Meeting of the Gateway Cities Planning Directors
PLEASE ARRIVE AT 7:45 AM FOR CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 8:00AM
Gateway Cities COG Offices 16401 Paramount Boulevard, Paramount 2nd Floor Conference Room
AGENDA
I. Self-Introductions
15 Min II. CalEPA Brownfields Funding Presentation Kathryn Dominic Site Cleanup Subaccount Program Unit Chief State Water Resources Control Board
15 Min III. EV Permit Streamlining Presentation Marco Anderson Sustainability Program Manager SCAG
Michelle Kinman Director of Transportation & Elizabeth Moss Transportation Electrification Partnership Coordinator
LA Cleantech Incubator
25 Min IV. SCAG RHNA Methodology Update & Connect SoCal (2020) RTP/SCS Development Kevin Kane Regional Planner
SCAG
5 Min V. GCCOG RHNA Discussion (continued) Christopher Koontz, AICP Planning Bureau Manager City of Long Beach
5 Min VI. Climate & Regional Planning Update Stephanie Cadena Assistant Planner Gateway Cities COG
VII. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
VIII. Adjourn
State Water Resources Control Board Division of Financial Assistance
Funding for Site Cleanups: The Site Cleanup Subaccount Program (SCAP) Kathryn Dominic, P.G. Gateway Cities Council of Governments August 14, 2019 Good Morning! SCAP Stats in a Nutshell
• 75 projects funded as of June 2019 • Over $66 million in awards • 63 grant-funded projects now in progress • 12 Regional Board contract-funded projects in progress • More than 280 applications reviewed since inception • Four funded projects have achieved regulatory closure to date Other DFA Funding for Site Cleanup Available to Regional Water Boards only: Cleanup and Abatement Account Emergency, Abandoned, and Recalcitrant Sites (EAR) Limited to petroleum Underground Storage Tank sites: UST Cleanup Fund Orphan Sites Cleanup Fund RUST loan program For drinking water projects from municipalities, water purveyors, public agencies, and mutual water companies: Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Typical SCAP Projects
• Site is subject to Regional Water Board or other regulatory agency requirements • Responsible parties have little or no ability to pay • Project not eligible for other DFA funding • Sites posing threat to human health or the environment • Contaminant releases from industrial or small commercial operations • There really are no ‘typical SCAP projects’… Good news for cities SCAP can provide financial assistance through grants to municipalities. • City of Victorville – former NuWay Cleaners • City of Sacramento – former Micheletti site • City of Los Angeles – former Wilmington Block 27 A fast-paced project to remove 2,500 tons Former Time Oil Co. petroleum-impacted soils at a former tank farm on West Sacramento the Sacramento River. Removal of contaminated soil allowed the West Sacramento Flood Control Agency to complete a levee restoration project by the end of summer 2018. High-resolution techniques were used to identify Former P&K Cleaners residual dry cleaning solvent near the former Pleasanton machines. SCAP funds the operation of vapor mitigation systems at neighboring homes, groundwater monitoring, a human health risk assessment, and an approach to cleanup. More Information
• Visit our website – http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/scap • Sign up for email alerts for Groundwater Quality Funding Assistance – http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/resources/email_subscriptions/swrcb_subscrib e.shtml • Use the Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool (FAAST) - https://faast.waterboards.ca.gov • Contact the SCAP Program Manager, Kathryn Dominic, at [email protected]
THANK YOU. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Streamlined Permitting Process
Complying with AB 1236 and Best Practice Strategies
1 Transportation Electrification Partnership Our Region
• Nation's largest Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
• Governed by a Regional Council of 86 elected officials
square miles So Cal Plug-in Electric Vehicle Readiness Atlas
Which neighborhoods have the greatest number of registered PEVs?
Where is the greatest demand for workplace charging?
Where is the greatest need for retail/ commercial charging?
Where is there a lack of nearby charging? Agenda
# Item 1 Why is it important to focus on streamlined permitting process for EVCS? 2 What is AB 1236? 3 LACI streamlined permitting recommendations 4 Challenges to implementing a streamlined permitting process 5 Next Steps OUR MISSION
LACI is creating an inclusive green economy
UNLOCKING INNOVATION MARKET TRANSFORMATION ENHANCING COMMUNITY THE TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION PARTNERSHIP
“That’s why we are moving toward an additional 25 percent reduction in GHG emissions and air pollution, through accelerating transportation electrification, by the time the world arrives in Los Angeles for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.”
–TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION LEADERSHIP GROUP, SEPTEMBER 2018 Transportation Sector is Leading Contributor to Climate Change
Transportation sector is the largest source of GHG emissions in California
As of 2018, transportation accounts for 41% of statewide emissions
Source: CARB 5 AB 1236 (Chiu, 2015) Requires Streamlined Permitting
Per AB 1236, cities and counties should have implemented streamlined permitting for EV charging
On or before September 30, 2016: On or before September 30, 2017: For every city, county, or city and For every city, county, or city and county with a population of 200,000 county with a population of less than or more residents 200,000 residents
Source: Plug-in Charging Station Development Streamlining Guidebook 9 What AB 1236 Aims to Accomplish
Aligning Authorities Having Making it easy to apply for a Laying the foundation for Jurisdictions (AHJ) and applicants permit streamlined reviews
Addressing Breakdown in Electronic Submission Non-Discretionary Use Permit Communication
Law requires cities and counties AHJs are required to allow for electronic Cities and counties shall approve permit to adopt an electric vehicle submission of application packets for applications through a building permit or charging station permitting plug-in electric vehicle charging stations similar non-discretionary permit, checklist detailing requirements for through email, internet, and/or fax and focusing on public health and safety a project to be eligible for an allow for electronic signatures on all forms expedited review In the vast majority of cases, this means This simple change can save that no discretionary use permit will be Idea is to create process considerable time and money required, which can be the most time- consuming aspect of permit approvals transparency that simplifies communication for both AHJs and station developers
More and more communities are establishing these checklists, but much work remains to spread this solution across the state (checklists were required to be posted by September 30, 2017)
Source: Plug-in Charging Station Development Streamlining Guidebook 10 What does a streamlined process look like?
At the most basic level, a streamlined permitting process does two things:
Creates clear pathways to a 1 non-discretionary permit approval
2 Makes the non-discretionary permit simple and straightforward
Source: Plug-in Charging Station Development Streamlining Guidebook 11 Complying with AB 1236
AB 1236 Compliant NOT AB 1236 Compliant (Electric Vehicle Charging Station Friendly) (Challenging to Deploy Charging)
Ordinance creating expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) including Level 2 and direct current No permit streamlining ordinance; and/or ordinances that create fast chargers (DCFC) has been adopted unreasonable barriers to EVCS installation Checklist of all requirements needed for expedited review posted on Authority Having Jurisdiction (usually a city or county) website No checklist for EVCS permitting requirements
EVCS projects that meet expedited checklist are administratively Permitting process centered around getting a discretionary use permit approved through building or similar non-discretionary permit first
EVCS projects reviewed with the focus on health and safety EVCS projects reviewed for aesthetic considerations in addition to building and electrical review
AHJ commits to issuing one complete written correction notice detailing all deficiencies in an incomplete application and any additional New issue areas introduced by AHJ after initial comments are sent to information needed to be eligible for expedited permit issuance the station developer
AHJ accepts electronic signatures on permit applications* Wet signatures required on one or more application forms EVCS permit approval not subject to approval of an association (as defined in Section 4080 of the Civil Code). EVCS approval can be conditioned on the approval of a common interest association. 12 Source: Plug-in Charging Station Development Streamlining Guidebook Permit Timeline Best Practice
Application Submittal Complete Response
Type of Charger Within Best Practice Optimal
Level 2 – Single Family 1 day Multi Level 2 – Shared (Multi- 1 day Same Day Family/Workplace/Public) DC Fast Charger 5 days
Source: Plug-in Charging Station Development Streamlining Guidebook LACI Streamlined Permitting Recommendations
Provide permitting correction Waive electric vehicle charging sheets station permit fee
Develop an outreach and education program for internal and external stakeholders
Source: Plug-in Charging Station Development Streamlining Guidebook, CA Plug-in Vehicle Collaborative 13 Challenges to Implementing a Streamlined Permitting Process
Zoning Lack of Inconsistency Aesthetics Conflicts Familiarity
• Classification of • Accessibility • AB 1236 requires • Amount of power larger charging regulations are that only health and required for DCFC installations as applied on a site- safety concerns installations may be fueling stations specific basis by can be grounds for unfamiliar and and concern over local building rejecting or revising concerning compliance with officials causing a permit application • Other building officials zoning codes AHJ’s to have • Aesthetic changes may be familiar with • Streamlining of different that do not have a DCFC safety DCFC charging interpretations of the specific impact, requirements and depot zoned for code, especially if an such as assume features such fueling but not for installation presents landscaping, are as disconnect commercial or a site-specific not grounds for switches should be retail setting challenge rejection/revision required on L2 charging (they are not)
Source: Plug-in Charging Station Development Streamlining Guidebook 14 Next Steps for Cities and Counties
1 2 3 4 5
Review existing resources to develop draft Invite industry and permitting process stakeholders to the table to identify challenges and Train local contractors develop strategies and station developers for streamlining on proper permit and improvement submittals to save Coordinate with time on staff work other AHJs in region spent reviewing to share best practices and incomplete Adopt and begin develop similar applications. implementation of standardized intake streamlined and review permitting process processes
Source: Plug-in Charging Station Development Streamlining Guidebook 15 Contacts
Michelle Kinman LACI Director of Transportation [email protected]
Elizabeth Moss LACI Transportation Electrification Partnership Coordinator [email protected]
Marco Anderson SCAG Senior Regional Planner [email protected]
16 Resources
17 AB 1236 Best Practices AB 1236 Best Practices Not Compliant with AB 1236 Best Practices
Clear EVCS permitting process detailed on AHJ website Permitting process not explained on AHJ website ZEV Infrastructure permitting official appointed to help applicants through AHJ does not offer access to an expert who can support station developers the entire permitting process through the entire permitting process Guidance documents for permitting and inspecting charging stations at Limited or no information online single family home, multi-family home, workplace, public (L2 and DCFC), and commercial medium and heavy duty posted on AHJ website
Pre-application meetings with knowledgeable AHJ staff are offered Full permit package needs to be submitted to gain feedback from AHJ staff AHJ has published ordinance or bulletin clarifying plug-in electric vehicle EVCS installation projects trigger a parking count review charging space counts as one or more parking spaces for zoning purposes Concurrent reviews are made available for building, electrical (and Sequential permit reviews only planning, if necessary) Planning for ZEVs and supporting infrastructure is incorporated and EV charging guidelines are not incorporated into planning documents prioritized within general plan, capital improvement plan, climate action plan, and design guidelines EVCS are classified as accessory use to a site, not as traditional fueling AHJ considers charging stations as fueling stations, leading to additional station zoning review AHJ has established timelines for EV permit application review that are AHJ does not have expedited permitting process for EV applications – expedited when compared to standard building permit review timelines in that jurisdiction resulting in standard project permitting timelines AHJ’s expedited EV permit review process encourages permit reviewers to AHJ does not encourage conditional approval of permits conditionally approve permits Links
Name URL
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160A AB 1236 B 1236 GO-Biz Charging Station Development http://businessportal.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/GoBIZ-EVCharging- Streamlining Guidebook Guidebook.pdf AB 1236 Compliance Toolkits for small and https://www.calbo.org/post/electric-vehicle-charging large jurisdictions SCAG/UCLA Luskin PEV Readiness Plan https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/SCAG- 2016 Southern%20CA%20PEV%20Readiness%20Plan.pdf
GO-Biz ZEV Community Readiness Guidebook http://opr.ca.gov/docs/ZEV_Guidebook.pdf
Electric Vehicle Charging Station https://energycenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/nav/programs/pev- Permitting and Inspection Best Practices planning/FINAL_Sub-regional_Workshop_Presentation_with_ZEV_slides.pdf
CA ADA Compliance https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/access/EVCSPresentation_04-07-17.pdf
https://www.weho.org/city-government/city-departments/planning-and- EV Charge Up West Hollywood development-services/building-and-safety/ev-charge-up-west-hollywood
Veloz http://www.veloz.org/
18 Sample Documents
21 Sample Permitting Checklist
Source: CA Plug-in Vehicle Collaborative 22 Sample Permit Application Checklist: West Hollywood
Source: City of West Hollywood 23 Sample Inspection Checklist
Source: Center for Sustainable Energy 24 CAL BO AB 1236 Ordinance Template
Source: California Building Officials 25 CAL BO AB 1236 Staff Report Template
Source: California Building Officials 26 ZEV Readiness Scorecard Source: Plug-in Charging Station Development Streamlining Guidebook Permitting Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Scorecard
Streamlining Ordinance Ordinance creating an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) including level 2 and direct current fast chargers (DCFC) has been adopted Permitting checklists covering L1, L2, and DCFC Checklist of all requirements needed for expedited review posted on Authority Having Jurisdiction (usually a city or county) website Administrative approval of EVCS EVCS projects that meet expedited checklist are administratively approved through building or similar non-discretionary permit Approval focused on Health and Safety Review EVCS projects reviewed with the focus on health and safety One complete deficiency notice AHJ commits to issuing one complete written correction notice detailing all deficiencies in an incomplete application and any additional information needed to be eligible for expedited permit issuance. Electric signatures accepted. AHJ accepts electronic signatures on permit applications* EVCS not subject to association approval EVCS permit approval not subject to approval of an association (as defined in Section 4080 of the Civil Code). Bonus: Expedited timeline for approval Consistent with the intent of AB 1236, AHJ establishes expedited timelines for EVSE permit approval compared to standard project approval procedures. Sample Checklist: Is your city or county ready to grow plug-in electric vehicle charging by streamlining the permitting process?
