Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels: A Comparative Case Study Analysis

Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels A Comparative Case Study Analysis Kaitlin Cernak Master in Urban Planning and Policy Candidate University of Illinois at Chicago

Masters Project | UPP 597 November 2018

Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels: A Comparative Case Study Analysis Masters Project | UPP 597 November 2018 Kaitlin Cernak Master in Urban Planning and Policy Candidate Specialization: Economic Development UIN: 652235266 Masters Project Advisor: Kheir Al-Kodmany

I would like to express my appreciation to the faculty and instructors of UIC’s MUPP program for inspiring their students to think critically about issues of equity and sustainability.

Thank you to my husband and family for their support and encouragement throughout my graduate school journey!

A b s t ract Tiny houses on wheels (THOWs) present an innovative solution to affordable housing, but their utility has not reached its full potential due to regulatory barriers. The gray area that THOWs inhabit—between recreational vehicle, mobile home and traditional house—presents challenges for providing for health, safety and wellbeing of THOW dwellers and their neighbors. This uncertainty also impacts related lending and insurance industries.

This research explores regulatory solutions for the accommodation of THOWs through the comparative case study analysis of tiny house ordinances adopted in Fresno, CA and Rockledge, FL. In particular, this research looks at the community characteristics that correspond to distinct zoning and building code approaches.

Contents Background...............................................................................................................................1 Literature Review....................................................................................................................2 Methods..................................................................................................................................... 7 Quantitative Analysis: Economic and Housing Conditions......................................8 Case 1: Tiny houses as backyard cottages in Fresno, CA........................................ 12 Case 2: Tiny houses in pocket neighborhoods in Rockledge, FL......................... 14 Case Study Analysis: Findings......................................................................................... 16 Conclusions............................................................................................................................ 19 Sources.................................................................................................................................... 20 Appendix................................................................................................................................. 23

Tiny house on wheels structural rendering by TinyHouseDesign.com (Image source: tinyhouseblog.com)

Bottom left: Tiny house on wheels as a backyard cottage; Bottom right: Tiny house interior (Image sources: equityprojects.org)

B ac kg ro u n d Tiny houses on wheels have entered the mainstream consciousness in recent years, but regulations for these downsized, mobile housing alternatives have not caught up with the growing interest in the “tiny” lifestyle. The tiny house trend can be linked to economic conditions and cultural shifts.

THOWs are typically registered as and adhere to standards for recreational vehicles (RVs), yet THOW inhabitants utilize them more similarly to traditional stick-built housing. This research aims to illustrate possible approaches to legally accommodating THOWs in municipal zoning ordinances and building codes through a comparative case study analysis of:

In recent decades, the average American home has increased significantly in size and cost, leading to higher rates of house-burdened households. The Great Recession and housing crisis of the mid2000s likely propelled a broader population to pursue downsized, less-expensive housing options, but precursors of the tiny house movement can be traced as far back as the hippie movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

• Fresno, CA: Fresno amended its municipal development code to allow THOWs as a form of backyard cottages permitted as secondary dwelling units on single family residential lots.

In fact, a defining characteristic of the tiny house movement is its philosophy of a simple, minimalist lifestyle and a rejection of mass consumerism.

At the same time, tiny houses present a practical housing solution for niche populations, such as young adults, students and retirees. Despite the growing interest in living tiny, the regulatory gray area that tiny houses inhabit is a significant barrier to broader adoption.

Tiny houses on wheels (THOWs) face particular challenges because they do not fit neatly into most zoning ordinances and building codes.

• Rockledge, FL: Rockledge amended its zoning ordinance to allow THOWs in distinct tiny house “pocket neighborhoods” in Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Redevelopment Mixed Use (RMU) zones.

Fresno, CA and Rockledge, FL represent two distinct approaches to legalizing THOWs, both informed by their local economic context, housing needs and land availability. As more municipalities consider whether to adopt THOW regulations, they ought to consider the local factors which might make an approach more or less suitable. This research aims to link the pertinent local economic and housing characteristics with the specific THOW regulation solutions.

Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels | 1

L i t e rat u r e R e v i e w Over the past several years, popular culture has embraced the tiny house movement with wide coverage on blogs, social media, news publications, festivals and cable television programming (Evans, June 2018; Ford & Gomez-Lanier, 2017). Yet, there is a dearth of academic research on the feasibility of tiny houses as long-term housing solutions (Ford & Gomez-Lanier, 2017). A handful of recent journal publications dating from late 2016 to mid-2018 lay a foundation for understanding the origins and motivations behind the tiny house movement, the particular challenges applicable to tiny houses on wheels (THOWs), and possibilities for legalizing tiny house living.

A driving motivation behind the tiny house movement is the concept of the “American Dream,” specifically the emphasis placed on homeownership. Property ownership has been intrinsic to American values since the country’s founding, when owning land was equated with citizenship (Evans, March 2018; Ford & GomezLanier, 2017). While no longer a prerequisite for citizenship, owning property—specifically homeownership—is still strongly associated with stability and security (Evans, June 2018). This ideal of homeownership arguably contributes to the appeal the tiny house, as opposed to, perhaps, small, affordable rental apartments.

Evans (March 2018) further illustrates the history of small and affordable housing in the United States. After World War 1, the U.S. federal government established the Architect’s Small House Bureau to produce architectural plans for small homes, which would expedite the construction of affordable homes for returning veterans. The private sector has also promoted small homes; Sears and Roebuck offered mailorder kits containing all necessary building materials for more than 400 models of small homes (Evans, March 2018), and as recently as 2011, Lowe’s sold Katrina Cottages in the southern United States.

2 | Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels

Additionally, “there is a rich vernacular tradition of picturesque cottages, cabins, and bungalows in the United States” (Evans, March 2018, p. 39). An emerging appreciation of this legacy, paired with a post-recession reaction to consumerism, may be propelling the tiny house trend.

The rising size and cost of housing in the United States contributes to the demand for affordable and manageable housing solutions. Research indicates that the average size of an American home has increased from roughly 1,600 square feet in the 1970s to roughly 2,500 square feet in the 2010s (Boeckermann, et al., 2018; Evans, June 2018). Correspondingly, inflation-adjusted home prices have soared more than nine times the average home price in 1970, while real incomes have remained flat (Boeckermann, et al., 2018).

Unsurprisingly, the percentage of the population considered severely house-burdened—spending more than 50% of their income on housing—has increased by more than 77% from 1999 to 2011 (Evans, June 2018). These developments suggest that the appeal of downsized and affordable housing alternatives will continue to grow (Evans, March 2018).

Financial security is cited as the most salient motivation for “going tiny” (Boeckermann, et al., 2018, Vail, 2016). The average cost of a singlefamily home in 2014 was $306,900, while tiny houses ranged from $5,000 to $61,000 (Ford & Gomez-Lanier, 2017), and various blogs have estimated that the average THOW costs $35,000 to $45,000 to build. Wage stagnation, historically high levels of student debt, and an increased awareness of the cycle of debt since

The average cost of a single-family home in 2014 was $306,900, while tiny houses ranged from $5,000 to $61,000

from recycled or reclaimed materials, and many incorporate green design elements like reclaimed water and solar panels.

