . 0802 Time Period. The Planning Director shall render a decision on the petition for a special circumstances waiver within fourteen (14) days following receipt by the Planning Department of a complete application for review.
. 0803 Notification. Upon rendering a decision with respect to a petition for a special circumstances waiver, the Planning Director shall notify the applicant and the City Clerk of such decision. . 0804 Decision. The decision of the Planning Director shall be final unless appealed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures).
.090 Penalty for Violations. Any violation of any provision of this chapter shall be an infraction punishable in accordance with applicable provisions of the California Penal Code. Failure of any permittee to conform to all applicable provisions of this chapter shall constitute sufficient grounds for denial of a subsequent permit under this chapter.
SECTION 23. That Section 18.40.040 (Structural Setbacks and Yards) of Chapter 18.40 (General Development Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows:
18.40.040 STRUCTURAL SETBACKS AND YARDS. .010 General. Except as hereinafter provided, every front, side or rear yard created by a required setback shall be open and unobstructed from the ground to the sky; no setback or open space provided around any building for the purpose of complying
with the provisions of this title shall be considered as providing a setback or open space for any other building; and no setback or open space on any adjoining property shall be considered as providing a setback or open space for a lot whereon a building is to be erected. All yards and setbacks shall be landscaped as provided by this title. .020 Measurements. Required street and front setbacks are intended to provide
an adequate landscaped buffer between buildings and the adjacent public or private streets or easements that provide vehicle access to the underlying lot. .0201 Street Setbacks for Non-Residential and Multiple-Family Residential Lots. The minimum setbacks for all non-residential and multiple-family lots and parcels adjoining one or more public or private streets or vehicle easements shall be
measured from the closest building to the closest of the following: .01 The ultimate right-of-way of any adjacent public street or arterial highway; .02 The edge of any adjacent private street; and .03 The edge of any recorded private vehicle access easement.
.0202 Setbacks for Single-Family Residential Lots and Parcels. All structures shall maintain a minimum setback measured from the property line, or the following, whichever is closer: .01 The ultimate right-of-way of the adjacent public street or arterial highway; or
.02 The closest edge of any adjacent private street; or
54
.03 The closest edge of any recorded private vehicle access easement.
.0203 Setbacks for Attached Accessory Buildings. If an accessory building is attached to the main building and is structurally part of and has a common wall or roof with the main building, it shall comply in all respects with the requirements of the underlying zone applicable to the main building, including side and rear setbacks, unless otherwise specified by the underlying zone.
.030 Setbacks Adjacent to Freeway Right-of-Way. Any building wall containing any window, door or other opening therein, shall be located not less than ten (10) feet from any freeway right-of-way line, or such greater distance as may be required pursuant to any other provision of this Code. .040 Institutional Uses Adjacent to Residential Zones or Residential Uses. All
buildings used for educational purposes, for institutional purposes classified as Community Assembly in Day Care Centers, Educational Institutions-General, or Community & Religious Assembly as identified by Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses), or for similar purposes, shall have a landscaped setback of fifteen (15) feet from every boundary line of a property in any residential zone or a property developed with any
residential use. Associated designated play areas shall also comply with this fifteen (15)-foot setback requirement. Parking areas shall comply with the structural setback requirements of the underlying zone. .050 Setbacks on Through Lots. Both the front and back of a structure on a through lot shall be subject to the front setback requirements of the underlying zone;
provided, however, one of the yards may be considered a rear yard if no access is provided from the street and the adjacent lots have no access from the same street, or access rights to that street have been dedicated. .060 Setbacks on Lots Adjacent to Another Jurisdiction. If a lot abuts another city or county boundary, the setback from the boundary line shall be determined based
upon the land use and zone of the abutting city or county. .070 Measurement of Rear Setback Depth Adjacent to an Alley. Where a rear yard abuts an alley, one-half (1/2) of the width of the alley may be considered as applying to the depth of the rear setback, if the required setback is no less than twenty-five (25) feet.
SECTION 24. That Subsection .040 (Dwellings–Single-Family Detached) of Section 18.42.030 (Non-Residential Parking Requirements) of Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows:
.040 Dwellings–Single-Family Detached. The minimum required number of off-street, on-site parking spaces for Single-Family Detached Dwellings shall be based on the total number of bedrooms as follows:
Total Number of Bedrooms Minimum Number of Parking Spaces
5 or fewer bedrooms 4 (2 in a garage)
6 or more bedrooms 4 (2 in a garage), plus 1 additional space per bedroom over 6 5 bedrooms
55
SECTION 25. That Table 42-A (Non-Residential Parking Requirements) of Section 18.42.040 (Non-Residential Parking Requirements) of Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading) of
Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows:
Table 42-A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Use Class Required Spaces
Agricultural Crops 5 spaces per 10 acres.
Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, which may include a maximum of 10% office space, plus, if the percentage of office space exceeds 10% of the GFA, 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of
GFA for the floor area in excess of 10%
Tasting or Tap Room and outside patios: 17 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Alcoholic Beverage Sales–
Off-Sale
0 spaces (spaces are required for underlying uses only).
Alcoholic Beverage Sales–On-Sale 0 spaces (spaces are required for underlying uses only).
Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facility (Large)
0.8 space per bed
Ambulance Services 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, plus parking for ambulances/emergency vehicles.
Animal Boarding 1 space per employee, plus 1 space per 10 pets.
Animal Grooming 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Antennas–Broadcasting 2 spaces.