❏Are ZEVs, and charging and fueling needs, ❏Does your city or county website provide clear upfront info incorporated within documents such as the general plan, about fees, timeline, and required application materials capital improvement plan, climate action plan, and design including for different kinds of installations (e.g., L1, L2, DCFC; guidelines? single-family, commercial, MUDs)? ❏Does your city or county have documents such as an ❏Does your city or county make application forms available in EV-readiness ordinance, stretch codes, and other fillable PDFs, or similar format, for digital submission? supporting codes and policies? Is the region covered by a ❏Can minor revisions to application packages be addressed regional readiness plan? in an initial permitting meeting or site visit, rather than having to ❏Does your city or county zoning code address whether revise and resubmit the entire application package for small electric vehicle charging spaces count as parking? changes? ❏Does your city or county have an enforcement policy ❏Has your city or county shared a concise review checklist for and plan for vehicle charging spots on your property? building inspections, showing what will be inspected and what ❏Do your city or county policies, and especially building documents will be required? codes, account for charging management technology? ❏Does your city or county allow inspections to proceed ❏Has your city or county assessed which forms of without an electrician present whenever possible? charging station applications can be done via same-day, over-the-counter, online permitting?
Source: Plug-in Charging Station Development Streamlining Guidebook 27 Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permitting Fact Sheet
The Transportation Electrification Partnership (TEP) is an unprecedented multi-year partnership among local, regional, and state stakeholders to accelerate progress towards transportation electrification and zero emissions goods movement in the Greater LA region in advance of the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The goals of the Zero Emissions 2028 Roadmap 1.0 include installation of 60,000-130,000 public chargers for people movement and 10,000-100,000 zero emission chargers for goods movement in LA County. To meet these goals, we must make it easier to permit and install charging infrastructure.
What is AB 1236? Potential obstacles to ? In order to remove unreasonable barriers implementing AB 1236 to the installation of EV charging stations, Zoning Conflicts: Classification of larger this legislation requires cities and charging installations as fueling stations, counties to implement a streamlined which limits location option. permitting process. Inconsistency: Accessibility regulations Many cities and counties are not are applied on a site-specific basis leading to different interpretations by local in compliance with AB 1236 building officials. Due to lack of awareness, enforcement, Aesthetics: Aesthetic changes are deemed and inconsistent application across the grounds for permit application rejection, state, a wide variance in permitting which is not allowed by AB 1236. processes persists. Lack of familiarity: The amount of power Why is AB 1236 important? required for DCFC installations may be unknown. • Transportation is the leading source of GHG emissions in CA, accounting for 41%. How can my City or County • On-road transportation emissions lead to 3,100 premature deaths a year in CA become compliant with AB 1236? • Implement an ordinance to adopt AB 1236 • Demand for EV charging stations is projected to increase substantially in • Provide a checklist of requirements for coming years expedited application review 10% - Electricity (In state) • Allow approval of projects through non-
6% - Electricity (Imports) discretionary building permits 23% - Industrial • Provide one complete correction notice for 8% - Agricultural incomplete applications • Allow for electric signatures on all permit 7% - Residential applications
5% - Commercial <1% - Not specified
41% - Transportation
429.4 MMTCO2e - 2016 TOTAL CA EMISSIONS
*California Air Resources Board Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory, 2018 Best Practices
AB 1236 Best Practices Not compliant with AB 1236 Best Practices
Clear EVCS permitting process detailed on AHJ website Permitting process not explained on AHJ website
ZEV Infrastructure permitting official appointed to help AHJ does not offer access to an expert who can support station applicants through the entire permitting process developers through the entire permitting process
Guidance doucments for permitting and inspecting charging Limited or no information online stations at single family home, multi-family home, workplace, public (L2 and DCFC), and commercial medium and heavy duty posted on AHJ website
Pre-applicaton meetings with knowledgable AHJ staff are offered Full permit package needs to be submitted to gain feedback from AHJ staff
AHJ has published ordinance or bulletin clarifying plug-in electric EVCS installation projects trigger a parking count review vehicle charging space counts as one or more parking spaces for zoning purposes
Concurrent reviews are made available for building, elecrical Sequential permit reviews only (and planning, if necessary)
Planning for ZEVs and supporting infrastructure is incorporated EV charging guidelines are not incorporated into planning and prioritized within general plan, capital improvement plan, documents climate action plan, and design guidelines
EVCS are classified as accessory use to a site, not as AHJ considers charging stations as fueling stations, traditional fueling station leading to additional zoning review
AHJ has established timelines for EV permit application review AHJ does not have expedited permitting process for EV that are expedited when compared to standard building permit applications - resulting in standard project permitting timelines review timelines in that jurisdiction
AHJ’s expedited permit review process encourages permit AHJ does not encourage conditional approval of permits reviewers to conditionally approve permits
LACI Streamlined Permitting Recommendations • Provide permitting correction sheets to clearly outline required revisions for incomplete permitting applications • Waive electric vehicle charging station permit fee to incentivize permit pulling • Develop outreach and education program for internal and external stakeholders to provide input before streamlined permitting process is implemented
Where can I find more information? • Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permitting Guidebook • California Building Officials AB 1236 Compliance Toolkits for small and large jurisdictions • Ready Set Charge California: A Guide to EV-Ready Communities
To learn more, please contact Elizabeth Moss at [email protected] 6th Cycle RHNA: Overview and Draft Methodology
Kevin Kane, PhD
Department of Research and Analysis [email protected] Regional Housing Needs Assessment
• State housing law requirement to determine regional housing needs
• 8 year planning period
• 5th cycle: 2013-2021 • 6th cycle: 2021-2029
• Final allocation adoption October 2020 The RHNA Process
Summer 2019 Fall 2019 Winter 2020 Oct 2020 Oct 2021
Local Housing HCD Regional Draft RHNA Final RHNA Methodology Element Update Determination Allocation Allocation (October 2021- October 2029)
Final RTP/SCS
Apr 2020 Objectives of RHNA
1) To increase the housing supply and mix of housing types, tenure and affordability within each region in an equitable manner
2) Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the encouragement of efficient development patterns Objectives of RHNA
3) Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing
4) Allocating a lower proportion of housing need in income categories in jurisdictions that have a disproportionately high share in comparison to the county distribution
5) Affirmatively furthering fair housing Regional Determination: 6th Cycle Changes • Overcrowding • 65584.01 (b)(C)(ii): “The term “overcrowded rate for a comparable housing market” means that the overcrowding rate is no more than the average overcrowding rate in comparable regions throughout the nation, as determined by the council of governments.”
• Cost-burdened households • American Community Survey measure: share of households paying more than 30% of income on housing (split by income category)
• Existing regional vacancy below healthy market rates • Rental + owner rates
• HCD has much increased oversight, finalizing consultation during August 2019
• Total regional need likely more than double 5th cycle How should we distribute regional housing need?
• 6th cycle
• Local input on household growth? • Share of regional population? • High quality transit areas? • Recent building permit activity? • Job centers/job proximity? • Overcrowding/cost burden? • Household income distribution? Proposed RHNA Allocation Methodology: Options
• Three options developed based on feedback from RHNA Subcommittee and stakeholders
• Each option applies different components
• Recommendation to release for public comment period
• One option will be recommended in late September 2019 for submittal to HCD Social Equity Adjustment 60%
50% County distribution (benchmark) 53%
45% 40% 44% City A existing distribution
County distribution (benchmark) 30% City A existing distribution
36% 32% 25% 20%
HH Income Distribution Income HH 24%
17% 10%
0% Very low income Low income Moderate Above moderate City A Existing Distribution County Existing Distribution/ 100% Adjustment 110% Adjustment 175% Adjustment Option 1 Determining Projected Housing Need
Future vacancy need Jurisdiction’s Jurisdiction (owner) Jurisdiction’s share of regional share of Projected Housing projected HH growth regional Future replacement Need vacancy need need (renter) Option 1 Determining Projected Housing Need Option 1 Determining Existing Need Option 1 Determining Existing Need
Jurisdiction Existing Housing Need (only three categories) Very low Jurisdiction Existing 110% social equity Low Housing Need adjustment Moderate Option 1 Total RHNA Allocation Option 2 Option 2 Option 3
• Similar to projected need from Option 1
• Share of regional population growth instead of household growth
• Horizon year based on closest household growth to regional determination from HCD Option 3 Proposed RHNA Methodology Estimate Tool
19 A Comparison of Options Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Existing need separate Yes No No from projected need
Higher total of lower Yes No No income categories
Emphasis on HQTA from Yes Yes No regional total On existing need only, 20% On total allocation, 20%
Accounts for recent Yes No No building activity
Yes Yes Yes Social equity adjustment 110% for existing need 150% for total need 150% for total need 150% for projected need
Local input as a Yes No Yes component Next Steps • Key Dates: • August 1, RC released methodology options for public review • September 13, public comment period closes • Tentative: October 7, RHNA Subcommittee votes on recommended option
• Proposed RHNA methodology public hearings • August 15, 6 – 8 pm, Los Angeles (with view-only webcast) • August 20, 1 – 3 pm Los Angeles (with view-only webcast) • August 22, 1 – 3 pm, Irvine (City Conference & Training Center) • August 27, 6 - 8 pm, San Bernardino (SBCTA)
• More information available at www.scag.ca.gov/rhna • Email: [email protected] Connect SoCal (2020) RTP/SCS) Development Plan Development Discussions
February 7, 2019 - Who are we planning for? March 7, 2019 - Where will we grow? April 4, 2019 - How will we connect? May 2, 2019 - Beyond Boundaries & Launch of Community Outreach August 1, 2019 - Major Themes & Policy Direction September 5, 2019 – Draft Plan: Discuss Major Elements October 3, 2019 - Draft Plan & Performance November 7, 2019 - Release Plan for Public Comment
23 Goals
Maximize Diverse Types of Mobility Choices Infrastructure Housing
Community Robust Economy
Safe & Healthy Land Conservation Environment
Improved Air Climate Change Quality Disaster Resiliency Adaptation
24 Performance Measures Framework
Investment Land Use Mobility Effectiveness
Economy Environment Equity
25 Performance Measures for Connect SoCal
State Mandate Federal Mandate
Achieve 2020 (8%) and 2035 (19%) Transportation Conformity regional per capita GHG emission Determination reduction targets. • Regional emissions analysis test • Timely implementation of transportation control measure
26 Connect SoCal Outreach and Public Participation 500+ 200-700+ 1,500+ people people people Public Workshops Telephone Town Hall Community Based Organizations
1,300+ 49M 4,000+ engagements impressions completions Street Team Advertising Surveys
27 Surveys: What We Heard Future growth should not occur on pristine open space. Close to transit investments, regardless if its within existing single family or not.