Katrina Cottage

Image source: katrinacottagehousing.org

the Great Recession have left many Americans less willing to take on a substantial mortgage or trust the housing market as a solid wealth building mechanism (Evans, June 2018). The less quantifiable motivation of self-empowerment also appears as driving force in pursuing tiny living; tiny home owners explain that ridding themselves of the financial commitment to an expensive mortgage freed up time and resources for other aspects of life, like family, education, hobbies and careers in the growing, mobile and flexible gig economy (Vail, 2016).

Closely related to financial motivations, the desire to live a more simplified life is a prominent motivation among tiny house enthusiasts. There is a growing interest in downsizing, decluttering and owning fewer material possessions (Ford & Gomez-Lanier, 2017, Vail, 2016), as well as a preference for spending time and money on experiences and travel, particularly among millennials. Closely tied to the rejection of excessive consumerism is the desire to leave a smaller environmental footprint. Tiny house advocates point to the reduced carbon footprint of tiny homes due to minimal energy consumption to heat or cool these very small space (Vail, 2016). Tiny homes are also often constructed

While the common understanding is that the tiny house movement was sparked by the Great Recession and housing crisis of 2009, there are actually several notable earlier precursors. The Small House Society, which supports research and development related to small and sustainable living spaces, was founded in 2002. The Tumbleweed Tiny House Company—well known among tiny house enthusiasts—was founded that same year (Boeckermann, et al., 2018; Vail, 2016).

Looking even further back, small living is loosely tied to counter-culture movements of the 1960s and 1970s, when “hippies” converted buses to homes and built environmentally-minded small structures like hay bale homes (Evans, March 2018; Evans, June 2018).

Another pre-recession seed of the tiny house trend are the aesthetically-pleasing Katrina Cottages. Designed by architect Marianne Cusato as an alternative to FEMA trailers after Hurricane Katrina, these cottages range from 400 to 800 square feet and were priced starting at $34,000 (Vail, 2016). The peaked roofs, charming porches, and narrow rectangular orientation of Katrina Cottages resemble many of the emblematic elements of tiny houses today.

The economic realities and lifestyle trends of the past decade have inspired people to adopt the tiny house lifestyle despite legal and regulatory hurdles. Tiny house regulation is challenging in part because there is no agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a tiny house. Boeckermann, et al.

(2018) note that homes with square footage below that allowed by a municipality’s building code are considered tiny, while also specifying a 70 to 300 square foot range as typical. Evans (June 2018) confirms that the definition of a tiny home is fluid; some use the threshold of less than 400 square Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels | 3

feet, while others go as high as less than 1000 square feet. These ranges apply to foundationbuilt tiny homes and THOWs. Since THOWs are constrained by the dimensions of road-approved trailer bases (8 feet wide by 16-20 feet long), THOWs typically have approximately 200 square feet of floor space (Boeckermann, et al., 2018).

A further complication is that there is no consensus on how to categorize THOWs for regulatory purpose, which presents challenges for addressing land use planning efforts to accommodate THOWs (Evans, June 2018). Most municipalities regard THOWs as recreational vehicles (RVs) because they are built on a trailer frame. This classification is problematic because: 1. Municipalities commonly permit only temporary occupation of RVs 2. Zoning generally dictates that RVs must be parked in RV parks or campgrounds, which are not intended for full-time living.

Research indicates that this gray area that THOWs occupy–between recreational vehicle, mobile home and house–is the biggest hurdle to living legally in a THOW (Ford & Gomez-Lanier, 2017; Evans, June 2018). If classified as a house, THOWs violate minimum size requirements, and if classified as an RV they violate length of occupation rules. The debate on whether a THOW is a house, RV, mobile home, hybrid, or its own distinct form of housing impacts opportunities for house and land financing, and insurance coverage.

Additionally, the mobility of THOWs would indicate that they, like any vehicle, are a depreciating asset

Several niche populations were identified as particularly interested in the tiny house movement: young adults, students, retirees, seniors, and those who share values of the tiny house lifestyle.

4 | Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels

since they are not tied to the value of land (Evans, March 2018), and therefore do not contribute to the property tax base.

Demographic characteristics of the THOW movement are also difficult to track because most land use policies and building codes deem THOWs illegal, compelling THOW inhabitants to build and live in their structures under the radar (Evans, June 2018). Even so, in their Tiny House Community Survey, conducted in February and March 2017, Boeckermann et al. surveyed 64 tiny house inhabitants with the goal of understanding the motivations and level of satisfaction of tiny house dwellers.

Several niche populations were identified as particularly interested in the tiny house movement: young adults, students, retirees, seniors, and those who share values of the tiny house lifestyle. The survey asked participants about their level of agreement (five-point Likerttype scale where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree”) with seven motivations (simpler life, sustainability and environmental factors, cost, freedom and mobility, sense of community, interest in design, and empowerment), level of satisfaction with tiny house living on a five-point scale.

Notable results include: • 97% of survey participants were white • 78% of survey participants were female • 59% of survey participants were under the age of 40 • 59% of survey participants held at least a 4-year college degree • 59% of survey participants were earned $59,999 or less annually • 70% of survey participants owned their tiny home • 81% of survey participants were able to transport their tiny home (THOW) • “Cost” was the most highly reported motivation, with “simpler life” second

The Tiny House Community Survey indicated that the only motivating factor that predicted high satisfaction was “simpler life”; the respondents who strongly agreed that a simple life was a motivation for living tiny were more likely to report high satisfaction.

Another significant barrier to the tiny house lifestyle is that the vast majority of municipalities do not have zoning ordinances which support these micro-residences. The zoning power of municipalities was established in Euclid v. Ambler (1926). In theory zoning prevents overcrowding and promotes the health, safety and welfare of the public by setting standards such as lot size, height, and setback (Vail, 2016). In practice, zoning often favors property owners in single-family districts.

For example, zoning is frequently used to separate land uses associated with poverty and crime– such as mobile home parks–from single-family residential zones (Evans, June 2018). Large lot sizes and minimum floor areas also contribute to the exclusionary impact of zoning by discouraging low-cost, smaller homes (Evans, March 2018).

Municipalities are further disincentivized from accommodating tiny houses because tax revenues are tied to property values, and larger homes with higher values generate more taxes for the city (Mitchell, 2012; Vail, 2016).

To remedy these gray areas, a few municipalities and regulatory bodies have begun to define and plan for THOWs. Current research notes Fresno, CA and Rockledge, FL as leading examples in the United States. In late 2015, Fresno, CA amended its development code to allow THOWs to be parked on residential property as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) (Ford & Gomez-Lanier, 2017).

Going a different route, the city of Rockledge, FL adopted new zoning regulations in November 2015 which allow for the creation of tiny house pocket neighborhoods separate from established residential zones (Evans, March 2018). Also in 2015, the International Code Council approved

Given the demonstrated and growing interest in the tiny house living, and insufficient regulation to promote the health, safety and wellbeing of THOW dwellers and their neighbors, planners should consider adopting zoning and building codes which define and accommodate THOWs. an appendix for foundation-built tiny houses in the International Building Code (IBC) to serve as a model for local building codes throughout the United States. The revised Code R304.1 reduces the minimum floor area, addresses ceiling heights, lofts, and emergency egress (Evans, March 2018; Kavanaugh, December 2016). While these changes to the IBC do not apply to THOWs, they represent a movement toward formally accommodating smaller, non-traditional homes and providing a framework of standards for certification, which will potentially satisfy lenders and insurers.