Antennas–Private Transmitting None.
Antennas–
Telecommunications
1 space.
Automatic Teller Machines (ATM’s) (Exterior, walk-up facilities not located on
properties developed with
other retail or office uses.)
2 spaces per machine. Note: No parking spaces are required when located on the exterior building wall of an existing business use, when located
within the interior of any other type of business establishment, or
when free- standing machines are located on properties developed with other retail or office uses. In addition, no parking spaces are required for drive-up facilities.
Automotive–Vehicle Sales,
Lease & Rental
General: 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for interior
showroom, plus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office use, plus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building GFA used for parts, sales, storage and repair use. Wholesale (excluding auctions): 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet
of space used for parking vehicles to be sold.
Auctions: Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0108.
56
Table 42-A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Use Class Required Spaces
Automotive–Sales Agency
Office
4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Automotive-Impound Yards Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0108.
Automotive–Public Parking None.
Automotive–Parts Sales 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Automotive–Repair & Modification 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, or 5 spaces, whichever is greater.
Automotive–Service Stations Stand-Alone: 2 spaces.
In Conjunction with Accessory Retail/Convenience Store: 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA of the convenience store. Up to 50 percent of the pump islands may be counted as parking stalls.
In Conjunction with Other Uses: None.
Automotive–Washing Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0108.
Banquet Halls One space for each 3 patrons plus one space per employee.
Bars & Nightclubs 29 spaces per 1,000 square feet of dance floor area and 17 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Bed & Breakfast Inns 1 space for each bedroom, plus 1 space for each nonresident employee, plus 1 space for visitors (for purposes of this use class, “Bedroom” means any room designed, intended or primarily used for sleeping purposes).
Beekeeping None.
Billboards None.
Boarding House 1 space for each bedroom, plus 1 space for each nonresident
employee, plus 1 space for visitors (for purposes of this provision, “Bedroom” means any room designed, intended or primarily used for sleeping purposes).
Business & Financial Services 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Cemeteries Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0108.
Community Care Facilities–Licensed (Large) 0.8 space per bed
Community Care Facilities–
Unlicensed (Large)
0.8 space per bed
Commercial Retail Centers-Large All uses other than restaurants within retail centers unless specified elsewhere in this code: 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet
of GFA.
Restaurants within retail centers with 40 percent or less of GFA
devoted to restaurant uses: 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
57
Table 42-A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Use Class Required Spaces
Restaurants within retail centers with more than 40 percent of
GFA devoted to restaurant uses: Those restaurant uses in excess of 40 percent shall comply with the following: Restaurants-General with 20 seats or less: 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Restaurants-General with more than 20 seats: 10 spaces
per 1,000 square feet of GFA. Restaurants-Full Service: 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Commercial Retail Centers-Small Each use within the retail center shall comply with the parking requirements for said use.
Community & Religious Assembly Requires parking demand study paragraph 18.42.040.010.0108.
Convalescent & Rest Homes 0.8 space per bed.
Convenience Stores 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Dance & Fitness Studios–Large 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Dance & Fitness Studios–
Small
4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Day Care Centers 1 space per employee, plus 1 space per 10 children or adult clients, plus 1 space for loading and unloading children or adult
clients onsite.
Drive-Through Facilities None as an accessory use, but requires adequate space for queuing.
Educational Institutions–Business 0.82 space per student, or 20 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for instruction area, whichever results in a greater number of spaces, plus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for office area.
Educational Institutions–General Elementary and Junior High Schools: 1 space per classroom, plus 1 space per non-office employee, plus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for office use, plus parking required for assembly halls and auditoriums (see Community & Religious
Assembly).
High Schools: 1 space per non-office employee, plus 1 space per 6 students, plus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for office use, plus parking required for assembly halls and auditoriums (see Community & Religious Assembly).
Educational Institutions–Tutoring 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Emergency Shelters (50 or
fewer occupants)
1 space per employee and volunteer staff member, plus 1 space
for every 4 beds or 0.5 spaces per bedroom designated for family units with children.
58
Table 42-A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Use Class Required Spaces
Emergency Shelters (more
than 50 occupants)
1 space per employee and volunteer staff member, plus 1 space
for every 4 beds or 0.5 spaces per bedroom designated for family units with children.
Entertainment Venue Entertainment Venue: 17 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA
and 29 spaces per 1,000 square feet of dance floor area.
Broadcast or Recording Studios with Audience: 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet. Theaters-Live Performances: 0.4 spaces per seat or patron,
whichever results in a greater number of spaces, plus 0.8 spaces per employee, including performers.
Theaters-Single-Screen Motion Picture: 0.6 space per seat or patron, whichever results in a greater number of spaces, plus 5 spaces for employees.
Theaters-Multi-Screen Motion Picture: 0.3 spaces per seat or per patron, whichever results in a greater number of spaces, plus 2 employee spaces per screen.
Equipment Rental–Large 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building GFA for first 100,000
square feet, plus 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet, plus 0.4 space per 1,000 square feet of outdoor equipment storage area.
Equipment Rental–Small 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building GFA for first 100,000
square feet, plus 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet, plus 0.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of outdoor equipment storage area.
Farmers Market Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0108.
Golf Courses & Country
Clubs
Golf Courses: 10 spaces per hole, plus 1 space per 35 square feet
of building GFA used for public assembly, plus 4 spaces per
1,000 square feet of GFA used for other commercial purposes.
Golf Driving Ranges: 1 space per driving tee.