Densification should be done carefully to make sure existing residents aren’t pushed out, especially the disadvantaged… Within in city limits! No more stretching into dangerous wildfire country… Farm land and protected areas should not be developed. Rural areas need to remain rural. Keep single family housing zoning. Do not need further growth, already too crowded. Build new cities if you must out in the desert…
28 Surveys: Perspectives on Top Challenges (by county)
Housing Affordability, Traffic Congestion, Housing Affordability, Air Quality Traffic Congestion, Traffic Safety
Housing Affordability, Traffic Congestion, Traffic Congestion, Housing Affordability, Air Quality Traffic Safety
Housing Affordability, Air Quality, Open Space Loss, Housing Affordability, Traffic Congestion Traffic Congestion
29 DRAFT Plan
Regional Policies & Strategies
County/Local Plans, Regional Growth Forecast, Transportation Project Lists
30 Major Themes and Regional Policy Direction
Key Priority Areas Core areas for regional leadership to address trends, emerging issues and gaps
Core Regional Strategies New or enhanced strategies to address Key Priority Areas
Implementation Vision Opportunities to align SCAG Work Program with Key Priority Areas and Core Regional Strategies
31 Key Priority Areas
• Safety
• Resilience
• Climate & Air Quality
• Technology
• Planning for Disruption Number of Traffic Related Fatalities
32 Key Priority Areas
• Safety
• Resilience
• Climate & Air Quality
• Technology
• Planning for Disruption
WILDFIRE RISK
33 Key Priority Areas
LOS ANGELES: JULY 2018 • Safety
• Resilience
• Climate & Air Quality
• Technology
• Planning for Disruption
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-smog-southern-california-20190701-story.html
34 Key Priority Areas
• Safety
• Resilience
• Climate & Air Quality
• Technology
• Planning for Disruption
35 Key Priority Areas
• Safety
• Resilience
• Climate & Air Quality
• Technology
• Planning for Disruption
https://www.sld.com/blog/retail/key-factors-driving-disruption/
36 Core Regional Strategies
Regional Growth: Priority Growth/Conservation Areas
Housing Opportunity
Smart Communities/Virtual Access
Multi-Modal Infrastructure Investments
New System Management
Resilience and System Preservation
Regional Clean Technology Vision
37 Core Regional Strategies
38 Regional Growth: Priority Growth/Conservation Areas “Job Centers Strategies” for Draft 2020 RTP/SCS • Developing potential strategy for Connect SoCal • Regression methodology to find areas significantly denser than surroundings – not absolute job peaks • 69 centers covering parts of 104 cities • Covers 2.3M jobs (1/3 of region) • Additional technical documentation at http://www.scag.ca.gov/com mittees/CommitteeDocLibrar y/twg051619fullagn.pdf • Video at https://mfi.soceco.uci.edu/cat egory/quarterly- report/detecting-job-density- over-time/ Core Regional Strategies Housing Opportunity
40 Core Regional Strategies
Smart Communities/Virtual Access
41 Core Regional Strategies
Multi-Modal Infrastructure Investments
42 Core Regional Strategies
New Transportation System Management
43 Core Regional Strategies
System Preservation and Resilience
44 Core Regional Strategies
Regional Clean Technology Vision
45 Regional Initiatives
Connect SoCal: FY 20 Activities (Examples) Policy Committee DRAFT Regional Initiatives System Preservation & Resilience • Caltrans Vulnerability Assessments Energy & Environment • Regional Resilience Study • Local Adaptation/ Resilience Planning Safety • High Injury Network Mapping Transportation • Local Safety Plans/Vision Zero • Technology Solutions Complete Streets • Curbside Management Study Community, Economic and • Go Human Pilot Projects Human Development • Local Plans, Pilot Projects Clean Tech • Low Emission Zone-Pilots Energy & Environment • EV Infrastructure Studies Mobility Innovation (Policies, • Mobility Innovations and Incentives – Pilot Emerging Programs, Partnerships) • Last Mile Delivery Pilot Program Tech/Transportation • School Trip Strategy • Tourism & Travel • Senior Mobility Solutions 46 Regional Initiatives
Connect SoCal: FY 20 Activities (Examples) Policy Committee DRAFT Regional Initiatives
Housing Supportive • SB 102 Program Development Community, Economic and Infrastructure/Affordable • SB 743 Mitigation Human Development Housing • EIFD Advanced Mitigation • Regional Greenprint Energy & Environment
Smart Cities/IT Infrastructure • Future of Work Place Emerging Tech/ Community, • Future Communities Initiative Pilot Projects Economic and Human • SB 102 Program Development (e-permitting) Development
Planning Innovation • Regional Data Platform All • Activity Based Model • Enhanced Scenario Planning • Sustainable Communities Program/Pilot Projects • MPO Collaborations 47 WE’RE PLANNING FOR 2045
48
Housing Needs Study Gateway Cities Council of Governments
August 2019
Veronica Tam and Associates, Inc. 107 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 212 Pasadena, CA 91105
MIG, Inc. 537 S. Raymond Avenue Pasadena, CA 91105
Gateway Cities Council of Governments Housing Needs Study
Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... i List of Tables ...... ii List of Figures ...... ii A. Background and Purpose of Report ...... 1 B. Geographic Coverage and Methodology ...... 1 1. Geographic Coverage ...... 1 2. Housing Needs Study Questionnaire ...... 2 3. Online Research and Document Review ...... 2 C. Housing Element Compliance ...... 2 1. Compliance Status (as of May 30, 2019) ...... 3 2. Progress of Non-Compliant Jurisdictions ...... 4 3. Progress of Conditionally Compliant Jurisdictions ...... 4 4. Four-Year Review and Update Requirement ...... 5 5. Rezone Programs in Housing Element ...... 5 D. Progress toward Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) ...... 6 1. Planning Goal versus Housing Production ...... 6 2. Progress toward RHNA ...... 7 E. Zoning Revisions ...... 13 1. Housing for the Homeless ...... 13 1.1 Background ...... 13 1.2 Emergency Shelter Ordinance and Housing Element Compliance ...... 13 1.3 Problematic Separation Requirements ...... 13 1.4 Relationship between Limits on Maximum Beds, Separation Requirements, and Available Parcels ..... 14 2. Accessory Dwelling Units ...... 14 2.1 Background ...... 14 2.2 Jurisdictions with Adopted ADU Ordinances ...... 14 2.3 ADU Construction ...... 15 2.1 Supportive Housing ...... 16 3. Density Bonus ...... 16 F. Summary of Housing Programs ...... 18 1. Inventory of Programs ...... 18 2. Effectiveness of Housing Programs – Survey Responses ...... 21 2.1 Successful Programs ...... 21 2.2 Obsolete Programs ...... 21 2.3 Conclusion of Responses ...... 21 G. Funding Sources ...... 21 3. HUD Entitlement Grants ...... 22
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page i
3.1 Annual Allocations ...... 22 3.2 Uses of Funds ...... 23 4. State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Competitive Grants ...... 23 H. Challenges ...... 23 I. Effective Land Use and Zoning Strategies ...... 24 J. Gaps in Housing Programs ...... 24 K. Innovative Housing Strategies ...... 25 1. Pasadena, CA ...... 25 1.1 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) ...... 25 1.2 Tenant Protection ...... 25 2. Paso Robles, CA ...... 26 3. Sonoma County, CA ...... 26 4. Denver, CO ...... 26 L. Assistance from GCCOG ...... 27 M. Looking Ahead – Sixth RHNA Cycle ...... 27 N. Preliminary Policy Recommendations ...... 28 1. Inclusionary Housing Policy ...... 28 2. Accommodating RHNA with Existing Housing Units – Legislative Changes...... 29 3. Land Use Policies and Zoning ...... 29 3.1 Density Limits ...... 29 3.2 Other Considerations ...... 30 Appendix A: Housing Needs Study Questionnaire ...... A-1
List of Tables Table 1: Housing Element Compliance Status (as of May 30, 2019) ...... 3 Table 2: Status of Rezone Programs ...... 6 Table 3: RHNA and Progress Since 2013 (as of December 31, 2018) ...... 7 Table 4: Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance ...... 15 Table 5: Density Bonus ...... 17 Table 6: Summary of Key Housing Programs ...... 19 Table 7: Uses of HUD Entitlement Grants for Housing Activities ...... 22 Table 8: HCD Competitive Grants (2014-2018) ...... 23 Table 9: Effective Land Use and Zoning Strategies ...... 24 Table 10: Three Options for RHNA Allocation Methodology ...... 27 Table 11: Hypothetical RHNA Estimates Using SCAG Model ...... 28 Table 11: Multi-Family and Mixed Use Residential Density Limits ...... 30
List of Figures Figure 1: Housing Production (2013-2018) ...... 12
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page ii
Gateway Cities Council of Governments Housing Needs Study
A. Background and Purpose of Report The Gateway Cities recognize the significant housing challenges the region is facing in providing adequate and affordable housing for its diverse and growing population. Homelessness is also on the rise throughout the region. With the dissolution of redevelopment in 2012, communities across the State have lost their most significant funding source for affordable housing. Affordable housing production has come to a standstill in many communities. Communities must explore alternative mechanisms to facilitate housing development and affordable housing in particular. In light of the recent changes to State housing laws, the next Housing Element update (due October 2021) is anticipated to be challenging, to say the least. The Gateway Cities are interested in gaining an understanding of current conditions in the region, specifically: . Existing Housing Element Law Compliance, including Housing Element certification status, Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and progress toward meeting the RHNA. . An inventory of existing and proposed housing programs, in order to identify best practices. . Zoning revisions that must be completed to receive a Finding of Substantial Compliance for the 6th cycle. In 2018, the Gateway Cities Council of Government (GCCOG) obtained funding from the State legislature to conduct a Housing Needs Study. Veronica Tam and Associates, Inc. (VTA), in association with MIG, Inc., was retained by GCCOG to conduct this study.
B. Geographic Coverage and Methodology
1. Geographic Coverage The Gateway Cities region consists of 27 cities and additional unincorporated communities in Southeast Los Angeles County, with a total population of 2.1 million: . Artesia . Hawaiian Gardens . Norwalk . Avalon . Huntington Park . Paramount . Bell . Industry . Pico Rivera . Bellflower . La Mirada . Santa Fe Springs . Bell Gardens . Lakewood . Signal Hill . Cerritos . Long Beach . South Gate . Commerce . Lynwood . Vernon . Compton . Maywood . Whittier . Cudahy . Montebello . County Unincorporated . Downey Areas To the extent feasible, analysis in this Housing Needs Study covers the entire Gateway Cities region. However, not every jurisdiction chose to participate in the Study. VTA-MIG staff pursued responses and information via other avenues.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 1
2. Housing Needs Study Questionnaire In order to compile information about Housing Element law compliance and housing programs for individual jurisdictions within the Gateway region, a questionnaire was administered. A copy of the questionnaire is included as Appendix A of this report. Jurisdictions could respond to the questionnaire online and discuss their responses via phone calls and emails. However, two jurisdictions declined to participate in the Housing Needs Study and several jurisdictions have not provided responses as of the writing of this report (Bell Gardens and Industry). The Housing Needs Study Questionnaire contains requests for factual information as well as input from jurisdictions regarding constraints to housing development, innovative approaches to affordable housing, effective versus obsolete housing programs, and ways that GCCOG could provide support to member jurisdictions. For those jurisdictions that did not participate in the Questionnaire, VTA-MIG staff reached out to the staff via phone calls and emails to obtain input, and researched the factual information by reviewing documents available online. However, for questions that require local input, VTA-MIG staff refrained from making conclusions without the participation of the jurisdictions.