Since the vast majority of municipalities still do not permit THOWs, THOW dwellers resort to identifying legal loopholes or avoiding detection to pursue their preferred lifestyle. Ford and Gomez-Lanier note that seeking special caregiver status for a person living on the property is one option for legally parking and occupying a THOW as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) (p. 401).

Seeking a zoning variance is the ideal solution, but if denied the variance, the THOW owner has exposed their living arrangement and risks legal consequences, thus incentivizing living underthe-radar (Vail, 2016). Mitchell’s tiny house guide recommends strategies to avoid detection, such as having good relationships with neighbors and screening the THOW from public view, noting that most municipalities operate on a “complaintbased system” in which the city would not inspect a property unless it received a complaint. Given the demonstrated and growing interest in the tiny house living, and insufficient regulation to Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels | 5

promote the health, safety and wellbeing of THOW dwellers and their neighbors, planners should consider adopting zoning and building codes which define and accommodate THOWs. As municipalities plan for THOWs, they may face criticism from the community. A common reaction against tiny homes is concern about the value of surrounding properties, particularly in residential districts, since low-cost housing is often perceived as low-quality and associated with poverty and crime (Evans, June 2018). One practical strategy to relieve this concern is the adoption of design standards so that THOWs are incorporated in an aesthetically pleasing manner; a more holistic approach would be adopting Form Based Code (FBC) to promote functional and pleasing spatial patterns (Evans, March 2018). Another concern is that decreasing minimum square footage requirements across the board might negate the anti-slum protections of minimum size requirements (Vail). To avoid this, Vail proposes that THOWs have their own distinct provisions and codes.

Finally, municipalities ought to plan for the taxation of THOWs commensurate with the population increase they would bring to a municipality. One strategy, which is likely not practical in the short-term, would be to restructure the property tax system so that public services (for example, public schools) are less reliant on local property taxes. A more practical solution might be to require the removal of a THOW’s wheels, thus classifying a THOW as a property improvement and triggering a property tax assessment.

6 | Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels

Methods The purpose of this comparative case study analysis is to examine two approaches to regulating tiny houses on wheels (THOWs) through zoning and building code amendments.

The following strategies and cases were selected because they represent practical and tested methods of legal accommodation of THOWs, which other municipalities may look to as guides. These strategies are: 1. Classifying THOWs as an allowable form of second dwelling/accessory dwelling unit (ADU), as in Fresno, CA 2. Permitting tiny houses within Planned Unit Development (PUD) pocket communities, as in Rockledge, FL This research begins with quantitative analysis of the economic and housing characteristics of Fresno, CA and Rockledge, FL using:

Limitations: This research is limited in several key ways.

First, its qualitative analysis relies on publicly available documentation of each planning process, and is therefore missing some of the nuance of discussion surrounding tiny house issues in Fresno and Rockledge that would be gleaned in real-time or in-person. Second, since quantitative analysis relies on 2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the source data itself contains a degree of uncertainty and margin-of-error, particularly in Rockledge since its population is significantly smaller than Fresno. Finally, this research is intentionally limited to privately owned tiny houses on wheels (THOWs) and does not attempt to address the breadth of research and examples of tiny houses as solutions to homelessness or other applications.

• 2010 Decennial Census U.S. Census data • 2015 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates U.S. Census data.

Considering the specific context of each community in terms of housing affordability and availability illuminates factors that may have contributed to choosing each regulatory route.

This research also involves qualitative analysis of the regulations themselves as well as the processes that led to amended legislation. In particular, the research examines the mechanisms and the practical implications of each regulatory approach. Sources for qualitative analysis include City Council and Planning Department meeting minutes and documents, news publications and blogs, and local and state plans.

Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels | 7

Q u a n t i tat i v e A n aly s i s : E co n o m i c This comparative case study analysis begins by examining the economic and housing conditions of each municipality to establish the context that informed each city’s THOW regulation strategy.

Since research indicates that financial motivations are the leading reason people choose to pursue tiny house living, it is important to examine incomes, housing affordability and housing availability in Fresno, CA and Rockledge, FL. To approximate conditions at the time that THOW regulations were adopted, this analysis uses economic and housing data from 2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, and housing and population density data from the 2010 U.S. Census.

Housing affordability is dependent on income and price of housing. Both factors contribute to the experience of being housing-cost burdened, which is widely defined as spending more than 30% of gross income on housing costs (severely housingcost burdened is defined as spending more than 50% of gross income on housing costs). Figure 1 compares the median income and median home value in Fresno, CA and Rockledge, FL, using the United States as a reference geography. We see that median income in Rockledge is comparable— even slightly higher—than the national median income, while median income in Fresno falls more than $10,000 below that of the United States (see also Appendix A). While median income is lower in Fresno, median home values are actually more than $35,000 higher in Fresno than in Rockledge.

These observations indicate that people in Fresno likely experience higher rates of home-cost burden.

Confirming this, Figure 2 compares rates of housing-cost burden among those earning less than $35,000. This income threshold was selected because it provided a consisted point of comparison across available data sets. $35,000 is equivalent to 60% of area median income (AMI) in Rockledge, FL and 85% of AMI in Fresno, CA; 8 | Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels

and

Housing Conditions Figure 1: Median Income and Median Home Value in Fresno, CA, Rockledge, FL and United States (2015)

Source: 2015 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates

while the AMI percentages are not equivalent, the range of 60%-80% is commonly used as a threshold for low- to moderate-income housing.

Even though $35,000 is relatively closer to the median income in Fresno than in Rockledge, those who earn less than $35,000 in Fresno were more likely to be rent-burdened than those earning less than $35,000 in Rockledge. In fact, 55% of Fresno residents earning less than $35,000 were considered severely rent-burdened, compared to 39% in Rockledge. Among the entire population of renters in Fresno, 61% are rent-burdened, compared to 43% in Rockledge.

Figure 2: Housing-Cost Burden in Fresno, CA and Rockledge, FL (2015) Rent-burdened: Spending 30%+ of gross income on rent Severely rent-burdened: Spending 50%+ of gross income on rent Pie charts: Percent of population who are rent-burdened and severely rent-burdened among those earning less than $35,000 in Fresno, CA and Rockledge, FL

Fresno, CA

Rockledge, FL

40%

32%

61%

43%

of homeowners pay more than 30% of gross income on housing costs

of renters pay more than 30% of gross income on rent

of homeowners pay more than 30% of gross income on housing costs

of renters pay more than 30% of gross income on rent

Source: 2015 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates

Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels | 9

Housing density and population density reflect other contributors to the housing shortages in Fresno and Rockledge.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate the comparative densities of housing and population, respectively, in one square mile of each city in 2015. In Fresno, there were 1,530 housing units in one square mile, compared to only 941 housing units per square mile in Rockledge. Similarly, Fresno’s population density was more than twice that of Rockledge, with 4,418 people per square mile in Fresno versus and 2,087 per square mile in Rockledge.

These combined data points suggest that, compared to Rockledge, Fresno’s housing stock is already quite built-up, and that there are more people competing for these existing units.

Land use maps reflect this perception.