Hospitals Requires parking demand study per paragraph
18.42.040.010.0108.
Hotels 0.8 space per guest room, plus 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for banquet/meeting room, plus 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for full-service, outdoor dining, walk-up and fast-
food restaurants, plus 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for
take-out restaurants integrated into the hotel complex, plus 1 space per 1,000 square feet of retail space plus 0.25 space for each employee working in the guest room areas.
Hotels, Full Kitchen Facilities Same requirements as “Hotels & Motels”.
Industry Industrial: 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, which may include a maximum of 10% office space, plus, if the percentage
59
Table 42-A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Use Class Required Spaces
of office space exceeds 10% of the GFA, 4 spaces per 1,000
square feet of GFA for the floor area in excess of 10%.
Industrial Training Facilities: 0.82 space per student, or 20 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for instructional use, whichever results in a greater number of spaces, plus 4 spaces per
1,000 square feet of GFA for office use.
Outdoor Uses: 0.4 space per 1,000 square feet of lot area devoted to outdoor uses, excluding parking areas and vehicular access- ways, or 1 space per 2 maximum contemplated number of employees to be engaged in the outdoor operation, whichever
results in a greater number of spaces.
Industry–Heavy Industrial–Heavy: 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building GFA, which may include a maximum of 10% office space, plus, if the percentage of office space exceeds 10% of the GFA, 4
spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for the floor area in excess
of 10%.
Industrial Training Facilities: 0.82 space per student, or 20 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for instructional use, whichever results in a greater number of spaces, plus 4 spaces per
1,000 square feet of GFA for office use.
Outdoor Uses: 0.4 space per 1,000 square feet of lot area devoted to outdoor uses, excluding parking areas and vehicular access- ways, or 1 space per 2 maximum contemplated number of employees to be engaged in the outdoor operation, whichever
results in the greater number of spaces.
Junkyards 5 spaces or 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building GFA, whichever is greater.
Markets–Large 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Markets–Small 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Medical & Dental Offices 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Mortuaries Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0108.
Motels 0.8 space per guest room, plus 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for banquet/meeting room, plus 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for full-service, outdoor dining, walk-up and fast-food restaurants, plus 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for
take- out restaurants integrated into the hotel complex, plus 1
space per 1,000 square feet of retail space plus 0.25 space for each employee working in the guest room areas.
Office-Development 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA
Office-General 3 stories or lower: 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA. More than 3 stories: 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Oil Production 2 spaces per well.
60
Table 42-A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Use Class Required Spaces
Outdoor Storage Yards 4 spaces or 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building GFA of
any accessory building, whichever is greater, plus spaces required for service vehicles.
Personal Services–General 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Personal Services–Restricted 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Plant Nurseries 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building GFA, plus 0.4 space
per 1,000 square feet of lot area devoted to outdoor uses,
excluding parking areas and vehicular access-ways.
Public Services 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for buildings of 3 stories or lower; 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for buildings of
more than 3 stories.
Recreation–Commercial Indoor Amusement Arcades: requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0108.
Billiard Halls: 2 spaces per billiard table, plus required spaces
for other uses within the facility.
Bowling Alleys: 6 spaces per bowling lane. Racquetball Facilities: 5 spaces per court. Skating Rinks: 2.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building GFA.
Other Uses: Requires parking demand study per subsection
18.42.040.010.0108.
Recreation–Commercial Outdoor Miniature Golf Course: 20 spaces per course, plus 1 per each employee.
Other Uses: requires parking demand study per paragraph
18.42.040.010.0108.
Recreation–Low-Impact Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0108.
Recreation–Swimming & Tennis Swimming Facilities: requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0108. Tennis Courts: 5 spaces per court.
Recycling Services–Consumer None (spaces are required for host use(s) only).
Recycling Services–General 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building GFA.
Recycling Services–
Processing
1.55 spaces per employee.
Repair Services–General 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000
square feet.
Repair Services–Limited 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000
square feet.
Research & Development 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for buildings of 3 stories or lower; 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for buildings of more than 3 stories.
61
Table 42-A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Use Class Required Spaces
Restaurants–General 20 seats or less: 5.5 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
More than 20 seats: 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Restaurants within a Commercial Retail Center-Large: See parking requirements for Commercial Retail Center-Large.
Restaurants–Full Service Stand alone: 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA
Restaurants within a Commercial Retail Center-Small: 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Restaurants within a Commercial Retail Center-Large: See parking requirements for Commercial Retail Center-Large
Restaurants–Outdoor Dining Same requirements as above for Restaurants-General and Restaurants-Full Service
Retail Sales–General General: 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Art Galleries: 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Furniture, Carpet & Flooring: 2.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Retail Sales–Kiosks 1 space per 25 square feet of GFA or 3 spaces per facility, whichever results in a greater number of parking spaces.
Retail Sales–Outdoor 0.4 space per 1,000 square feet of lot area devoted to outdoor
uses, excluding parking areas and vehicular access-ways, or 0.5
space per each employee engaged in the outdoor operation, whichever results in a greater number of parking spaces.
Retail Sales–Used
Merchandise
4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square
feet.
Self-Storage Facilities Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0108.
Senior Living Facilities
(Large)
0.8 space per bed
Sex-Oriented Businesses Primarily Live Performance: 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Primarily Book or Video Store: 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Smoking Lounges 17 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Sober Living Homes (Large) 0.8 space per bed
Studios–Broadcasting 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Studios–Recording 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Towing Services Office: 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA. Indoor Storage Area: 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Outdoor Storage Area: 0.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of
outdoor storage areas (excluding vehicle access-ways).