3. Online Research and Document Review VTA-MIG staff reviewed documents available online to compile information on Housing Element compliance, RHNA progress, and implementation of housing programs (especially regarding zoning revisions committed in Housing Elements). The following resources were used: . General Plans and Housing Elements . Municipal Codes . Housing Element Annual Progress Reports . State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) website – Housing Element Resources pages . Ordinances and specific documents provided by participating jurisdictions
C. Housing Element Compliance State Housing Element law requires that every jurisdiction update the Housing Element of the General Plan according to a statutory deadline. For the 5th cycle update, jurisdictions in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, which includes the GCCOG, the statutory deadline was October 15, 2013, with a 120-day grace period. Prior to adoption of the Housing Element, jurisdictions must submit the Draft Housing Element to HCD for review in order to determine compliance with State Housing Element law. Jurisdictions must address comments on the Housing Element to HCD’s satisfaction in order to achieve a “Finding of Substantial Compliance” (more commonly referred to as “certification”). Benefits of compliance include: . Eligibility for State housing and community development funds, such as SB 2 Planning and Affordable Housing grants, State Housing Trust Funds, and State-administered Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership funds (HOME).1 . Presumption of validity in the event of a lawsuit. . A legally adequate General Plan, as the Housing Element is an integral component of the General Plan.
1 In other regions, such as San Diego and the Bay Area, the distribution of transportation funds by the Council of Governments is also contingent upon Housing Element compliance.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 2
1. Compliance Status (as of May 30, 2019) VTA-MIG staff reviewed the HCD website and discussed with HCD staff and city staff of GCCOG jurisdictions regarding Housing Element compliance. This report categorizes Housing Element compliance into the following different categories: . Adopted Housing Element in Substantial Compliance: Jurisdictions that submitted an adopted Housing Element for HCD review and received a Finding of Substantial Compliance on the adopted Housing Element. . Adopted Housing Element in Substantial Compliance with Condition(s): Jurisdictions that submitted an adopted Housing Element for HCD review and received a Finding of Substantial Compliance contingent upon the follow-up implementation of specific housing programs, zoning revisions, or other commitments. . Adopted Housing Element Out of Compliance: Jurisdictions that submitted a Draft Housing Element for HCD review, but did not address comments on the Draft Housing Element to HCD’s satisfaction and proceeded to adopting the Housing Element. . No Adopted Housing Element – Draft Element Out of Compliance: Jurisdictions that submitted a Draft Housing Element for HCD review, but did not address comments on the Draft Housing Element to HCD’s satisfaction and did not proceed to adopting the Housing Element. . No Draft or Adopted Housing Element: Jurisdictions that never submitted a Draft Housing Element for HCD review.
Table 1: Housing Element Compliance Status (as of May 30, 2019) Compliance Status Jurisdiction . Avalon . Bell Gardens . Cerritos . Commerce . Cudahy . Downey . Hawaiian Gardens . Industry . La Mirada . Lakewood Adopted Housing Element in Substantial Compliance . Long Beach . Los Angeles County . Lynwood . Norwalk . Paramount2 . Pico Rivera . Santa Fe Springs . Signal Hill . South Gate . Vernon . Whittier Adopted Housing Element in Substantial Compliance with Condition(s) . Artesia Adopted Housing Element Out of Compliance . Maywood
2 The Paramount Housing Element adopted on February 4, 2014 was contingent upon the City zoning adequate sites for its RHNA obligations (4th cycle carryover and 5th cycle allocation). Adoption of Ordinance No. 1114 on May 21, 2019 sufficiently provides adequate sites for the RHNA. The City of Paramount’s Housing Element was deemed in substantial compliance as of June 4, 2019.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 3
Table 1: Housing Element Compliance Status (as of May 30, 2019) Compliance Status Jurisdiction . Bell No Adopted Housing Element – Draft Element Out of Compliance . Compton . Montebello No Adopted or Draft Housing Element – Out of Compliance . Huntington Park
2. Progress of Non-Compliant Jurisdictions
Prior to the passage of AB 72 (Enforce Housing Element Law)3 in 2017, HCD did not truly have the authority to monitor a State Department of Housing jurisdiction’s progress in fulfilling the conditions set forth in the and Community Development Finding of Substantial Compliance nor the ability to de-certify a (HCD) versus City of Housing Element due to failure to comply with the conditions. With Huntington Beach AB 72, HCD has assigned specific staff to monitor the progress of The adopted Huntington Beach jurisdictions with a non-compliant Housing Element, as well as those Housing Element relied entirely on the with a “Conditional” Finding of Substantial Compliance. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific HCD has contacted each of the non-compliant jurisdictions and Plan (BECSP) to fulfill it RHNA for requested a plan of action. Based on discussions with the lower income. However, after achieving participating jurisdictions and HCD staff, as well as information a Finding of Substantial Compliance available on the HCD website, the following summarizes the current status for the Housing Element, the status of the non-compliant Housing Elements: City downzoned the BECSP, reducing the capacity for development to less than . Maywood: The City recently retained a consultant to revise the RHNA. HCD revoked the Adopted Housing Element with the goal of achieving Huntington Beach’s compliance status. certification by the end of the year. After repeated but unsuccessful efforts to . Bell: The City resubmitted a Draft Housing Element to urge the City to replace the loss capacity, HCD on January 15, 2019 for HCD review. Per HCD’s HCD referred Huntington Beach to the review letter dated March 15, 2019, additional revisions are State Attorney General to pursue legal necessary. HCD indicated that Bell will be resubmitting a actions as authorized by AB 72. Revised Draft Housing Element soon. . Compton: The City resubmitted a Draft Housing Element to HCD on January 16, 2019 for HCD review. Per HCD’s review letter dated March 15, 2019, additional revisions are necessary. . Montebello: The City resubmitted a Draft Housing Element to HCD on February 13, 2019 for HCD review. Per HCD’s review letter dated April 12, 2019, additional revisions are necessary. . Huntington Park: The City is currently working on a Draft Housing Element. However, no timeline has been established with HCD.
3. Progress of Conditionally Compliant Jurisdictions Both the Artesia and Paramount Housing Elements were approved by HCD with a condition. . Artesia: The City committed to rezone to address a 4th cycle unaccommodated RHNA units (27 very low and low income units) within one year (by October 15, 2014) and also committed to rezone to accommodate a 5th cycle RHNA shortfall (49 Very Low/Low Income units). The City also committed to implementing a Housing Opportunities Overlay zone and identifying parcels for that
3 Authorizes HCD to find a jurisdiction out of compliance with state housing law at any time (instead of the current eight-year time period), and refer any violations of state housing law to the Attorney General if it determines the action is inconsistent with the locality’s adopted housing element.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 4
overlay. Additionally the City had planned to develop and implement a Mixed Use Overlay zone on sites currently designated City Center Mixed Use (GP) but zoned for commercial use. The City submitted a timeline to HCD on August 14, 2018 to address the committed actions, but HCD indicated that the timeline did not fully describe actions to implement the adequate sites program. Staff presented the Housing Opportunities Overlay zone to the planning commission on May 1, 2019.
4. Four-Year Review and Update Requirement The 5th cycle Housing Element was due October 15, 2013, with a 120-day grace period. Housing Element adopted after the grace period (February 12, 2014), regardless of compliance status, is required to conduct a four-year review and update. Technically, the four-year update was due October 15, 2017 with no grace period for adoption. Jurisdictions must complete two four-year reviews on time in order to be eligible for the eight-year Housing Element cycle again. Other considerations of the four-year review include: . HCD typically would like to see some progress in implementing the Adopted Housing Element prior to receiving the four-year review. . Four-year review must incorporate all new Housing Element requirements that have become effective since January 1, 2018. The cities of Bell, Compton, Huntington Park, and Montebello are subject to this requirement. Even though these communities are currently completing their initial 5th cycle update and the statutory deadline of the four-year update has passed, they would not be exempt from the four-year review and update requirement. City staff should contact HCD regarding a feasible schedule for the four-year review. The next time these jurisdictions could be eligible for the eight-year cycle would be the 7th update cycle if they are able to complete two consecutive four-year reviews on time.
5. Rezone Programs in Housing Element Provision of adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA is a key component of Housing Element requirement. When a jurisdiction does not identify adequate sites with appropriate densities and development standards in the Housing Element, a program must be included to rezone/upzone within one year of Housing Element adoption. Table 2 summarizes the status of jurisdictions in completing their rezone/upzone requirements.4 Pursuant to State law, unaccommodated RHNA from the previous Housing Element period would be carried over to the next RHNA cycle. The 6th RHNA is anticipated to be significantly higher than the 5th cycle due to improved housing market and new requirements to address existing housing needs as a result of overcrowding and cost burden. State law requires that adequate sites be available throughout the entire Housing Element planning period and establishes timeline for rezoning/upzoning. HCD generally would not accept rezoning/upzoning that is completed late in the planning period. Therefore, to avoid compounding the RHNA obligations, jurisdictions should address unresolved adequate site issues as soon as possible.
4 Status is determined, to the best of VTA-MIG ability, by reviewing 2018 Housing Element APRs, discussions with City and HCD staff, as of May 2019.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 5
Table 2: Status of Rezone Programs Jurisdiction with Rezone/ Obligations Completed? Status Upzone Commitment in HE 4th Cycle HE 5th Cycle HE Received request from HCD for Artesia 27 49 No corrective action. Received 30-day notice with written findings from HCD. Bell TBD TBD TBD City is currently updating HE to address adequate sites and other compliance issues. Received 30-day notice with written findings from HCD. Compton TBD TBD TBD City is currently updating HE to address adequate sites and other compliance issues. Cudahy 154 units 126 units Yes Obtained HE compliance status. Received 30-day notice with written findings from HCD. Huntington Park TBD TBD TBD City is currently updating HE to address adequate sites and other compliance issues. Received request from HCD for corrective action. Maywood 8 units 21 units No City will be revising HE to address adequate sites issue. Received 30-day notice with written Montebello 7.4 acres TBD No findings from HCD. Paramount 404 units 42 units Yes Obtained HE compliance status. Received request from HCD for Pico Rivera 345 units 348 units No corrective action. Sources: 1. Housing Elements 2. 2018 Housing Element Annual Progress Reports 3. Responses to Housing Needs Questionnaire and telephone interviews
D. Progress toward Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
1. Planning Goal versus Housing Production A key component of Housing Element compliance is the jurisdiction’s ability toward meeting its RHNA. Prior to the housing bills in 2017, RHNA was only a planning goal (identifying adequate sites) and not a production obligation, and adequacy of the sites inventory was only evaluated at the time of the Housing Element update. With the passage of these housing bills and their January 2018 effective date, jurisdictions face potentially material consequences for the lack of housing production: . SB 35 (Streamline Approval Process): Creates a streamlined approval process for developments in localities that have not yet met their housing targets, provided that the development is on an infill site and complies with existing residential and mixed use zoning. Participating developments must provide at least 10 percent of units for lower income families. . SB 166 (No Net Loss): Requires a jurisdiction to identify additional low income housing sites in their Housing Element when market-rate housing is developed on a site currently identified for low income housing. As a jurisdiction continues to build primarily market-rate housing on higher density
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 6
residential sites, the jurisdiction must identify replacement sites to ensure continued ability to accommodate the RHNA throughout the Housing Element planning period. . AB 72 (Enforce Housing Element Law): Authorizes HCD to find a jurisdiction out of compliance with State housing law at any time (instead of the current eight-year time period), and refer any violations of State housing law to the Attorney General if it determines the action is inconsistent with the locality’s adopted Housing Element.
2. Progress toward RHNA Table 3 summarizes the progress of Gateway Cities in meeting the RHNA with production. VTA-MIG staff reviewed the 2018 Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (APRs) and recent Draft Housing Elements submitted by jurisdictions that are working toward certification. In a few instances where jurisdictions did not participate in this Housing Needs Study and no APRs are available online, VTA-MIG staff used the progress data reported in the Adopted Housing Element, if available. In providing a summary of RHNA status for each jurisdiction, the following assumptions are used: . Pursuant to State law, jurisdictions must meet the RHNA for each income category either with production or by demonstrating adequate sites capacity. When demonstrating sites capacity, a jurisdiction is allowed to combine the Very Low and Low Income categories. . Excess production in a lower income category can be credited against the RHNA for a higher income category. For example, excess production in the Very Low Income category can be used to fulfill the RHNA for the Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate Income categories, and excess production in the Low Income category can be credited against the RHNA for the Moderate and Above Moderate Income categories. However, the reverse cannot be assumed. . The RHNA is considered a minimum requirement pursuant to State law. Excess production in the current Housing Element planning period cannot be carried forward to the next cycle. Therefore, a jurisdiction’s housing production may have exceeded the overall RHNA, particularly in the Above Moderate Income category, but still has a remaining RHNA obligation for lower income units. For example, Vernon has a RHNA of one Very Low Income unit and one Low Income unit. The City produced 44 Low Income units, far exceeding its overall RHNA. However, the City still has a RHNA obligation of one Very Low Income unit. Table 3 provides an Adjusted Remaining RHNA for each jurisdiction that takes into consideration these considerations. Overall, the Gateway Cities region (excluding Los Angeles County) produced about 28 percent of its RHNA, including 14 percent of the Very Low Income and 23 percent of the Low Income RHNA.