Figure 5 shows that Fresno has large areas of medium density single-family residential zones near its city center, while Figure 6 shows that Rockledge is dominated by single-family residential zones and appears to have areas open for planned unit development at the city’s northwestern and southern edges.

Figure 3: Housing Density per Square Mile in Fresno, CA and Rockledge, FL (2010) = Approximately 10 housing units

Source: 2010 United States Census

Figure 4: Population Density per Square Mile in Fresno, CA and Rockledge, FL (2010) = Approximately 20 people

Source: 2010 United States Census

10 | Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels

Willow

Maple

Chestnut

DTG - Downtown General

Planning Boundary

RE - Residential Estate RS-1 - Residential Single-Family, Extremely Low Density

Downtown Activity Classifications

RS-2 - Residential Single-Family, Very Low Density

Activity Class A Activity Class B \

Fresno

RS-5 - Residential Single-Family, Medium Density

\

\

Activity Class C

RM-MH - Mobile Home Park

NMX - Neighborhood Mixed Use CMX - Corridor/Center Mixed Use RMX - Regional Mixed Use

International

CMS - Commercial Main Street

Maroa

CC - Commercial Community CR - Commercial Regional

Behymer

CG - Commercial General CH - Commercial Highway and Auto

Perrin

CRC - Commercial Recreation O - Office

Shepherd

BP - Business Park IL - Light Industrial IH - Heavy Industrial

Teague

OS - Open Space PR - Park and Recreation

Nees

PI - Public and Institutional TBD - To Be Determined

Sa n

Alluvial

Alluvial

Herndon

Overlay Districts KB - Kearny Boulevard Historic Corridor CA - California Avenue Transit Corridor

Herndon

Sierra

BP - Bluff Preservation EA - Expressway Area

Sierra

Bullard

RM - Residential Modifying ANX - Annexed Rural Residential

Bullard Barstow

AH - Apartment House UC - Urban Campus

Dakota

Leonard

Locan

De Wolf

Temperance

Fowler

Ashlan

NR - Neighborhood Revitalization

Clovis

Gettysburg

Minnewawa

Peach

Shaw

Armstrong

Shaw

Sunnyside

Barstow

EQ - Equine M - Mining

California State University Fresno

Gou

ld C

anal

Shields Clinton

/ Red

bank C

McCall

RM-3 - Residential Multi-Family, High Desnity

Copper

Thompson

Blackstone

RM-2 - Residential Multi-Family, Urban Neighborhood

Highland

ZONING ADOPTION Ordinance Number Date 2015-39 3-Dec-15 REZONES Ordinance Number Date 2016-2 4-Feb-16 2016-3 4-Feb-16 2016-4 4-Feb-16 2016-8 17-Apr-16 2016-15 12-May-16 2016-23 30-Jun-16 2016-26 18-Aug-16 2016-29 1-Sep-16 2016-31 1-Sep-16 2016-36 22-Sep-16 2016-46 17-Nov-16 2016-49 1-Dec-16 2016-58 15-Jan-17 2017-3 12-Feb-17 2017-4 12-Feb-17 2017-13 2-Apr-17 2017-27 25-May-17 2017-31 9-Jul-17 2017-32 16-Jul-17 2017-43 24-Aug-17 2017-44 24-Sep-17 2017-60 26-Oct-17 2017-61 26-Oct-17 2017-63 2-Nov-17 2018-7 8-Feb-18 2018-8 8-Feb-18 2018-9 15-Feb-18 2018-20 19-Apr-18 2018-16 5-Apr-18 2018-30 17-May-18 2018-31 24-May-18

RM-1 - Residential Multi-Family, Medium High Density

Rive r

Fruit

Palm

West

Marks

Van Ness

Valentine

Fresno Sphere of Influence

DTN - Downtown Neighborhood

Joaqu in

Blythe

Brawley

Polk

Cornelia

Bryan

Hayes

Garfield

City Limits

DTC - Downtown Core

RS-4 - Residential Single-Family, Medium Low Density

® Nees

Boundaries

Base Districts

RS-3 - Residential Single-Family, Low Density

City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Planning Division

Grantland

LEGEND

Cedar

First

City of Fresno Zoning Map

Millbrook

Figure 5: City of Fresno Zoning Map (2018)

Ashlan Dakota

reek

Fresno International Airport

McKinley

Clinton

Belmont

Cornelia

Tulare

Kings Canyon Blythe

Polk

Whites Bridge

Bryan

Grantland

Nielsen

Hayes

Olive

Belmont

Kearney

Butler

California

California Valentine

Brawley

Church

Jensen

Church

Jensen

Annadale

4

6 Miles

´

HUNTINGTON

FLORIDA

EDWARDS

BEVERLY

SEMINOLE

GEIGER

GALWAY JACK OATES

LUTHER

BALDWIN

E

SLEEP HOLLOW

ADMIRALTY

Thompson

McCall

Highland

Leonard

De Wolf

Fowler

Armstrong

Sunnyside

Clovis

Minnewawa

Peach

HARRELL

ORIO

NAUL T

N

AUBURN LAKES

ABE RD BU

AR LIT

Y

MURRELL

95

CA

SO

BREN

VISTA

ADELAIDE

GOLF

BELLWIND

EEN

TH - Townhouse Dwelling, Cap opf 10 d.u.a.

BRANTLEY

BRIDLE BOTANY

OAK

EW

M AT TH

BE LLA IR

INDIAN OAKS

CHEN

NT ER

RVP - Recreational Vehicle Park

PEBBLE HILL

1

LA FLOR VENTANA

US

HEATHROW

ADMIRALTY

95

RMU - Redevelopment Mixed Use

ING EXIST

GEM

GE

COBBLEWOOD

ROSE

BARNES

R2 - Single-Family Dwelling, Cap of 5 d.u.a.

RCE - Residential Country Estates, Cap of 1 d.u.a.

Gus Hipp Blvd.

E

SIESTA

Barnes Blvd

R1 - Single-Family Dwelling, Cap of 3 d.u.a

R3 - Multi-Family Dwelling (High Density) cap of 14 d.u.a

D LE

GUS HIPP

OUTRIGGER

R2A - Multi-Family Dwelling (Low Density) Cap of 8 d.u.a

CK RO

WELLINGTON

E

TING

AUTUMN PINES

ROY WALL

P1 - Professional PUD -

EXIS

OSPREY

MAGRUDER FLORIDELPHIA

EXISTING

AC

95

E

UN-NAMED PARK

Murrell Road

PELICAN

L PA

HALSEY

M2 - Light Industrial and Warehousing

DG

OGDEN

Y HAVERT

JACARANDA

THREE MEADOWS

DEER

M1 - General Industrial

RI

NE RE

L RY

IP - Industrial Park

MH - Mobile Home

LAUREL T VIT LE HONEYSUCKLE

RICHWOOD HERITAGE ACRES ENCLAVE

MAEMIR LORE NZA TUCKAWAY

HCD - Hospital Campus District

BE

SYCAMORE

MARTIN

PINE COVE

WESTPORT TOPAZ

RY

HEMINGWAY

C2 - General Commercial

SPIREA

ER

VICTORIA

ER

JAMESTOWN

WOODSMERE

ORANGE WOODS BRIDGEPORT

A

MARTHA LEE

RIV

PINE BAUGH

YB BA

D

BE

SH

VERMONT BARTON OAKWOOD

Eyster Blvd.