Transit Facilities Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0108.
62
Table 42-A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Use Class Required Spaces
Truck Repair & Sales 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for interior showroom,
plus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office use, plus 5.5 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building GFA for parts, sales, storage and repair use.
Utilities–Major Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0108.
Utilities–Minor None required.
Veterinary Services 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet.
Warehousing & Storage–Enclosed Buildings with 100,000 square feet or less of GFA: 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, which may include a maximum of up to 10% office space Buildings with more than 100,000 square feet of GFA: 1 space per 1,000 square feet of GFA, which may include a maximum of
up to 10% office space
If the percentage of office space exceeds 10% of the GFA: 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for the floor area of office space in excess of 10%.
Warehousing & Storage–Outdoors 0.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of outdoor storage area (excluding vehicle access-ways), plus 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, which may include a maximum of up to 10% office space; if the percentage of office space exceeds 10% of the
GFA, 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for the floor area of
office space in excess of 10%.
Wholesaling Buildings with 100,000 square feet or less of GFA: 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Buildings with more than 100,000 square feet of GFA: 1 space
per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
SECTION 26. That Section 18.42.060 (Parking Dimensions and Access) of Chapter 18.42
(Parking and Loading) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows:
18.42.060 PARKING DIMENSIONS AND ACCESS
Except as otherwise provided herein, the following minimum standards shall apply:
.010 Minimum Dimensions of Vehicle Accessways. The minimum turning radius of any vehicle accessway shall be in accordance with the applicable City Standards pertaining to minimum off-street parking dimensions; provided, further, that all covered or enclosed residential parking spaces shall have a minimum clear vertical access height of not less than nine (9) feet..
.020 Driveway Locations for Single-Family Residences.
63
.0201 Driveway locations for single-family residences shall comply with the Planning Standard (Driveway Locations for Single-Family Residences), as approved by
the Planning Director. The curb cut shall be approved by the Public Works Department. .0202 Single-family residences that have legal access to a public alley shall not take vehicle access directly onto a public street unless the Planning Director determines that at least one of the following conditions exist: .01 That access to the public alley is not feasible because of existing
permanent obstructions that preclude access to code-required parking; or .02 That a minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the lots within 1,000 feet on either direction and on the same side of the street have direct vehicle access to the public street. .0203 The decision of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning
Commission pursuant to Chapter 18.60 (Procedures). .030 Gated Vehicular Accessways. Gated vehicular accessways shall comply with the applicable City Standards pertaining to vehicular accessways. .040 Minimum Dimensions of Parking Spaces. All parking spaces shall be designed, improved and maintained in compliance with the applicable City Standards pertaining to
disabled person’s parking, minimum off-street parking dimensions, and parking dimensions for structures. .050 Screening. Any required covered parking spaces shall be visually screened by solid components amounting to not less than fifty percent (50%) of each wall. Such screening may consist of solid walls, wood latticework, or other architectural devices.
.060 Parking Surfaces. All vehicle parking and outdoor storage areas shall be fully paved
with a solid materials, such as concrete or asphalt.
SECTION 27. That Table 46-B (Permitted Fences and Walls) of Section 18.46.110 (Screening, Fences, Walls and Hedges) of Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to
read in full as follows:
Table 46-B Permitted Fences and Walls
Zones
Single-Family Residential Multiple-
Family Residential
Commercial Industrial Public
and Special- Purpose
Special
Provisions
Within Required Front or Street Setbacks
Maximum Height 3 feet, except as provided herein 6 feet in RH-1 and RH-2 Zones*, except as provided herein
3 feet, except as provided herein
3 feet, except as provided herein
3 feet to 6 feet**, except as provided herein
3 feet, except as provided herein
*Subject to § 18.46.110.060 (Front Yards) **3 feet in min. landscaped setback, 6 feet decorative and landscaped wrought iron at back of min. landscaped setback;
64
Table 46-B Permitted Fences and Walls
Zones
Single-Family Residential Multiple- Family Residential
Commercial Industrial Public and Special- Purpose
Special Provisions
Material
Limitations
No barbed
wire or chain link
No barbed
wire or chain link
No barbed
wire or chain link
No barbed
wire where visible to
public right-of-way (excl.
alleys) or non-industrial
property
No barbed
wire or chain link
Within
Vacant Lots &
Construction Sites
Maximum 6
feet chain link
permitted
Maximum 6
feet chain link
permitted
Maximum 8
feet chain link permitted
Maximum 8
feet chain link permitted
Maximum
8 feet chain link
permitted
Subject to §
18.46.110.050.0501 (Permitted Use of
Chain Link Fencing)
Abutting arterial
highways or scenic
expressways
Height determined
by approval authority
based on sound
attenuation study
N/A N/A N/A N/A Subject to § 18.46.110.040
(Residential Areas Adjacent to Major
Rights-of- Way) and 18.46.110.060 (Front
Yards) and Chapter 18.62
(Administrative Reviews)
Within Required Side, Rear, or Interior Setbacks All fencing permitted within required front or street setback also allowed in side, rear or interior setbacks in all
zones Additional Fencing:
Maximum Height 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet 8 feet required, if residence abuts non-
residential use
Permitted
Material
No barbed
wire No chain
link, if visible to public
right-of-way other than
alley
No barbed
wire or chain link
No barbed
wire or chain link
No barbed
wire visible to public
right-of-way
No barbed
wire
Tennis,
Paddleball, etc.