Table 3: RHNA and Progress Since 2013 (as of December 31, 2018) Above Jurisdiction RHNA Very Low Low Moderate Total Moderate RHNA 31 18 20 51 120 Production 0 65 0 55 55 Artesia % 0% 0% 0% 108% 46% Remaining 31 18 20 -4 65 Adjusted 31 18 20 0 69 RHNA 20 12 14 34 80 Avalon Production 0 0 0 4 4 % 0% 0% 0% 12% 5% Remaining 20 12 14 30 76
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 7
Table 3: RHNA and Progress Since 2013 (as of December 31, 2018) Above Jurisdiction RHNA Very Low Low Moderate Total Moderate Adjusted 20 12 14 30 76 RHNA 11 7 8 21 47 Production 65 59 3 72 140 Bell % 591% 843% 38% 343% 298% Remaining -54 -52 5 -51 -93 Adjusted 0 0 0 0 0 RHNA 1 1 0 0 2 Production 0 6 6 242 254 Bellflower % 0% 600% NA NA 12700% Remaining 1 -5 -6 -242 -252 Adjusted 1 0 0 0 1 RHNA 11 7 8 20 46 Production 0 0 10 17 27 Bell Gardens % 0% 0% 125% 85% 59% Remaining 11 7 -2 3 19 Adjusted 11 7 0 1 19 RHNA 23 14 14 35 86 Production 0 0 0 355 355 Cerritos % 0% 0% 0% 1014% 413% Remaining 23 14 14 -320 -269 Adjusted 23 14 14 0 51 RHNA 12 7 7 20 46 Production NA NA NA NA NA Commerce1 % NA NA NA NA NA Remaining NA NA NA NA NA Adjusted NA NA NA NA NA RHNA 1 1 0 0 2 Production 8 66 0 0 74 Compton % 800% 6600% NA NA 3700% Remaining -7 -65 0 0 -72 Adjusted 0 0 0 0 0 RHNA 80 46 51 141 318 Production 0 0 0 0 0 Cudahy % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Remaining 80 46 51 141 318 Adjusted 80 46 51 141 318 RHNA 210 123 135 346 814 Downey Production 0 6 70 204 280
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 8
Table 3: RHNA and Progress Since 2013 (as of December 31, 2018) Above Jurisdiction RHNA Very Low Low Moderate Total Moderate % 0% 5% 52% 59% 34% Remaining 210 117 65 142 534 Adjusted 210 117 65 142 534 RHNA 32 19 21 57 129 Production 0 0 0 1 1 Hawaiian Gardens % 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% Remaining 32 19 21 56 128 Adjusted 32 19 21 56 128 RHNA 216 128 149 402 895 Production NA NA NA NA NA Huntington Park1 % NA NA NA NA NA Remaining NA NA NA NA NA Adjusted NA NA NA NA NA RHNA 0 0 0 0 0 Production 0 0 0 0 0 Industry % NA NA NA NA NA Remaining 0 0 0 0 0 Adjusted 0 0 0 0 0 RHNA 7,854 4,650 5,060 12,581 30,145 Production 580 108 0 3,545 4,233 LA County % 7% 2% 0% 28% 14% Remaining 7,274 4,542 5,060 9,036 25,912 Adjusted 7,274 4,542 5,060 9,036 25,912 RHNA 62 37 40 96 235 Production 0 0 1 31 32 La Mirada % 0% 0% 3% 32% 14% Remaining 62 37 39 65 203 Adjusted 62 37 39 65 203 RHNA 107 63 67 166 403 Production 0 0 0 119 119 Lakewood % 0% 0% 0% 72% 30% Remaining 107 63 67 47 284 Adjusted 107 63 67 47 284 RHNA 1,773 1,066 1,170 3,039 7,048 Production 295 0 0 1,329 1,650 Long Beach % 17% 0% 0% 44% 23% Remaining 1,478 1,066 1,170 1,710 5,398 Adjusted 1,478 1,066 1,170 1,710 5,398
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 9
Table 3: RHNA and Progress Since 2013 (as of December 31, 2018) Above Jurisdiction RHNA Very Low Low Moderate Total Moderate RHNA 123 72 81 218 494 Production 98 0 0 44 142 Lynwood % 80% 0% 0% 20% 29% Remaining 25 72 81 174 352 Adjusted 25 72 81 174 352 RHNA 13 8 9 23 53 Production 6 10 11 0 27 Maywood % 46% 125% 122% 0% 51% Remaining 7 -2 -2 23 26 Adjusted 7 0 0 19 26 RHNA 269 161 175 461 1066 Production 0 0 0 0 0 Montebello % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Remaining 269 161 175 461 1066 Adjusted 269 161 175 461 1066 RHNA 52 31 33 85 201 Production 1 0 15 60 76 Norwalk % 2% 0% 45% 71% 38% Remaining 51 31 18 25 125 Adjusted 51 31 18 25 125 RHNA 26 16 17 46 105 Production 0 0 0 54 54 Paramount % 0% 0% 0% 117% 51% Remaining 26 16 17 -8 51 Adjusted 26 16 17 0 51 RHNA 217 131 140 362 850 Production NA NA NA NA NA Pico Rivera1 % NA NA NA NA NA Remaining NA NA NA NA NA Adjusted NA NA NA NA NA RHNA 82 50 53 139 324 Production 0 0 0 221 222 Santa Fe Springs % 0% 0% 0% 159% 69% Remaining 82 50 53 -82 102 Adjusted 82 50 53 0 185 RHNA 44 27 28 70 169 Signal Hill Production 44 27 19 28 118 % 100% 100% 68% 40% 70%
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 10
Table 3: RHNA and Progress Since 2013 (as of December 31, 2018) Above Jurisdiction RHNA Very Low Low Moderate Total Moderate Remaining 0 5 9 42 51 Adjusted 0 5 9 42 51 RHNA 314 185 205 558 1,262 Production 22 0 56 17 287 South Gate % 7% 0% 27% 3% 23% Remaining 292 185 149 541 975 Adjusted 292 185 149 541 975 RHNA 1 1 0 0 2 Production 0 44 0 0 44 Vernon % 0 4400% NA NA 2200% Remaining 1 -43 0 0 -42 Adjusted 1 0 0 0 1 RHNA 228 135 146 369 878 Production 57 8 144 178 387 Whittier % 25% 6% 99% 48% 44% Remaining 171 127 2 191 491 Adjusted 171 127 2 191 491 RHNA 3,959 2,366 2,591 6,759 15,675 GCCOG Total2 Production 596 560 335 3,031 4,522 (excluding LA County) % 15% 24% 13% 45% 29% Remaining 3,363 1,806 2,256 3,728 11,153 Sources: Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (APRs) and Housing Elements. Notes: 1. No APRs or updated information on progress available. 2. To avoid distorting the regional figures, GCCOG totals exclude the County of Los Angeles as only a small portion of the County unincorporated areas fall within the GCCOG region.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 11
Figure 1: Housing Production (2013-2018)
Note: Some Gateway Cities did not provide information on RHNA progress and the VTA-MIG team was not able to locate any 2018 Housing Element Annual Progress Reports.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 12
E. Zoning Revisions
1. Housing for the Homeless
1.1 Background SB 2 (Housing for the Homeless) of 2008 requires that jurisdictions, within one year of the 4th cycle Housing Element adoption, amend the zoning ordinance to identify a zone or zones where year-round emergency shelters for the homeless would be permitted by right without discretionary review. SB 2 of 2008 allows limited flexibility for local governments to apply written, objective development and management standards for emergency shelters as described below: . The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility. . Off-street parking based upon demonstrated need, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than for other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. . The size and location of exterior and interior on-site waiting and client intake areas. . The provision of on-site 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.
1.2 Emergency Shelter Ordinance and Housing Element Compliance The requirement to provide for by-right approval of emergency shelters for the homeless was established in 2008. HCD’s position is that until a jurisdiction complies with this requirement, the Housing Element would not be deemed in Substantial Compliance. Of the 28 jurisdictions in the Gateway Cities region, five jurisdictions (Bell, Huntington Park, Industry, Maywood, and Montebello) have not yet amended the zoning code to provide for emergency shelters. HCD in reviewing the Housing Element updates, may request to review the actual ordinance. With the heightening awareness of the housing crisis, many jurisdictions are also facing criticisms and legal actions from housing advocates to provide housing for the homeless. Jurisdictions should reassess the Emergency Shelter Ordinance to ensure compliance with State law, and appropriate amendments should be completed prior to or concurrent with the next Housing Element update.
1.3 Problematic Separation Requirements Many jurisdictions throughout the State have adopted emergency shelter ordinances that do not fully comply with State law. The most typical violation is illegal separation requirements, which were often adopted with good intentions (such as locating within proximity to transportation or buffering from schools and parks). However, the only distance requirement allowable under SB 2 of 2008 is a 300-foot separation from another emergency shelter. No other separation requirements are permitted. Among those cities with Emergency Shelter provisions in the zoning codes, several have separation requirements that are problematic. The following separation requirements identified in various ordinances are not permissible under State law:
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 13
. 1,000 feet from public or private schools, public parks, universities, colleges, student housing, senior housing, child care facilities, public parks, businesses licensed for on- or off-site sales of alcoholic beverages or parolee/probationer home. . Within ¼ mile from a public transportation stop. . 500 feet from another shelter (exceeding the State’s maximum 300-foot separation requirement) . 500 feet from a residential zone An approach to setting separation requirements without violating State law is to use an overlay approach. When establishing overlay zone, the jurisdiction can use various distance criteria to exclude or include properties. However, the specific distance criteria cannot appear in the zoning code.
1.4 Relationship between Limits on Maximum Beds, Separation Requirements, and Available Parcels The number of unsheltered homeless persons fluctuates annually according to the Point-in-Time Homeless Count. The actual capacity of a zone that allows emergency shelters should take into consideration the maximum beds limit per shelter and the separation requirement between two shelters. For example, a jurisdiction with an unsheltered homeless population 100 and a maximum 30 beds per shelter must demonstrate in the Housing Element adequate capacity for four shelters. With a separation requirement of 300 feet between two shelters, a zone or overlay zone must contain enough properties to accommodate the buffered shelters. Available capacity does not equal to the number of parcels in the designated zone(s). Jurisdictions may also be asked to demonstrate the availability of vacant and underutilized properties in the designated zone(s), or demonstrate the feasibility of adaptive reuse of existing structures given the existing uses or the maximum allowable beds per shelter.
2. Accessory Dwelling Units
2.1 Background In recent years, the State Legislature has passed numerous changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit requirements (ADU, and previously known as Second Unit) in order to promote the development of ADUs. These include allowing ADUs to be built concurrently with a single-family home, opening areas where ADUs can be built to include all zoning districts that allow single-family uses, modifying fees from utilities, such as special districts and water corporations, and reducing parking requirements. As of January 1, 2019, homeowners who created accessory dwelling units (ADUs) without the required building permits may have the opportunity to bring their ADUs into compliance. For ADUs that were constructed without building permits, local building officials now have the option to inspect an ADU and apply the building standards that were in effect at the time the unit was constructed. AB 2299 provides that any existing ADU ordinance that does not meet the new requirements is null and void as of January 1, 2017. In such cases, a jurisdiction must approve accessory dwelling units based on Government Code Section 65852.2 until the jurisdiction adopts a compliant ordinance. Jurisdictions are not required to create ordinances for ADUs; however, any jurisdiction that does adopt an ADU ordinance, must submit the ordinance to HCD within 60 days.