EYSTER

PINELAND KING POST T KINGS POS BRUNSWICK

Fiske Blvd

AR EP

LE E

HOWARD

RICHARD

SUNDAY

VIRGINA

GREEN

HUNTINGTON

CEDAR CASCADE

ELM

EYSTER

TIMBERS WEST

C1 - Neighborhood Retail Commercial

COGSWELL

FISKE

HAGEN

GLENEAGLES

ALSUP ESTRIDGE

MARLIN

LA PALOMA

REGALIA

VALENCIA

E DG LE T CK O T R O SC

HENSLEY

DOVE

Barton Blvd

COGSWELL

VARR

AURORA

GARDENIA

IXORA GEORGIA

CLEARLAKE

RANGE

BLUEGRASS

PLATA

BARTON

FAULL

1

LAKE

CONDADO

PALMWAY

FAIRWAY

BASQUE

Zoning

ROCKLEDGE

US

HIDDEN

DAISY

BOLLE

FOREST

PLAMER

HARDEE

BOUGANVILLA

ORANGE

R

KE

PADDOCK PASTURE

BOUGANVILLEA

PALMER

FAIRLAWN

Legend

SWEET DIXIE LITTLE JOHN

HARDEE

GE

C TU ON BART

TROON

SMITH L. JONES OAK

G ROSA

LED

95

HIALEAH

HAYDEN BERNICE PINEDALE WOODLAWN

Figure 6: City of Rockledge Zoning Map (2018)

CK RO

SCOUT

Date: 10/18/2018

IDE

AVONDALE PLUCKEBAUM REVILLA PINSON

Source: City of Fresno, 2018

ERS

PLUCKEBAUM

F

This map is believed to be an accurate representation of the City of Fresno GIS data. However, we make no warranties either expressed or implied for the correctness of this data.

RIV

BURNETT

CITY OF ROCKLEDGE ZONING MAP

Maple

2

Cedar

1

Orange

American 0

North

Malaga

East

Cherry

Fig

Elm

Central

Willow

Chestnut

Walnut

Fruit

West

Hughes

Marks

Muscat

Temperance

Annadale

North

Locan

Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility

WHALEY KNIGHT ROSA L JONES FERNDALE PALMDALE

Shields

McKinley

Olive

COUNTS

Gettysburg

RY

ROC-Recreation, Open Space and Conservation

Source: City of Rockledge, 2013 September 3, 2013 revision

0

1,700

3,400

6,800

10,200

13,600 Feet

Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels | 11

C a s e 1: T i n y

h o u s e s a s b ac kya r d cot tag e s i n

The housing shortage in Fresno is hardly a localized problem; the state of California has an epic housing crisis which has contributed to its status as the state with the highest rate of poverty (Siegler, 2018). Since 1969, the state of California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) has required that municipalities adopt housing elements as part of their general plans to provide regulation and opportunities which encourage private market housing development. The current 2014-2021 RHNA cycle identifies accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as an essential tool in addressing California’s housing shortage since they are affordable, do not require additional infrastructure construction, create opportunities for rental income, and allow extended families to live near one another. Effective January 2017, California approved legislation that removes barriers and streamlines the approval of ADUs in single family and multifamily residential zones (California Department of Housing and Community Development).

The 2014-2021 RHNA report identified a shortage of 21,240 housing units in Fresno. To plan for meeting this need, Fresno’s general plan—its “constitution for all future development” (City of Fresno, Fresno General Plan)—outlines several housing-related goals. Those specifically applicable to tiny houses include: • Goal 7: “Provide for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, housing types (including affordable housing), residential densities, job opportunities, recreation, open space, and educational venues that appeal to a broad range of people throughout the city.”

• Goal 8: “Develop Complete Neighborhoods and districts with an efficient and diverse mix of residential densities, building types, and affordability which are designed to be healthy, attractive, and centered by schools, parks, and public and commercial services to provide a sense of place and that provide as many services as possible within walking distance.”

12 | Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels

F r e s n o , CA

• Goal 10: “Emphasize increased land use intensity and mixed-use development at densities supportive of greater use of transit in Fresno. Greater densities can be achieved through encouragement, infrastructure and incentives for infill and revitalization along major corridors and in Activity Centers.”

The context leading to Fresno’s adoption tiny house regulations was a statewide housing crisis, with state government encouraging municipalities to pursue urban infill through ADUs as an affordable and expedient strategy to increase housing options and density. In this climate, Councilmember Esmeralda Soria was elected, and sworn in January 6, 2015. Soon after her election, Soria connected with and visited local tiny house builders and business owners, Pat and Nick Mosley of California Tiny House (Stephens & Parsons, 2016).

Coincidentally, Fresno was in the process of amending its development code. Councilmember Soria brought the concept of allowing THOWs as a form of second dwelling to City Council, and a text amendment of this nature was included in November 2015. Fresno City Council passed Bill No. 43 in December 2015, amending the city’s development code to—among many other measures—allow THOWs as backyard cottages. The regulations went into effect on January, 2016.

A tiny house on wheels parked outside Fresno City Hall in January, 2018 to mark the city’s new tiny house regulations Image source: fresnobee.com

Figure 7: Timeline of THOW ordinance in Fresno, CA Since the adoption of THOW regulations in Fresno, the city has seen very few tiny houses move in. According to Pat and Nick Mosley of California Tiny House, only a three of their tiny homes have stayed in the Fresno area; most of the homes they build go to areas that can attract much higher rents (Lopez, 2018).

Despite this apparent slow adoption, the Fresno ordinance has served as a model for other municipalities looking to accommodate THOWs as accessory dwelling units. The city of Ojai, CA closely based its proposed tiny house ordinance on Fresno’s. Due primarily to community concerns about transience, the proposed amendment failed to pass at the Ojai City Council meeting on August 28, 2018 (City of Ojai). Clovis, CA, on the other hand, has adopted the Old Town Cottage Home Project to allow tiny house infill along alleyways (Benjamin, 2017).

Timeline: Fresno, CA January, 2015 Councilmember Esmeralda Soria was sworn in on January 6, 2015.

• Shortly after taking office, Soria visited local business, California Tiny House, owned by Fresno residents Pat and Nick Mosley. The City of Fresno was undertaking a development code overhaul during this time, which presented an opportunity to include language expanding secondary dwelling units to include tiny houses. Soria brought the issue to the planning commission and city council for inclusion in amendments. (Living Tiny, Legally)

November, 2015 Between November 12, 2015 and November 19, 2015 City Council meetings, Text Amendments were revised to include: • Language permitting tiny houses as backyard cottages, so long as design is compatible with the main house and neighborhood (per Director review) • Tiny House must be licensed with the California DMV and meet ANSI 119.2 or 119.5 standards, have at least 100 sq. ft. of first floor interior living space, towable by hitch but not movable under its own power

December, 2015 On December 3, 2015, Fresno City Council passed Bill No. 43, amending the city’s development code to allow THOWs as backyard cottages.

January, 2016 Fresno’s Tiny House regulations went into effect on January 3, 2016

Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels | 13

C a s e 2: T i n y

h o u s e s i n po c k e t n e i g h b o r h o o d s i n

According to the University of Florida’s Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, 61% of Florida residents paid more that 40% of gross income in rent in 2013. During that same time, approximately 43% of Rockledge residents spent 35% or more of their gross income on rent (U.S. Census). These figures suggest that housing affordability, while not insignificant in Rockledge, is less of a critical issue compared to the state of Florida as a whole.