10 feet chain
link, but not in front yard
and street side of
reverse corner lot
10 feet chain
link, but not in street
setback
10 feet chain
link, but not in street setback
None 10 feet
chain link, but not in
street setback
Abutting arterial
highways, or
6 - 8 feet Additional
height
Maximum 8 feet Maximum 8 feet Maximum 8 feet Maximum 8 feet
Subject to § 18.46.110.040
(Residential Areas
65
Table 46-B Permitted Fences and Walls
Zones
Single-Family Residential Multiple- Family Residential
Commercial Industrial Public and Special- Purpose
Special Provisions
scenic
expressways, or freeways
& toll roads
determined
by approval authority
based on sound
attenuation study
Adjacent to Major
Rights-of- Way) and 18.46.110.060 (Front
Yards)
Abutting Public Alleys 6-8 feet 6-8 feet 6-8 feet 6-8 feet 6-8 feet Subject to § 18.46.110.080
Notes on Table 46-B: 1. Properties with a resolution of intent to a zone other than residential shall not be treated as residential.
2. Properties zoned “T,” that are not developed with a residential use, shall not be treated as residential.
SECTION 28. That Section 18.92.070 ("D" Words, Terms and Phrases) of Chapter 18.92 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows:
18.92.070 "D" WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES
"Dance–One-Day." A dance open to the public for an admittance fee or charge
which is held on one day only. The dance is typically held in locations that have space for rent such as a banquet hall or hotel. "Dance Venue." A place open to the public upon the payment of an admittance fee, wherein music is provided and people are allowed to dance, which is open at regular
intervals or on regular days of the week.
"Delicatessen." A store where ready-to-eat food products or delicacies, such as cooked meats, cheeses, prepared salads, and nonalcoholic beverages, are sold for consumption either on or off the premises. "Density." See “General Plan Density – Maximum.” The number of dwelling units
per acre of land, including the area used for open space, recreational uses, and accessory
uses associated with the residential use, but excluding public and private streets, public and private easements for ingress and egress, and any area used for non-residential purposes. "Distilled spirits" means an alcoholic beverage obtained by the distillation of fermented agricultural products, and includes alcohol for beverage use, spirits of wine,
whiskey, rum, brandy, and gin, including all dilutions and mixtures thereof.
"Distilled spirits manufacturer" means any person licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the State of California who produces distilled spirits from naturally fermented materials or in any other manner. "Dormitory." A facility used principally for sleeping accommodations where such
facility is related to an educational or public institution, including religious institutions.
66
"Driveway." A private roadway used exclusively for providing ingress and egress to a parking space, garage, dwelling or other structure; a "Driveway" does not include space
for the parking of vehicles or the storage of materials. "Dwelling." A building, or portion thereof, designed exclusively for residential purposes, including single-family and multiple-family dwellings, but not including hotels, motels, boarding houses. "Dwelling Unit." One (1) or more rooms in a dwelling, designed for occupancy by
one family for living and sleeping purposes, and having only one (1) kitchen. "Dwelling, Multiple-Family." See Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). "Dwelling, Single-Family Attached." See Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). "Dwelling, Single-Family Detached." See Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses).
SECTION 29. That Section 18.92.090 ("F" Words, Terms and Phrases) of Chapter 18.92
(Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows:
18.92.090 "F" WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES
"Family." An individual or a collective body of persons, living together as a
single housekeeping unit, in a domestic relationship based upon birth, marriage or other
domestic bond of social, economic and psychological commitments to each other, as
distinguished from a group occupying a Boarding House, club, fraternity, sorority, Hotel,
Motel, or any Community Care Facilities–Licensed, Community Care Facilities–
Unlicensed, Sober Living Homes, Alcoholism or Drug Recovery or Treatment Facilities
or Senior Living Homes that require a regulatory permit or a conditional use permit.
"Fences, Walls, Hedges and Berms." A continuous barrier (including gates) which
separates, screens, encloses or marks a boundary of a property or development. The term
"Continuous Barrier," as used herein, includes: any masonry or rock wall; any wood,
iron, steel, plastic, glass, fiberglass, chainlink, simulated wood or simulated metal fence;
any shrubbery, landscaping and/or trees that have grown together such that they
completely separate, screen or enclose a property or development; any landscaped
earthen berm; and any natural or fabricated barrier which serves as a continuous screen to
prevent intrusion, or to mark a boundary within or around a property.
"Figure Model." Any person, male or female, either nude or semi-nude, who is to
be either viewed, photographed, sculptured, sketched, painted, danced with, or subject to
lawful tactile conduct.
"Figure Model Studio." Any premises where there is conducted the business of
furnishing, providing, or procuring male or female persons in the nude or semi-nude to be
either viewed, photographed, sculptured, sketched, painted, danced with, or subject to
lawful tactile conduct by persons who pay a fee or other consideration, compensation, or
gratuity for any of those services.
"Fireworks". Those fireworks that are defined and classified as Safe and Sane
Fireworks (also known as "state-approved fireworks"") in Sections 12529 and 12562 of
the Health and Safety Code of the State of California and the relevant sections of Chapter
67
6, Title 19, California Code of Regulations), or any successor provision thereto, subject
to regulation by the City Council.