2.2 Jurisdictions with Adopted ADU Ordinances Among the 28 jurisdictions, twelve jurisdictions have adopted an ADU ordinance (Artesia, Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Downey, Lakewood, Long Beach, Norwalk, Paramount, Santa Fe Springs, South Gate, Whittier, and Los Angeles County) and submitted to HCD for review. However, HCD is not required to review all ADU ordinances it receives. Only the ADU ordinances from Bellflower and Whittier were reviewed by HCD and received suggestions for further revisions to facilitate ADU development.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 14
State law provides for a subtype of ADUs – Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU), which allows a homeowner to convert a portion of the existing living space within the primary unit to become a small accessory dwelling unit. A JADU must have cooking facilities but is not required to have a bathroom. Jurisdictions are not required to allow JADUs. Only three jurisdictions in the GCCOG region have provisions for JADUs (Downey, Long Beach, and Whittier).
2.3 ADU Construction A few jurisdictions have experienced a surge in ADU construction. However, the trend is not yet widespread within the GCCOG region. Table 4 provides an estimate of ADU construction in the GCCOG region in 2018 based on the Housing Element Annual Progress Reports.
Table 4: Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance With Junior ADU Number of ADUs Permitted Jurisdiction Adopted ADU Ordinance Provisions in 20181 Artesia No 0 Avalon 0 Bell NA Bellflower No 0 Bell Gardens No NA Cerritos 0 Commerce NA Compton 4 Cudahy NA Downey Yes2 NA Hawaiian Gardens 0 Huntington Park NA Industry NA La Mirada NA Lakewood No 9 Long Beach Yes3 33 Los Angeles County No 126 Lynwood 0 Maywood NA Montebello NA Norwalk No 0 Paramount No 9 Pico Rivera NA Santa Fe Springs 2 Signal Hill 2 South Gate No 25 Vernon NA Whittier Yes2 8 Notes: 1. Not all jurisdictions submitted a 2018 Housing Element Annual Progress Report to HCD or provided to the VTA-MIG team for the Housing Needs Study. 2. Revisions in Zoning Code may be needed to clarify whether Junior ADU is permitted.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 15
Table 4: Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance With Junior ADU Number of ADUs Permitted Jurisdiction Adopted ADU Ordinance Provisions in 20181 3. Limited ADU is an allowable accessory use, or is located in a Planned Development District (PD) or Specific Plan (SP), or subarea thereof, that allows single-family but not multi-family residential use.
2.1 Supportive Housing New State law, Permanent Supportive Housing by Right Processing (AB 2162) streamlines and expedites the approval of supportive housing to better address the need of Californians experiencing homelessness. Specifically, AB 2162 requires supportive housing to be a use by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses. The legislation requires a local government to approve, within statutory timelines, a supportive housing development that complies with specified criteria: . Supportive housing shall be a use by right as defined by Government Code Section 65583.2(i). . A local government is required to notify the developer whether the application is complete within 30 days of receipt of an application to develop supportive housing. . After the application is complete, local governments shall complete its review of the application within 60 days for smaller projects (50 or fewer units) and 120 days for larger projects (more than 50 units). . Local governments shall not impose any minimum parking requirements for units occupied by supportive housing residents if the development is located within ½ mile of a public transit stop. Prior to AB 2162, permanent supportive housing is to be treated as a regular residential use to be permitted as similar uses in the same zone. As this is new State law that became effective in 2019, most jurisdictions have not yet addressed this provision.
3. Density Bonus In recent years, the State has also made numerous changes to the State Density Bonus law. Some of the key changes since 2013 include: . SB 2222 (Replacement Units) prohibits an applicant from receiving a density bonus unless the proposed housing development or condominium project would, at a minimum, maintain the number and proportion of affordable housing units within the proposed development. . SB 1227 (Student Housing Density Bonuses) requires cities and counties to grant a 35 percent density bonus for housing developments that will include at least 20 percent of the units for low income college students. The housing must be used exclusively for full-time students at accredited colleges, and must be subject to an operating agreement or master lease with one or more colleges. . AB 2797 (Harmonizing Density Bonus and Coastal Act) requires the density bonus to be administered in the Coastal Zone in a manner that is consistent and harmonized with the California Coastal Act. . AB 2372 (Floor Area Ratio Bonuses) allows a local jurisdiction, at the request of a developer, to grant a floor area ratio bonus rather than a traditional density bonus to certain affordable housing projects located adjacent to public transit. Eligible projects are also entitled to special parking ratios as low as one-tenth of a parking space per unit. . AB 2753 (Strengthening Notice to Applicants) provides greater certainty to a developer submitting a density bonus application by requiring local governments to notify developers what information must be submitted for a complete density bonus application.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 16
Most jurisdictions included a program in the 5th cycle Housing Element to update the Density Bonus Ordinance to be consistent with State Law. However, the majority of the jurisdictions in the GCCOG region still have outdated Density Bonus provisions. In such case, experienced developers generally understand they can utilize the State Density Bonus law. However, our discussions with HCD indicate that HCD expects an updated Density Bonus Ordinance with the next Housing Element update. Use of density bonus provisions is also not frequent in the GCCOG region. In 2018, only the County of Los Angeles processed development applications with density bonus provisions.
Table 5: Density Bonus Number of Density Bonus Jurisdiction Density Bonus Ordinance Projects in 2018 Artesia 2002 0 Avalon 2/19/2019 0 Bell Status Unknown NA Bellflower 10/14/2013 0 Bell Gardens 2013 NA Cerritos No Ordinance NA Commerce 11/19/2013 NA Compton 9/11/2007 0 Cudahy 7/27/2015 NA Downey Adoption Date Unknown NA Hawaiian Gardens 7/1/2011 0 Huntington Park 2010 NA Industry No Ordinance NA La Mirada No Ordinance NA Lakewood 11/18/2014 0 Long Beach 2006 0 Los Angeles County Status Unknown 7 Lynwood 2010 0 Maywood 2013 NA Montebello Status Unknown NA Norwalk Adoption Date Unknown 0 Paramount To Be Adopted in 2020 0 Pico Rivera 5/17/2019 NA Santa Fe Springs 12/12/2013 0 Signal Hill 2019 (anticipated) 0 South Gate 4/28/2015 0 Vernon Status Unknown 0 Whittier 6/10/2008 0 Sources: 1. Zoning Ordinances 2. 2018 Housing Element Annual Progress Reports
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 17
F. Summary of Housing Programs
1. Inventory of Programs Table 6 provides an inventory of key housing programs administered by the GCCOG jurisdictions. This is intended to be an inventory of programs in which the jurisdictions have an active role and results are measurable. The following types of programs are not included: . Routine programs and requirements, such as Code Enforcement, Density Bonus, and Condominium Conversion, unless the programs operated by specific jurisdictions contain some unique features. . Programs to comply with State law, such as amending zoning codes to address special needs housing. . Housing Choice Voucher program is not separately identified because each household in the County has access to the program either through the County or local housing authorities. . Zoning and specific plans. Many jurisdictions identify Mixed Use zoning and Specific Plan as a housing program to facilitate future development. However, no specific or proactive actions are identified in the Housing Elements.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 18
Table 6: Summary of Key Housing Programs Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing Assistance Special Needs Affordable Housing Housing
Jurisdiction Parks repair Subsidy Subsidy Services Financial Financial Homeless First Time First Time Incentives Incentives Mixed Use Streamline Processing Homebuyer Homebuyer Senior Rent Senior Rent Multi-Family Multi-Family Inclusionary Inclusionary Mobile Home Mobile Home Development Development Development Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Preservation of Adaptive Reuse Adaptive Reuse Transit Oriented Transit Oriented Security Deposit Security Deposit Owner-Occupied Owner-Occupied
Artesia Avalon Bell Bellflower Bell Gardens Cerritos Commerce Compton Cudahy Downey Hawaiian Gardens Huntington Park Industry La Mirada Lakewood Long Beach LA County Lynwood Maywood Montebello Norwalk Paramount
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 19
Table 6: Summary of Key Housing Programs Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing Assistance Special Needs Affordable Housing Housing
Jurisdiction Parks repair Subsidy Subsidy Services Financial Financial Homeless First Time First Time Incentives Incentives Mixed Use Streamline Processing Homebuyer Homebuyer Senior Rent Senior Rent Multi-Family Multi-Family Inclusionary Inclusionary Mobile Home Mobile Home Development Development Development Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Preservation of Adaptive Reuse Adaptive Reuse Transit Oriented Transit Oriented Security Deposit Security Deposit Owner-Occupied Owner-Occupied Pico Rivera Santa Fe Springs Signal Hill South Gate Vernon Whittier1 Note: 1. Whittier – The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was suspended after the Palmer Sixth Street Properties vs. City of Los Angeles decision. The City is considering reestablishment of the ordinance as a result of recent State legislation.
Sources: 1. Housing Elements 2. 2018 Housing Element Annual Progress Reports 3. Telephone and email communications
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 20
2. Effectiveness of Housing Programs – Survey Responses In an effort to identify successful housing programs among the Gateway Cities, the Housing Needs Study Questionnaire asked respondents to identify up to three of their community’s most successful housing programs. The jurisdictions were also asked to identify up to three housing programs that the respondents felt had become obsolete. Of the 28 Gateway cities, 20 jurisdictions provided 53 examples of successful programs, and 16 provided 24 examples of obsolete programs.
2.1 Successful Programs Overwhelmingly, programs for home improvement and rehabilitation were the most mentioned successful programs (28 percent of all successful program survey responses). Most of these programs are loan/grant programs for lower income homeowners and are overwhelmingly funded with HUD funds such as Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) with local success most commonly measured by the number of households assisted. As shown in Table 6 however, ownership housing rehabilitation is a popular program but significantly fewer jurisdictions offer multi-family rehabilitation. Eight of the identified successful programs (15 percent of all successful programs) identified specific affordable/special needs housing projects that were developed and most measured the success of those programs by the fact that housing was built and/or fully occupied. Housing Choice Voucher (formerly Section 8) rental assistance programs (5 responses) and State-required accessory dwelling unit ordinances (4 responses) were the next most popular responses.
2.2 Obsolete Programs Homebuyer programs that provide loans, tax credits, or downpayment assistance to lower income households were most identified as obsolete (9 out of 24 responses or 38 percent of responses). The two most commonly cited reasons for their ineffectiveness were the loss of funding (most commonly redevelopment [RDA] funds) and rising home values that either exceed allowable program price limits or price lower income households out of the homebuying market. Housing rehabilitation programs and affordable housing funding programs were the next most mentioned obsolete programs (5 responses or 21 percent each). For both of these programs lack of funding was the most cited reason for their ineffectiveness. Overall, more than half (58 percent) of programs identified as obsolete were due to the loss of funding.
2.3 Conclusion of Responses The successful/obsolete program survey responses show that stable funding and program accessibility play an important role in program implementation. Federal funds have fluctuated and fallen in recent years yet continue to provide a relatively stable funding source for local jurisdictions that enables continued implementation of these programs. While homebuyer programs were identified many times as being obsolete due to lower income households being priced out of the local housing market, home improvement and rental assistance programs continue to have a very large and qualified applicant pool and meet a need that continues to grow.
G. Funding Sources VTA-MIG staff reviewed the housing programs available in the GCCOG region and the funding sources used. The typical funding sources used are: . Housing Asset Funds . General Funds
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 21
. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) . HOME Investment Partnership Act (HOME) . Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) . Other HUD funds The cities of Compton, Hawaiian Gardens, Long Beach, Norwalk, Pico Rivera, and South Gate operate their own Housing Choice Vouchers Program. These agencies may have more access to funding such as VASH (Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing). In addition, there are competitive grants available, such as Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC), Local Housing Trust Fund, and CalHome funds.
3. HUD Entitlement Grants With the dissolution of redevelopment in California, many jurisdictions are left with just Community Planning and Development (CPD) funds from HUD as relatively consistent funding sources available for housing activities. The most typical CPD funds are Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME investment Partnership Act (HOME), and Emergency Solution Grants (ESG). CPD funds can be used for a variety of housing and community development activities, including public services, public facilities and infrastructure improvements, economic development, and housing activities.
3.1 Annual Allocations Among the 28 jurisdictions, 14 are entitlement jurisdictions (including Los Angeles County) that receive CPD funds directly from HUD. Other small cities (with population less than 50,000) in the GCCOG are participating jurisdictions in the Urban County program and receive CPD funds from the County. Table 7 presents the 2019 allocations received by the cities. Los Angeles County is excluded from this table as the County’s program includes funding for about 50 small cities and the unincorporated areas throughout the County.