The Rockledge Comprehensive Plan identifies that the city will need to add 2,147 housing units by 2020 and includes the following elements supportive of tiny houses:

R o c k l e d g e , FL

• Policy 1.10.1 (1) The City may set forth an energy efficient land use pattern by encouraging clustered, compact development patterns that will aid the City in minimizing the carbon footprint and greenhouse gases.

• Chapter 3: Housing Element. Goal 3: To encourage the provisions of quality housing which is available and affordable to current and future residents of the City • Objective 3.4. Provide sufficient adequately zoned sites for low and moderate-income housing, group homes, foster care facilities and manufactured homes.

• Policy 1.2.4. The City will research the use of mother-in-law quarters as accessory structures in single-family zoning districts as affordable dwelling units.

• Policy 3.4.1. Establish or maintain the zoning classifications which allow for a flexibility in land use design, housing types and allow for land use mixes.

• Objective 1.5: Assist the private sector in meeting the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan through the incorporation of flexible and innovative development practices into the land development regulations.

• Objective 3.7. Support energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy resources in existing housing and in the design and construction of new housing.

14 | Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels

• Policy 1.10.3. Energy Efficient Land Development. Encourage land use patterns that by location, scale, and design minimize long-term energy commitments to construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement.

Rendering of tiny house pocket community concept in Rockledge, FL Image source: Rockledge Tiny House Community Facebook Page

Figure 8: Timeline of THOW ordinance in Rockledge, FL The process of adopting tiny house regulations in Rockledge began with a citizen, René Hardee, who was interested in downsizing to a house smaller than that allowed by Rockledge’s ordinance at the time. Hardee contacted the Rockledge Planning Commission, who formally discussed tiny house accommodations at their March 10, 2015 public meeting. The Planning Commission next presented the concept of tiny house pocket villages to City Council in May 2015. This proposal initially did not include provisions for THOWs, but these were added, at City Council’s request, and the minimum size was reduced to correspond to typical THOW dimensions.

On October 21, 2015, Rockledge City Council passed Ordinance No. 1680-2015 allowing tiny houses and THOWs within Redevelopment Mixed Use (RMU) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) zones. It is also notable that, around the same time that tiny house regulations were being crafted, Rockledge also amended Small Lot Subdivision code to promote infill development after developers had contacted the city with interest in smaller single-family lots, indicating a wider interest in smaller, more affordable houses (City of Rockledge, May 2015).

Timeline: Rockledge, FL Early 2015 Rockledge citizen René Hardee approached the Rockledge planning department because she was interested in building a tiny home but current code did not allow desired size.

March 2015 On March 10, 2015, the Rockledge Planning Commission introduced New Business of Tiny House Regulation, noting that the city would like to see tiny houses in pocket neighborhoods or tiny house villages.

May 2015 At the May 6, 2015 City Council meeting, the Planning Commission presented recommendations for tiny house regulation.

• Notable components: minimum size of 250 sq. ft, maximum of 12 tiny houses per pocket community.

August 2015 Per City Council’s request, the Planning Commission presented provisions including THOWs at the August 19, 2015 City Council meeting.

• Notable components: THOW trailer must be registered with the builder’s local DMV, THOWs are intended for full-time habitation

October 2015 On October 21, 2015, City Council amended Ordinance Sec. 62.170 and Sec. 62.180 allowing tiny houses and THOWs withing PUD and RMU districts.

November 2015 The Rockledge tiny house ordinance went into effect November 2015.

Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels | 15

C a s e S t u dy A n aly s i s : F i n d i n g s The economic and housing contexts in Fresno and Rockledge and their respective adopted THOW ordinances suggest that housing affordability, land availability and area income are correlated to distinct approaches to accommodating THOWs in local ordinances. Beyond each municipality’s broad THOW strategy, specific regulatory mechanisms, like building codes and design standards, have significant practical consequences for THOW owners.

In California, which is experiencing a statewide housing crisis, the state’s RHNA mandates that municipalities plan for the development of affordable housing, specifying infill via secondary dwellings in existing residential zones as a strategy to pursue. At the time of THOW regulation (2015), Fresno had relatively higher median home prices paired with lower median incomes, compared to Rockledge and the United States. This trend of housing costs outpacing earnings persists in Fresno today, and, exacerbating the crisis, residential development using low-income tax credits declined by 16% in 2017 (BoNhia, 2018).

These realities, augmented by Fresno’s already built-up character reveal that the ADU route of THOW regulation is a practical solution for Fresno.

THOWs as ADUs do not require the city to provide new utilities or roads, or rezone parcels. They are already integrated with existing transportation systems, school districts and retail hubs, and do not rely on government tax credits or subsidies to increase density and provide more housing units.

Essentially, allowing THOWs as ADUs provides an additional option among existing ADU choices that property owners may place on their land, if eligible.

Rockledge, on the other hand, pursued a strategy of allowing THOWs within tiny house pocket communities in specific development zones.

The relatively higher median income and lower home prices in Rockledge suggest that tiny 16 | Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels

houses are currently an elective lifestyle choice with economic benefits, as opposed to a strategy to combat persistently unaffordable housing.

Rockledge is also less densely built-up than Fresno, indicating that the development of an experimental, new micro-housing community is likely to be more logistically and financially feasible, compared to a city where land is scarce and values are at a premium. It is also worth noting that separate tiny house communities may be a more politically satisfactory option of accommodating THOWs given the NIMBYism surrounding the issue of movable, trailer-based homes in residential zones (City of Ojai). If a municipality, like Rockledge, has economic and real estate conditions to support distinct tiny house communities, they may be more widely accepted by the community.

Fresno and Rockledge ordinances also have differing approaches to building codes and design standards (see Table 1 on page 18), though it is not clear that these choices are related to local conditions. In Fresno, a THOW must be built to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards—which is also the building code generally applied to recreational vehicles (RVs)—and the THOW must be registered with the California DMV. If the THOW is visible from a public park or street, its “roofing material, exterior materials and colors, roof pitch and style, type of windows, and trim details of the unit shall be substantially the same as and visually compatible with the primary dwelling” (City of Fresno). In Rockledge, prospective THOW dwellers must present the city with detailed construction plans to receive a building permit, and the THOW must be registered with its builder’s local DMV. Regarding design, THOWs must have front and rear porches.

Taking the perspective of a THOW owner who values the mobility and flexibility of living in a THOW, inconsistent building codes and design

standards across municipalities decrease the utility of THOWs and introduce complications if one were to relocate for work or leisure. In the two cases examined, the building codes are likely in direct opposition. The Rockledge ordinance implies that traditional stick-built building codes would be applied to all tiny homes, including THOWs, which Fresno’s ANSI standards would almost certainly not fulfill. Though there are probably very few THOW owners who want to specifically park in both Fresno and Rockledge, this issue illustrates the need for an agreed-upon building code for THOWs as more municipalities consider adopting regulations.