"Floodplain." Area susceptible to flooding, defined as the "regulatory floodway"
and designated as a "special flood hazard area" (subject to a one percent (1%) or greater
chance of flooding in any given year) on the applicable Flood Insurance Rate Maps, or as
designated by the City Engineer as being equivalent to a regulatory floodway or special
flood hazard area.
"Floor Area, Gross." The sum of the horizontal areas of each floor of a building,
measured from the interior faces of the exterior walls or from the centerline of walls
separating two (2) buildings, but not including underground parking, uncovered steps or
exterior balconies.
"Floor Area, Livable." The sum of the horizontal areas of each floor of an
individual residential dwelling unit, measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls
or from the centerline of walls separating two (2) dwelling units, but not including floors
that are not capable of containing a habitable room or areas used, or designed to be used
for, enclosed parking.
"Floor Area Ratio." The gross floor area of all buildings and structures on the lot,
excluding parking structures, but including covered storage areas, divided by the total lot
area, exclusive of any land dedications or roadway access easements.
"Fortunetelling." A business involving fortunetelling. The term "fortunetelling"
shall mean the telling of fortunes, forecasting of futures, or furnishing any information not
otherwise obtainable by the ordinary processes of knowledge, by means of any occult or
psychic power, faculty or force, clairvoyance, clairaudience, cartomancy, phrenology,
spirits, mediumship, seership, prophecy, augury, astrology, palmistry, necromancy,
mindreading, telepathy, or other similar practice, craft, art, science, cards, talisman, charm,
potion, magnetism, magnetized article or substance, crystal gazing, or magic of any kind
or nature, or engaging in, practicing or carrying on any art, profession or business, the
advertisement and practice of which is regulated by this chapter.
SECTION 30. That Section 18.92.180 ("O" Words, Terms and Phrases) of Chapter 18.92
(Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows:
18.92.180 "O" WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES
"Operator." As referenced in Section 18.16.070 means the person signing the
operator's permit application as required pursuant to Section 18.16.070.030 and whose
name appears on the Operator's Permit as the person responsible for the day to day
operations of the Massage Establishment.
"Outdoor Dining Area." An outdoor patio area where tables and chairs are provided exclusively for the seating, service and/or consumption of meals immediately adjacent to, in conjunction with a restaurant, which provides more than ten (10) cumulative seats for patrons of the restaurant, and which: (i) is entirely enclosed by permanent improvements
such as landscape planters, fencing, decks, patio or shade structures, or other decorative
68
barriers, which physically define and/or separates the outdoor dining area from other open or public areas; (ii) does not encroach into any public right-of-way or required setback or
yard area established by this Code; and (iii) obtains primary access from the interior of the restaurant it serves; and (iv) is included in the total gross floor area to establish the restaurant parking requirement, if the outdoor dining area exceeds 1,000 square feet. Outdoor dining areas may include accessory food preparation facilities. Outdoor dining areas, may replace up to three (3) legal parking spaces available to the restaurant
they serve and may be located in parking lots, subject to standards set forth in Chapter 18.38.220. "Outdoor Seating." An outdoor area immediately adjacent located in close proximity to a restaurant where tables and chairs are provided exclusively for the seating and/or consumption of meals and/or nonalcoholic beverages by patrons of a restaurant,
which area provides a maximum of ten (10) fifteen (15) seats. Outdoor Seating is differentiated from Outdoor Dining Areas by the movable nature of furniture and lack of permanent physical improvements and/or separately identifiable space. "Oversized Vehicle." As referenced in Section 14.32.206.010.001.
"Owner." As referenced in Section 18.16.070 means any person or entity having an
ownership interest in the Massage Establishment.
SECTION 31. That Subsection .050(a) (Definitions) of Section 18.110.040 (Site and Development Standards) of Chapter 18.110 (East Center Street Development Specific Plan No. 90-2 (SP 90-2)) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows:
.050 Definitions. The following terms used in this chapter shall have the meanings ascribed to them below: (a) "Agency" shall mean the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency or its successor
agency. (b) "Center Street Parking Structure" shall mean the parking structure located at 235 East Center Street, Anaheim, California, which is owned by the Agency. (c) "Paired Homes" shall mean those single-family homes which are constructed in a duplex configuration.
(d) "Parcel" and "Parcels" shall mean all or any one of the following “Parcels” of land, included in the Specific Plan Area, as further described in the Specific Plan: Parcel 22, Parcel 4d, Parcel 14N and Parcel 14S. (e) "Parking Areas" shall mean all parking spaces, aisles and interior accessways, excluding service accessways and loading areas.
(f) "SFD" shall mean single-family detached houses. (g) "Setback" shall mean the distance from the exterior of the structural building wall closest to a given right-of-way (exclusive of canopies) to the nearest edge of that right-of-way. Setbacks may include landscaping, walkways, decorative walls up to three (3) feet in height, retaining walls up to ten (10) feet in height, signage, parking areas and
plazas. (h) "Site Plan" shall mean a “Site Plan” for that phase, or portion thereof, under consideration. (i) "Specific Plan" shall mean that “Specific Plan” for the Downtown Anaheim – East Center Street area, approved by the City Council on July 24, 1990, by Resolution
90R-288.
69
(j) "Specific Plan Area" shall mean that certain property described in the Specific Plan.
(k) "Subdivision Code" shall mean Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (l) "Zoning Code" shall mean Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Terms used in this chapter shall have the meaning set forth in the Anaheim Municipal Code, unless otherwise defined in this chapter.