Table 7: Uses of HUD Entitlement Grants for Housing Activities Entitlement 2019 Formula Allocation Jurisdiction CDBG HOME ESG Bellflower $977,534 $358,813 Compton $1,561,004 $538,817 Downey $1,064,459 $440,137 Huntington Park $1,230,354 $607,124 Lakewood $510,688 Long Beach $6,095,423 $2,744,653 $517,562 Lynwood $1,195,581 $483,156 Montebello $677,645 $269,841 Norwalk $1,235,346 $319,185 Paramount $802,549 $303,294 Pico Rivera $643,092 South Gate $1,463,262 $602,315 Whittier $752,486 $303,865 Source: HUD.gov
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 22
3.2 Uses of Funds In reviewing the annual budgets for FY 2019-2020, approximately 38 percent of the CPD funds among the GCCOG jurisdictions5 were dedicated to housing-related activities. As reflected in the survey responses discussed earlier, the majority (75 percent) was allocated to improving the existing housing stock (such as ownership housing rehabilitation) or enhancing affordability through existing units (such as homebuyer assistance). Construction of new affordable housing units was allocated about 19 percent of the funds. Homeless services received about six percent of the funds.
4. State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Competitive Grants In addition to the HUD entitlement grants and other local resources such as General Funds and Housing Asset Funds, jurisdictions have access to competitive grants provided by HCD. These grants are highly competitive. For example, while the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program offers significant funding for affordable housing, only the City of Long Beach and the County of Los Angeles have been successful in receiving funding.
Table 8: HCD Competitive Grants (2014-2018) Jurisdiction Project/Program Awarded (2014-2018) Upcoming Funding Cycle Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program AMCAL Housing Florence Neighborhood $10,798,068 LA County LINC Housing - Willowbrook $12,531,304 February 2020 AMCAL Housing $13,975,653 Long Beach Century Housing $2,441,616 CalHome Disaster Recovery Only – Application due September 3, 2019 South Gate Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation $1,000,000 or until all funds available are exhausted, whichever is earlier Housing for a Healthy California – National Housing Trust Fund NA NA NA Application due August 13, 2019 Infill Infrastructure Grant Long Beach AMCAL Housing $2,859,060 TBD Multifamily Housing Program NA NA NA Application due August 20, 2019
H. Challenges Jurisdictions were interviewed for challenges in providing adequate and affordable housing. The top challenges identified are: 1. Cost of land 2. Community opposition to and lack of political support for high-density housing development 3. Lack of qualified and interested developers 4. Lack of housing funds 5. Inadequate infrastructure
5 The County of Los Angeles and City of Huntington Park are excluded from this calculation. The County’s programs cover the all unincorporated areas and about 50 small cities. VTA-MIG team was not able to obtain a copy of the Action Plan from Huntington Park.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 23
I. Effective Land Use and Zoning Strategies Strategies identified by GCCOG jurisdictions circled around two themes – strategies that increase densities and remove discretionary review processes. Key strategies are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9: Effective Land Use and Zoning Strategies Increasing Enhancing Strategies Notes Housing Supply Affordability Administrative Review Direct Density Increase Rezoning or upzoning existing properties. Density Bonus State law or beyond State law. Artesia – Housing Opportunity Overlay for multi-family housing at 20-30 du/ac by right with an administrative review if at least 20 percent of the units are deed restricted as affordable housing for low income households. Housing Overlays Bellflower – Overlay zone for lot consolidation incentives. Commerce – Housing Overlay for industrial properties adjacent to residential uses – by- right multi-family and mixed use housing up to 40 du/ac. Currently no jurisdictions in GCCOG have adopted inclusionary housing policies, but Inclusionary several jurisdictions are considering such a policy. Two different strategies are identified – limit Design Approaches to Limit Unit the quantity or ratio or large units in a Sizes development, and limit the size of ADU. New Land Use Designations Mixed use and transit-oriented development. State law requires that cities have objective Objective Development and Design design standards. Most jurisdictions are still Standards working to adopt such. Offer City-Owned Properties for Some jurisdictions may still hold former Affordable Housing Development redevelopment agency-owned properties. Specific plans can provide a great deal of flexibility with regard to development Specific Plans standards. However, projects must be consistent with general plan density limits.
J. Gaps in Housing Programs Based on the assessment above, several observations can be made about housing programs among the GCCOG jurisdictions: . No active inclusionary housing programs: With the passage of AB 1505 (Inclusionary Ordinances) in 2017, an inclusionary housing policy of up to 15 percent is considered a legitimate local discretionary policy. However, within the region, only Avalon has an inclusionary housing program in effect but the City has extremely limited opportunity for housing construction. Whittier has a suspended program. No other jurisdictions have adopted inclusionary housing policies.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 24
. Limited use of ADUs: Only ten jurisdictions have adopted ADU ordinances and submitted to HCD for review. The overall ADU production is limited. To qualify ADUs for the RHNA, jurisdictions must be able to substantiate the intended use of the ADUs as rental housing and income/affordability levels of the units. . Rehabilitation assistance focuses on ownership housing: While 22 of the 28 jurisdictions in the GCCOG region offer ownership housing rehabilitation assistance, only five jurisdictions offer multi- family (rental housing rehabilitation) and only one jurisdiction offers assistance for mobile homes. However, typically, a higher proportion of renter-households are lower income, have high cost burdens, and live in overcrowding conditions, compared to owner-households. . No housing programs for tenant protection: Unchecked rent increases and displaced tenants due to intensification/gentrification of neighborhoods have been hot housing issues. The City of Long Beach is contemplating tenant relocation assistance for displaced residents in the coastal area. However, no significant programs are in place in the GCCOG region for tenant protection against displacement and dramatic rent increases. . Programs to address the “missing middle”: Due to the funding sources, most programs administered by the jurisdictions are focused on Very Low and Low Income households. Zoning provisions for Density Bonus, ADUs, and mixed use development could potentially benefit Moderate Income households. However, so far, these programs have not yielded any significant results. . Lack of direct financial commitments and measurable actions: Due to the dissolution of redevelopment, few jurisdictions offer direct financial assistance or city-owned properties for affordable housing development. Many housing programs also lack specific and measurable actions.
K. Innovative Housing Strategies Creating sufficient affordable housing stock requires multiple approaches, with no one-size-fits-all solution. Some cities have been able to take meaningful steps to create environments where affordable housing is feasible with innovative housing strategies. The following cities and counties have taken steps to create models that fit their respective municipalities.
1. Pasadena, CA The City of Pasadena has recently adopted several ordinances that are geared toward providing affordable housing through ADUs and increased tenant protection.
1.1 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Pasadena’s ADU Ordinance assesses an impact fee of $20,000 per ADU to provide services. However, the fee could be reduced to $900 if the homeowner agrees to one of the following three conditions: . Providing the ADU as housing for family members for seven years; . Renting to Housing Choice Voucher recipients; or . Renting to Low and Moderate Income households with incomes up to 120 percent AMI.
1.2 Tenant Protection Previously, Pasadena landlords were required to pay relocation benefits to displaced tenants in various situations, including when a rental unit is vacated due to demolition, conversion to condominium, permanent removal of the unit from the rental market, occupancy by the landlord or a family member; or a government order to vacate.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 25
The City amended its Tenant Protection Ordinance to include sale of property as a qualifying act for compensation (moving expense and relocation allowance). Allowance is adjusted based on length of tenancy, and for families with dependent children or persons with disabilities. Base relocation allowance is two times HUD Fair Market Rent and moving allowance. Tenants of at least ten years would receive an additional allowance of ten percent per year above ten years.
2. Paso Robles, CA The City of Paso Robles has employed a series of innovative strategies to streamline and incentivize housing development. These strategies and legislative actions have been essential to increasing the City’s market-rate and affordable housing stock. While taking a tailored approach to encouraging affordable housing development, the City has: . Appointed a Housing Constraints and Opportunities Committee to identify tools and practices to increase housing production . Reduced fees for secondary/accessory dwelling units . Created new classifications of housing types (e.g., work/live) . Streamlined plan review and building inspection processes with updated technology . Allocated $1M of their investment portfolio to a local bank to increase residential funding capacity . Deferred development fees for Paso Robles Housing Authority and Habitat for Humanity . Significantly reduced traffic impact fees by land use category (The impact fees were adjusted based on the City’s updated assessment of needs for transportation facilities. The Circulation Element of the General Plan was updated in tandem with the fee reduction.)
3. Sonoma County, CA The County of Sonoma has employed a variety of techniques to aid in its affordable housing production. Of note is the establishment of the County Fund for Housing (CFH) to provide financial assistance for the accelerated production and preservation of affordable housing for low, very low, and extremely low income households. The CFH receives funds from the County’s General Fund, in-lieu fees, transient occupancy tax, and loan interest fees.
4. Denver, CO The City of Denver has integrated an affordable housing approach into its goals and policies objectives. In 2017 the City released “Housing and Inclusive Denver,” a five-year plan for housing policy, strategies, and investments. The plan outlines formal guidelines and tools that the City can employ to create affordable housing stock. The multi-pronged approach includes: . Adapting Euclidean zoning to form-based zoning to create greater flexibility for residential development . Developing a formalized process for acquiring new land . Proactively acquiring land in “vulnerable” areas to preserve opportunities for affordable and mixed- income housing . Developing a methodology for disposal of city-owned land for affordable housing developments that involves proximity to a current or future transit corridor . Assessing vacant and underutilized land for affordable housing suitability
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 26
L. Assistance from GCCOG The Housing Needs Study Questionnaire also asks jurisdictions to comment on how the GCCOG could provide support to its member jurisdictions. The following responses were submitted: . Provide templates/sample ordinances when adopting laws and regulations; . Identify and share funding sources; . Provide interested developers list; . Provide data and results of research conducted regionally; . Share experience on successful programs; . Initiate efforts to address homelessness throughout the region; and . Support to contest/lobby unreasonable housing legislation that eliminates local control.
M. Looking Ahead – Sixth RHNA Cycle SCAG is in the process of finalizing the Draft RHNA Methodology. On August 2, 2019, SCAG released three options for the RHNA allocation methodology. Table 10 provides a general comparison of the three options and Table 11 provides hypothetical estimates using a tool developed by SCAG for comparison across the three options. As the total RHNA for the region has not yet been determined by HCD, SCAG has been floating a general estimate of 675,000 new units for total RHNA (425,000 units for projected need and 250,000 units for existing need). While Option 3 appears to be favorable to most cities, SCAG has verbally indicated this is the least likely option that they would recommend due to the limited consideration of planning factors. Given the magnitude of the overall RHNA, each jurisdiction would likely receive a RHNA that is significantly higher than that for the 5th cycle. New State laws also place stringent criteria for adequate sites. Therefore, we anticipate most communities would need to revisit their land use policies and zoning provisions in order to meet the RHNA for the upcoming cycle.