If every city takes its own approach to building codes, the mobility benefits of THOWs will be largely negated. Yet municipalities have little incentive to promote the mobility of THOWs. If there is less regulatory friction when moving a THOW between cities, affordable housing units may come and go, rather than contributing to the permanently available housing stock. For emotional and property-value preservation reasons, homeowners in residential districts are often uncomfortable with the transient nature of THOWs. Rockledge’s porch requirement, for instance, is explicitly intended to promote permanence in pocket neighborhoods by making it difficult for THOW owners to pack up and leave for the weekend (Stephens & Parsons, 2016).

Municipalities have little incentive to promote the mobility of THOWs. If there is less regulatory friction when moving a THOW between cities, affordable housing units may come and go, rather than contributing to the permanently available housing stock. requirements should be considered in the context of the potential result of disincentivizing people to acquire or build THOWs. Finally, though affordability and economic benefits are widely cited as arguments in favor of THOWs, neither Fresno’s nor Rockledge’s tiny house ordinance include language that would ensure affordability of these units. Tiny houses are considered “affordable by design” because of their small footprint, but countless global examples (e.g.

Manhattan, Paris, Hong Kong) illustrate that small size is not intrinsically affordable. As currently regulated in Fresno and Rockledge, THOWs are simply another form of private sector-provided housing subject to market fluctuations in rent and land values.

Stringent design standards, such as requiring a THOWs to match the primary residence, may alleviate concerns of transience, but they also— intentionally or unintentionally—limit the THOW owners utility of their home by making it difficult or impossible to place it on another property.

Moreover, a critical element of the affordability of THOWs is that they can be assembled off site and mass-produced from a selection of predesigned plans (City of Ojai). If design standards are overly burdensome, the affordability benefits of mass production of THOWs may be lost. Design Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels | 17

Table 1: Tiny House on Wheels (THOW) regulation elements of Fresno, CA and Rockledge, FL ordinances

Fresno, CA

Rockledge, FL

How are THOWs classified?

Backyard cottages (secondary dwellings)

Structure intended as full-time residence or year-round rental property and is built on a trailer and towable by bumper hitch (not movable under its own power)

Where are THOWs allowed?

Backyard cottages are allowed on any lot in any district where single-family residences are permitted or existing

Pocket neighborhoods within PUD or RMU districts. Pocket neighborhoods must be configured around a centralized common area.

Size limitations

Min. first floor living space of 100 sq. ft.

Max. habitable floor space of 440 sq. ft.

Minimum of 170 sq. ft. + 100 sq. ft. for each additional occupant Maximum of 1,100 sq. ft.

Minimum width of 8.5 ft.

Maximum length of 20 ft.

Building code

Must meet ANSI (recreational vehicle) 119.2 or 119.5 standards

Submit to City for permit: detailed structural and electrical plans, photographs of framing, insulation, plumbing, documentation of construction methods and contacts.

Design standards

Visually compatible with primary dwelling if visible from public street or park

THOWs must have front and rear porches and skirting

Zoning Considerations

Must conform to height, setbacks, lot coverage and other zoning requirements of district

Front setback of 20 ft., Rear setback of 5 ft.

How many THOWs per lot?

1 THOW allowed per eligible lot

In a pocket neighborhood, THOWs may make up no more than 25% of total tiny homes (minimum of 4 and max of 12 tiny homes per pocket neighborhood; so 1-3 THOWs permitted)

Lot size restrictions

Minimum lot size of 6,000 for interior lots or 5,000 for corner lots

Minimum lot size of 5 acres for PUD Minimum lot size per dwelling unit of 1,200 sq. ft.

Maximum lot size per dwelling unit of 3,000 sq. ft.

Location within the lot

Backyard cottages must be located behind the primary dwelling

THOWs must be placed in designated area within the pocket neighborhood

Registration

California DMV

THOW builder’s local DMV

Ownership and occupation

Either primary or secondary unit shall be owner-occupied

Pocket neighborhoods must be part of a condo or homeowners association; THOWs may be owner occupied or rented.

Sources: Fresno, CA and Rockledge, FL ordinances and publicly available meeting minutes and agendas

18 | Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels

C o n cl u s i o n s As more municipalities work toward accommodating tiny homes and THOWs in their municipal ordinances, they ought to consider their local economic and housing contexts, issues of permanence versus mobility, and mechanisms of promoting affordability. As cities begin to adopt THOW regulation and live with THOWs, it will be important to study outcomes—both intended and unintended—to craft future regulations that meet the goals of THOW dweller and municipalities alike. For instance, given that the mobile nature of THOWs is a key attribute for certain populations, especially retirees and people engaged in the gig economy or remote work force, national standards for health, safety and design would provide consistency and flexibility for this emerging lifestyle and accompanying industries.

Like many cities in the United States, Chicago struggles to provide sufficient affordable housing.

Recent seeds of a local tiny house movement include: an effort to amend zoning to utilize tiny houses to alleviate homelessness led by non-profit Chicago Tiny House, Inc. (chicagotinyhouse.org, incorporated November 2017); Chicagoland’s first tiny home show held in Schaumburg, IL in May 2018; and a June 2018 request for information (RFI) from the City of Chicago to explore tiny houses as an option for low-income Chicagoans (City of Chicago). As Chicago and other cities continue to consider the role tiny houses could play in providing affordable housing and combating homelessness, decision makers can craft appropriate regulations by considering local economic and housing factors, critically examining best practices for design standards and building codes, and weighing the benefits and drawbacks of mobile tiny houses.

Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels | 19

S o u rc e s Benjamin, M. (2017, June 4). Want to live in a tiny house? Clovis has plans for Old Town alleys.

The Fresno Bee. Retrieved from: https://www. fresnobee.com/news/local/community/clovis-news/ article154312004.html (November 10, 2018).

City of Fresno. (2015, September). Bill No. 43 Ordinance No. 2015-39. Retrieved from: https:// www.fresno.gov/cityclerk/wp-content/uploads/ sites/9/2016/12/Ord201539AddingCh15toFMC_ CitywideDevelopmentCode.pdf (November 6, 2018).

Boeckermann, L.M., Kaczynski, A.T., and King, S.B. (2018, June). Dreaming big and living small: examining motivations and satisfaction in tiny house living. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment.

City of Fresno. (2015, November 18). Supplemental Information Packet, Update to Exhibit D, Fresno City Council. Retrieved from: https://fresno.legistar. com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4140904&GUID=8D94A0 1A-FD3F-4FEE-9E67-0917B21CD53A (November 6, 2018).

California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2018). Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Retrieved from: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/ AccessoryDwellingUnits.shtml (November 10, 2018).

California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2018). Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Element. Retrieved from http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/ housing-element/index.shtml (November 10, 2018).

Chicago Tiny House, Inc. (2018). Media and Accomplishments. Retrieved from: https:// chicagotinyhouse.org/media/ (November 11, 2018).

City of Chicago. (2018, June 8). Mayor Emanuel Announces Innovative Initiative To Create New Affordable Housing Option For Low-Income Chicagoans. Retrieved from: https://www. cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/provdrs/afford_ hous/news/2018/june/TinyHomes.html (November 11, 2018).

City of Fresno. (2014, December 18). Fresno General Plan. Retrieved from: https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/ consolidatedGP.pdf (November 6, 2018).