SECTION 32. That Subsection .020(f) (Minimum Number of Parking Spaces) of Section 18.110.020 (General Provisions; Definitions) of Chapter 18.110 (East Center Street Development Specific Plan No. 90-2 (SP 90-2)) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and
the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full as follows:
(f) Minimum Number of Parking Spaces. Based on the combination of uses proposed, the following minimum number of parking spaces shall be provided. For the parking spaces to be located in the Center Street Parking Structure, a parking lease agreement between the applicant and the Agency which is satisfactory to the City Attorney
and the City Engineer shall be in effect prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 1. Residential Uses. For each dwelling unit there shall be provided not less than two and one-half (2.5) parking spaces. At least two and one-tenth (2.1) parking spaces per unit shall be covered and located on-site (for a total of not less than two hundred twelve (212) spaces). The remaining parking spaces (not more than four-tenths (0.4)
parking spaces per unit) shall be provided in the Center Street Parking Structure (for a total of not more than forty (40) spaces). 2. Commercial Uses. Minimum Off-Street Parking and Loading
Requirements. All parking and loading areas shall comply with Chapter 18.42 (Parking and
Loading). A minimum of five and one-half (5.5) parking spaces per one thousand (1,000)
square feet of gross floor area of commercial/retail uses Parking spaces shall be provided
on-site or as otherwise agreed to shall be provided in the Center Street Parking Structure
(for a total of not less than thirty-six (36) spaces).
SECTION 84. SEVERABILITY.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section,
paragraph, sentence, phrase, term or word of this ordinance be declared for any reason to be
invalid, it is the intent of the City Council that it would have adopted all other portions of this ordinance independent of the elimination of any such portion as may be declared invalid. If any section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this
Ordinance, and each section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one (or more) section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase had been declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 85. CERTIFICATION
70
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be printed once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in the Anaheim Bulletin, a newspaper of
general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Anaheim. SECTION 86. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after its final passage. ///
/// /// ///
/// ///
71
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Anaheim held on the ____ day of ______________, 2021, and thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the ____ day of ______________, 2021, by the following roll call vote: AYES:
NOES: ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
By: _________________________________ MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST:
______________________________________ CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
Page 1 of 6
Draft Ordinance ZCA2021-00179, SPN90-2C
Summary of Amendments
Ordinance Section Municipal Code Chapter(s) Description/Analysis
2 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones) Single-Family Residential Zones: This amendment provides Code flexibility by requiring only “enclosed” accessory structures to count against the cumulative maximum square footage of detached structures in single-family residential zones. Unenclosed structures such as swimming pools, tennis courts, etc. shall not count towards this limitation.
5 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones) Recreational-Leisure Area: This amendment clarifies the ratio of common to private recreational-leisure area for multiple-family residential projects by providing a specific standard requiring that a minimum of 10% of the recreational-leisure areas to be in
common areas, centrally located within the project area.
7, 13 18.08 (Commercial Zones) 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) Conversion and Continued Use of Residential Structures: This amendment provides regulatory relief and Code consistency by removing a Code section that is no longer relevant and is not consistent with other commercial zone requirements. The amendment removes the Code section outlining requirements for the commercial use of a residential structure and adds clarification that the conversion or continued use of a residential structure within a “C-G” General Commercial Zone or “O-L” Low-Intensity Office Zone to a commercial use requires a conditional use permit.
1, 3, 6, 23 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones)
18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones) 18.08 (Commercial Zones) 18.40 (General Development Standards)
Educational Uses Adjacent to Residential Zones: This amendment clarifies the types of
uses, previously described as “buildings used for educational purposes,” specifically as the following uses: Day Care Centers, Educational Institutions – General, or Community and Religious Assembly. These uses are required to maintain a 15-foot setback from the property line of any adjacent residential zone or use. This amendment also updates the Primary Use Tables within the Single-Family Residential, Multiple-Family Residential, and Commercial Zones, to cross-reference this setback requirement.
8 18.36 (Types of Uses) Day Care Centers: This amendment provides regulatory relief and consistency with the State law definition of a Day Care Center by removing the minimum amount of children from the type of use description for Day Care Centers.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Page 2 of 6
Ordinance Section Municipal Code Chapter(s) Description/Analysis
9, 10, 11 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) Accessory Dwelling Units: This amendment provides regulatory relief and streamlines development by allowing property owners to construct accessory dwelling units above existing nonconforming structures located within the front setback. In addition, this amendment removes the requirement for detached accessory dwelling units to be architecturally compatible with the main unit, with the exception of properties located within a historic district, which the Code will continue to require to be architecturally compatible with the main unit.
24, 26 18.42 (Parking and Loading) Residential Parking Requirements:
• Single-Family Residential Parking Requirements – Corrects an inconsistency in the number of parking spaces required based on number of bedrooms for single-family, detached dwellings, which inadvertently was set at 6 instead of 5 bedrooms. This amendment provides clarity that homes with five or fewer bedrooms require four parking spaces and homes with six or more bedrooms require four spaces plus one additional parking space per bedroom over five bedrooms.
• Parking Garage Dimensions and Accessways – This amendment streamlines City department and industry standards by removing the Code section regulating residential parking garage dimensions and accessways. Such projects will be required to follow
applicable Building Code standards.