20 | Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels

City of Fresno. (2015, December 3). Meeting of City Council on 12/3/2015 at 8:30 AM. Retrieved from: https://fresno.legistar.com/MeetingDetail. aspx?ID=368539&GUID=9D15F971-5A12-431EBE8C-08AC3695B5C4&Options=info&Search= (November 6, 2018).

City of Fresno. (2018). Fresno California - Code of Ordinances. Sec. 15-2754. - Second dwelling units, backyard cottages, and accessory living quarters.

Retrieved from: https://library.municode.com/ca/ fresno/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=MUCOFR_ CH15CIDECOINRE_PTIIIREAPSOALDI_ ART27STSPUSAC_S15-2754SEDWUNBACOACLIQU (October 2018).

City of Fresno. (2018). Official Zoning Map. Retrieved from: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/ uploads/sites/10/2016/10/Official-ZoningMap-10182018.pdf (November 7, 2018).

City of Ojai. (2018, August 28). City Council Regular Meeting [video]. Retrieved from: http://ojaicity.org/ granicus/ (October 25, 2018).

City of Rockledge. (2011, August 17). Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved from: https://library.municode.com/ fl/rockledge/codes/comprehensive_plan (November 6, 2018).

City of Rockledge. (2013, September 3). City of Rockledge Zoning Map. Retrieved from: https:// www.cityofrockledge.org/DocumentCenter/ View/442/2014-Zoning-Map-PDF (November 7, 2018).

Khokha, S. (2016, January 19). Fresno Passes Groundbreaking ‘Tiny House’ Rules. KQED News. Retrieved from: https://www.kqed.org/ news/10833592/fresno-passes-groundbreaking-tinyhouse-rules (November 6, 2018)

City of Rockledge. (2015, March 10). Rockledge Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.

Retrieved from: https://www.cityofrockledge.org/ AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_ 04072015-312 (November 2, 2018).

Lee, BoNhia. (2016, January 13). Fresno’s poor spend 73 percent of their income on rent. They seek affordable housing. The Fresno Bee. Retrieved from: https://www.fresnobee.com/news/business/bizcolumns-blogs/real-estate-blog/article210217129. html (November 11, 2018).

City of Rockledge. (2015, June 2). Rockledge Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Retrieved from: https://www.cityofrockledge.org/AgendaCenter/ ViewFile/Agenda/_ 07072015-339 (November 2, 2018).

City of Rockledge. (2015, August). Section 62.170.

- PUD—Planned Unit Development District.

Retrieved from: https://www.cityofrockledge.org/ AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/825?fileID=8710.

(November 2, 2018).

Evans, K. (2018, March). Integrating Tiny and Small Homes into the Urban Landscape: History, Land Use Barriers and Potential Solutions. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning 11:3. p. 34-45 Evans, K. (2018, June). Overcoming Barriers to Tiny and Small Home Urban Integration: A Comparative Case Study in the Carolinas. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 0:0. p. 1-12.

Ford, Jasmine and Lilia Gomez-Lanier. (2017, June).

Are Tiny Homes Here to Stay? A Review of Literature on the Tiny House Movement. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 0:0. p. 394-405 Kavanaugh, C. (2016, December 12). Tiny houses get international code support. Plastics News, 27:40. p.

17

Lee, BoNhia. (2018, May 1). Tiny houses can be permanent homes under new Fresno ordinance. The Fresno Bee. Retrieved from: https://www.fresnobee. com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/real-estateblog/article54581715.html . (November 11, 2018).

Lopez, F. (2018, May 25). Tiny homes a growing trend. The Business Journal. Retrieved from: https:// thebusinessjournal.com/tiny-homes-a-growingtrend/ (November 6, 2018).

Mitchell, Ryan. (2012). Cracking the Code: A Guide to Building Codes & Zoning for Tiny Houses.

TheTinyLife.com.

Ordinance No. 1680 - 2015. Rockledge Land Development Regulations, Chapter 7. Retrieved from: https://americantinyhouseassociation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/08/Ordinance-No.- 1680-2015. pdf (October 24, 2018).

Siegler, K. (2018, September 27). Is Rent Control the Answer to California’s Housing Crisis?. National Public Radio. Retrieved from: https://www.npr.org/2018/09/27/650533981/isrent-control-an-answer-to-californias-housing-crisis (November 10, 2018).

Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels | 21

Stephens, A. (2016). A Tale of Zoning Happily Ever After. Tiny House Blog. Retrieved from: https:// tinyhouseblog.com/tiny-house/a-tale-of-zoning/ (November 2, 2018).

Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing. Florida’s Affordable Housing Needs. University of Florida.

Retrieved from: http://www.shimberg.ufl.edu/fl_ housingNeeds.html (November 6, 2018) Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing. (January 2015). Florida’s Affordable Rental Housing Needs: An Update. University of Florida. Retrieved from: http:// www.shimberg.ufl.edu/publications/Rental_Market_ Study_Fact_Sheet_2015.pdf. (November 6, 2018) Stephens, A. & Parsons, C. (2016). Living Tiny, Legally (Part 1) [Documentary]. United States: Tiny House Expedition. Retrieved from: https://www. tinyhouseexpedition.com/livingtinylegally/ (February 2017) Tiny house Pocket neighborhood requirements.

(2015, August). Retrieved from: https://www. cityofrockledge.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/ Item/824?fileID=8709 (November 2, 2018).

United States Census Bureau. (2012). 2010 Decennial Census, Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2010 - United States -- Places by State; and for Puerto Rico. Retrived from: https:// factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_GCTPH1.

US13PR&prodType=table. (November 5, 2018).

United States Census Bureau. (2016). 2011-2015 American Community Survey Five-year Estimates, Gross rent as a percentage of household income in the past 12 months. Retrieved from: https:// factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/ pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_ B25070&prodType=table. (November 5, 2018).

22 | Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels

United States Census Bureau. (2016). 20112015 American Community Survey Five-year Estimates, Median Income in the past 12 months.

Retrieved from: https://factfinder.census.gov/ faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview. xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_S1903&prodType=table.

(November 5, 2018).

United States Census Bureau. (2016). 2011-2015 American Community Survey Five-year Estimates, Selected housing characteristics. Retrieved from: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/ jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_ DP04&prodType=table. (November 5, 2018).

Vail, K.M. (2016). Saving the American Dream: The Legalization of the Tiny House Movement. University of Louisville Law Review, 54:3. p. 357-379

Appendix Appendix A: Economic and Housing Characteristics of Fresno, CA, Rockledge, FL and the United States (2010 and 2015) Fresno, CA Rockledge, FL United States Median Income (2015) $41,531 $57,346 $53,889 Low-income/60% AMI (2015) $24,919 $34,407 $32,333 Median home value (2015) $177,500 $141,300 $178,600 Median mortgage (2015) $1,464 $1,392 $1,492 Median rent (2015) $893 $1,011 $928 Percent of homeowners paying more than 30% of gross income (2015) 39.6% 31.7% 32.5% Percent of renters paying more than 30% of gross income (2015) 61.4% 42.9% 51.8% Housing Density (housing units per 1 square mile) (2010) 1,530 941 n/a Population Density (population per 1 square mile) (2010) 4,418 2,087 n/a Number of households (2015) 161,914 10,171 n/a Percent households with 3+ bedrooms (2015) 57% 76% 60% Sources: 2010 U.S. Census and 2015 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates

Planning for Tiny Houses on Wheels | 23