• Vehicle Access from Public Streets – The Code currently prohibits single-family residences that have legal access to a public alley to take vehicle access directly onto a public street unless the Planning Director determines that at least one of the following
conditions exist: o That access to the public alley is not feasible because of existing permanent obstructions that preclude access to code-required parking; or
o That a minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the lots within 1,000 feet and on the same side of the street have direct vehicle access to the public street. This amendment would clarify the second bullet point above to specify that lots within 1,000 feet in either direction and on the same side of the street would count towards the seventy-five (75%) minimum requirement for direct vehicle access.
Page 3 of 6
Ordinance Section Municipal Code Chapter(s) Description/Analysis
14 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) Mechanical and Utility Equipment – Ground Mounted: This amendment provides regulatory relief by removing the limitation on placing ground-mounted equipment in street setback areas. The Code would continue to require electrical transformers, backflow prevention devices, and double check detector assemblies to be located a minimum of five feet from the property line. However, the proposed amendment would no longer require the equipment to be outside of the street setback. To mitigate the impact of mechanical and utility equipment within this street setback area, the amendment requires the screening of equipment with live landscaping. The landscaping must fully screen the equipment within one year of planting and be fully maintained at all times. This Code requirement does not pertain to single-family zones.
16, 30 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) 18.92 (Definitions) Outdoor Dining Requirements: This amendment provides regulatory relief by aligning outdoor dining requirements with Executive Order Number 6, which provided support to businesses providing essential services during the COVID-19 pandemic and the re-opening
of businesses under Governor Newsom’s recovery plan for California. This amendment allows for the conversion of parking spaces to outdoor dining spaces and revises the definition of, “outdoor dining”, in order to provide clarity on the use. The amendment also
provides regulatory relief for restaurants that do not serve alcohol by removing the requirement that access to the outdoor dining must be directly from the restaurant if the restaurant does not serve alcohol.
Page 4 of 6
Ordinance Section Municipal Code Chapter(s) Description/Analysis
25, 31, 32 18.42 (Parking and Loading) 18.110 (East Center Street Development Specific Plan No. 90-2)
Non-Residential Parking Requirements: This amendment provides regulatory relief and streamlining:
• Automotive - Impound Yards – This amendment provides clarity on parking requirements for Automotive – Impound Yards by adding the use to the Non-
Residential Parking Requirements table and requiring a parking demand study to determine the number of parking spaces required for this use.
• East Center Street Parking Structure – This amendment streamlines the parking standards for commercial uses that utilize the East Center Street Parking Structure to
follow citywide parking requirements instead of the requirements of the East Center Street Development Specific Plan. The amendment also updates the definition of “Agency” to be the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency or its successor agency.
• Restaurants with 20 seats or less (typically fast food or take out restaurants) – Provides regulatory relief by requiring the same number of spaces Restaurants – General (four spaces per 1,00 square feet of gross floor area) as required for Retail Sales - General. The requirements for these two uses were previously the same; however, when the
City reduced the parking requirement for Retail Sales – General to 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, Restaurants –General stayed at 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of GFA. This amendment re-aligns the parking requirements for both above uses. It also will provide regulatory relief since the reduction of required parking spaces will eliminate the requirement for a parking tabulation when a new restaurant takes over a retail space within a shopping center.
Page 5 of 6
Ordinance Section Municipal Code Chapter(s) Description/Analysis
12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) Special Events: This amendment provides regulatory relief for special event permit requirements by separating the special event activities that currently exist within one section into four individual sections. The proposed Code amendment adds application procedures to each of the four sections. The four sections are as follows:
o Flags and Banners o Outdoor Activity o Christmas Tree Lot and Pumpkin Patches
o Carnival and Circuses
This amendment also allows for flags and banners for newly constructed homes or condominiums for up to two (2) years and up to six (6) months for new apartment complexes.
In addition, this amendment clarifies the special event regulations and application/approval process within the Platinum Triangle to provide greater consistency with the citywide
requirements.
Page 6 of 6
Ordinance Section Municipal Code Chapter(s) Description/Analysis
4, 6, 15, 27, 28, 29
18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones) 18.08 (Commercial Zones) 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening) 18.92 (Definitions)
Grammatical Errors, Incorrect References and Internal Consistency: These amendments correct grammatical errors, update incorrect references and create internal consistency of terminology throughout the Zoning Code related to the following items:
• Private Patios (Ordinance Section 4) – Clarifies that the Code permits encroachment for private patios for ground floor residential units of up to eight (8) feet into required
street setbacks and setbacks abutting interior property lines.
• Smoking Lounge (Ordinance Section 6) – This amendment corrects a typographical error that duplicates the Smoking Lounge use within the Commercial Zone Primary Use Table.
• Outdoor Storage (Ordinance Section 15) - This amendment provides consistency within departmental practices by updating the type of ground material required for outdoor storage. “Gravel” is replaced by “crushed angular rock”, which is the more
specifically appropriate material for outdoor storage yards to reduce dust and runoff.
• Permitted Fences and Walls (Ordinance Section 27) – This amendment provides consistency for permitted fences and walls by adding freeways and toll roads to the list of locations under the Permitted Fences and Walls Table.
• Density Definitions (Ordinance Section 28) – This amendment provides consistency
between conflicting definitions for “Density” and “General Plan Density – Maximum”. The outdated definition for “Density” will be deleted and “Density” will refer to the definition for “General Plan Density – Maximum”.
• Floor Area Ratio (Ordinance Section 29) – This amendment clarifies the definition of “Floor Area Ratio” to exclude dedications and roadway easements.