Table 10: Three Options for RHNA Allocation Methodology Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Existing Need Separate from Projected Need Yes No No Higher Total Lower Income Categories Yes No No On Existing On Total Emphasis on High Quality Transit Area from Regional Total Need Only – Allocation – No 20% 20% Accounts for Recent Building Activity Yes No No Existing Need – 110% Total Need – Total Need – Social Equity Adjustment Projected Need 150% 150% – 150% Local Input as a Component Yes No Yes
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 27
Table 11: Hypothetical RHNA Estimates Using SCAG Model SCAG Estimated Total Need: 675,000 Units Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Artesia 284 477 187 Avalon 60 108 72 Bell 581 1,726 124 Bellflower 877 2,745 138 Bell Gardens 537 1,238 281 Cerritos 406 1,430 64 Commerce 251 572 116 Compton 1,463 3,751 546 Cudahy 478 1,133 221 Downey 1,664 3,991 1,083 Hawaiian Gardens 241 414 165 Huntington Park 1,527 2,799 953 Industry 19 53 6 Los Angeles County (Unincorporated Areas) 51,976 36,847 41,442 La Mirada 983 1,746 512 Lakewood 1,583 2,315 885 Long Beach 14,358 20,379 3,326 Lynwood 1,444 3,124 921 Maywood 499 1,291 192 Montebello 1,443 2,607 773 Norwalk 1,550 3,201 596 Paramount 616 1,624 278 Pico Rivera 1,304 2,122 636 Santa Fe Springs 622 519 589 Signal Hill 303 536 168 South Gate 3,230 4,105 3,030 Vernon 3 12 0 Whittier 1,765 2,467 2,118
N. Preliminary Policy Recommendations
1. Inclusionary Housing Policy With the new State law, RHNA is no longer just a planning goal but a production target. As high density sites are developed without affordable housing, jurisdictions must continue to replenish its sites inventory to accommodate the lower income RHNA. Within a significant and steady source of funding, the most effective approach to affordable housing today is inclusionary housing. Below are some considerations: . Acting Alone: Cities to adopt their own inclusionary housing policy. Under State law, no nexus study would be required if the affordable housing requirement does not exceed 15 percent. However, the program should include an in-lieu option, which would require an in-lieu fee study.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 28
. Acting Collectively: Adopt a regional or multi-jurisdictional inclusionary housing policy that covers the entire region or group(s) of neighboring cities. Resources could be pooled to conduct a nexus study to require above 15 percent affordable housing and to conduct an in-lieu fee study.
2. Accommodating RHNA with Existing Housing Units – Legislative Changes State law provides that up to 25 percent of the lower income RHNA can be achieved using existing housing units through: . Substantial rehabilitation of housing that is determined to be unfit for human habitation. . Conversion of multi-family rental and ownership units of three or more units, or foreclosed properties from non-affordable to affordable. . Preservation of affordable housing at risk of converting to market rate. However, the requirements for the various options are extremely difficult to meet and thus, few jurisdictions are able to utilize this strategy to meet the RHNA. As the new RHNA includes an Existing Need component, there should be revisions to State law to ease the requirements for meeting the affordable housing need using the existing housing stock. Some changes may include: . Extend the allowable timeline: Currently state law requires that jurisdictions that utilize this strategy provide committed assistance between the beginning of the RHNA planning period and the end of the second year of the Housing Element planning period. The Housing Element is now an eight-year planning period, and jurisdictions are now required to ensure its continued ability to meet the RHNA throughout the entire Housing Element planning period. This two-year limitation should be expanded to at least five years. . Substantial Rehabilitation: This approach only applies to units that are unfit for human habilitation. The health and safety conditions outlined under State law may be too stringent and do not align with typical acquisition/substantial rehabilitation projects. The cost effectiveness of substantially rehabilitating uninhabitable units versus demolition/new construction should be considered when determining the appropriate health and safety conditions for this strategy. . Preservation of At-Risk Housing: In order to receive RHNA credits from the preservation of at- risk housing, State law requires that the Housing Element identify the specific at-risk projects to be preserved. However, unique circumstances may arise during the Housing Element planning period, changing the status of a project from not-at-risk to at-risk. This requirement to identify the specific projects in the Housing Element is limiting and should be removed.
3. Land Use Policies and Zoning New State laws on adequate site requirements are onerous. With the estimated 6th cycle RHNA being substantially larger than that for the 5th cycle, most jurisdictions would not be able to meet the new RHNA without restructuring their land use policies.
3.1 Density Limits State law establishes a default density of 30 units per acre as feasible for facilitating lower income housing for cities with population over 25,000. Jurisdictions with a population less than 25,000 could assume a lower density threshold of 20 units per acre. Table 12 summarizes the highest density limits for multi-family and mixed use zoning within the GCCOG region. Jurisdictions with population over 25,000 may consider raising the limit to 30 units per acre. Jurisdictions should also consider establishing minimum densities for multi-family and mixed use zoning districts. In estimating development potential, State law requires that the capacity be calculated based on the minimum density unless the jurisdiction could demonstrate a trend of development at higher intensity.
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 29
Establishing minimum densities, and using those to estimate development potential in the Housing Element would also reduce the future need to replenish the sites inventory due to No Net Loss.
Table 12: Multi-Family and Mixed Use Residential Density Limits Maximum Density Jurisdiction 2018 Population Notes MF MU Artesia 16,750 30 30 may be increased to 40 upon approval Avalon 3,723 40 20 special commercial LU= 40 Bell 35,728 30 30
Bellflower 77,131 22 * * must conform with underlying zoning classification Bell Gardens 42,331 30 30
Cerritos 50,462 20 No MU zone
Commerce 12,808 27 27
*= CUP required, 34 units/acre for senior housing in Compton 96,617 29 29* both Cudahy 23,826 40 40
Four MU districts, for three max is 40, for one max is Downey 112,269 24 75 75 Hawaiian Gardens 14,315 23.5 23.5
Huntington Park 58,173 20 70
No residential zoning, proposed Housing Overlay Industry 219 30 Zone in HE but no updates La Mirada 48,683 28 40
Lakewood 80,140 30 30
Long Beach 467,354 54 54 31-54 units per acre in PD-30 Downtown Los Angeles County 1,057,162 150 150
Lynwood 70,504 30 30
Maywood 27,298 48 48
Montebello 62,632 35 55
Norwalk 105,120 30 30
Paramount 54,387 22 22
Pico Rivera 62,888 30 30
25 du/acre in MF with Planned Development Santa Fe Springs 17,832 22 22 Overlay Signal Hill 11,555 45 45
South Gate 94,443 75 100
Vernon 112 30 30
Whittier 86,064 50 50 Uptown Whittier Specific Plan
3.2 Other Considerations In response to new State laws, jurisdictions should also consider the following: . Allowing stand-alone residential development in mixed use zones . Allowing residential development by right without discretionary review . Using affordable housing overlays to provide incentives beyond State density bonus law at appropriate locations
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page 30
Appendix A: Housing Needs Study Questionnaire
Gateway Cities COG Housing Needs Study Page A-1
SB 102/AB 101 Summary June 29, 2019
The goal of SB 102/AB 101 is to increase housing production in California. It does so by:
Providing $2.5 billion in funding to address California’s housing and homelessness crisis; Establishing incentives to encourage cities and counties to increase housing production; Establishing a process for a court to determine that a city or county has complied with housing element law; and Imposing penalties, as a last resort, if cities and counties disregard the direction of a court and continue not to fulfill their responsibilities under housing element law.
Housing Elements
Process changes: SB 102/AB 101 requires HCD to publish an annual list of cities that have failed to adopt a HCD-approved housing element. If HCD puts a city on the list, city has opportunity for two meetings to discuss its housing element and HCD must provide city written findings supporting its determination. A city may also request de novo review of its last element. HCD must issue written findings in response to the de novo review. City may challenge HCD’s findings pursuant to CCP Section 1094.5.
Financial penalties: If the Attorney General sues a city; the court finds that its housing element does not substantially comply with state law; and the city fails to bring the housing element into compliance, the following fines will be imposed unless the court finds mitigating circumstances for the delay:
Within 12 months of the court’s order: $10,000 - $100,000 per month Within 15 months of the court’s order: $30,000 - $300,000 per month Within 18 months of the court’s order: $60,000 - $600,000 per month and court may appoint a receiver/agent to bring the city’s housing element into compliance
Fines are deposited into the building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. The State Controller may intercept state and local funds if the fines are not paid.
Financial incentives: Additional points and other preferences will be awarded for certain state funding programs for cities that have adopted (i) housing element approved by HCD; and (ii) “prohousing local policies.” HCD will designate cities as “prohousing” by July 1, 2021 pursuant to emergency regulations.
Prohousing local policies facilitate the planning, approval, or construction of housing such as:
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814-3916 | www.cacities.org | (916) 658-8200
Establishing local housing trust fund Reducing parking requirements Use by right approval Reduction of permit processing time Reduction of development impact fees Establishment of Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone or housing sustainability district
Local Government Planning Support Grants Program
The Program: $250,000,000 to regions, cities and counties for planning activities to accelerate housing production and facilitate implementation of RHNA.
1. $125,000,000 to COGS and other regional entities [H & S 50515.02]
Application deadline: January 31, 2021. Funding can be retained for COG’s use and/or suballocations to member cities and counties for following purposes:
Improved methodology for distribution of 6th cycle RHNA Regional or countywide housing trust finds Technical assistance to update local planning documents Infrastructure planning Feasibility studies to determine housing sites consistent with SCS
2. $125,000,000 to cities and counties (H & S 50515.03
Application deadline: July 1, 2020. Maximum amounts based upon population for the following purposes:
Rezoning and updating planning documents Completing environmental clearance to eliminate need for project-specific review Infrastructure planning Developing or improving accessory dwelling unit ordinance
Infill Infrastructure Grant Program of 2019
The Program: $500,000,000 for competitive funding for “qualifying infill project” or “qualifying infill area.” NOFA to be released 11/30/19. [$410,000,000 available for counties with a population more than 250,000, or any city in that county; $90 million available for counties with a population less than 250,000, or any city in that county].
Qualifying infill project is a residential or mixed-use project located in an urbanized area in a city with an HCD-compliant housing element.
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814-3916 | www.cacities.org | (916) 658-8200
15% affordability (60% of AMI for rental; 120% of AMI for sale) Equal to or greater than “Mullin” densities Proximity to transit, parks, employment, schools, social services Consistency with SCS
Grant funds used for “capital improvement project” to facilitate the development of a qualifying infill project or area:
Water, sewer, or other utility improvements Streets, roads, transit Project site preparation Sidewalk or streetscape improvement
Homelessness: Funding and Programs
1. The Homelessness Housing, Assistance and Prevention Program [H&S 50217]
$650,000,000 is proposed for one-time grants to cities, counties, and continuums of care,1 to support regional coordination, and to expand or develop local capacity, to address immediate homelessness challenges.
$190,000,000 will be available to continuums of care. $275,000,000 will be available to cities or a city and county that has a population of more than 300,000. $175,000,000 will be available to counties.
Applications must be submitted by February 15, 2020. All awards will be based on the applicant’s proportionate share of the state’s total homeless population
2. Low Barrier Navigation Centers [Gov’t Code 65660]
A “low barrier navigation center” is a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing. It provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter and housing.
1 The “continuum of care” is the group organized to carry out responsibilities under the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act {24 CFR 578.3).
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814-3916 | www.cacities.org | (916) 658-8200
A “low barrier navigation center” must be permitted as a “use by right”2 if it meets the following requirements:
Offers services to connect people to permanent housing Linked to coordinated entry system Has a system for entering information regarding client stays, client demographics, client income and exit destination through the local Homeless Management Information System Implements Housing First
Within 30 days of receiving an application for a Center, a city must notify the applicant whether the application is complete. Within 60 days of a completed application, the city must act on the application.
Affordable Housing Programs
1. Low Income Housing Tax Credits Program
Provides for the allocation of $500 million in new state low-income housing tax credits for new construction projects that receive the federal 4 percent tax credit. For these new credits, the bill would increase the eligible basis for these projects from 13 percent to 30 percent. It would require at least $300 million of this to be available to new construction projects receiving the federal 4 percent tax credit, and would allow up to $200 million to be available to projects receiving assistance from the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Mixed Income Program.
2. Mixed Income Program
Appropriates $500 million for CalHFA’s Mixed Income Program, which provides financing for mixed-income housing developments.
CalHome Program
Allows the CalHome program to include accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADU), and to authorize the program to make grants for housing purposes in declared disaster areas.
2 “Use by right” means that a city may not require a conditional use permit or other discretionary local review. It does not exempt the center from design review.
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814-3916 | www.cacities.org | (916) 658-8200
SB 35 Clean Up Provisions
Clarifies that when additional density, floor area, and units, and any other concession, incentive, or waiver of development standards granted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law in Section 65915 shall be included in the square footage calculation, when determining that the project contains at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development designated for residential use.
Allows the State Department of Public Health and State Water Resources Control Board to determine that a hazardous waste sites has been cleared for residential use or residential mixed uses.
Additional Provisions
1. Changes are made to the TCAC program including making HCD and CHFA directors voting members of the Committee. Currently they are ex officio members.
2. Changes made to state low income housing tax credit including additional $500,000,000 for 2020 calendar year.
3. HCD and OPR will recommend an improved RHNA process and methodology to Legislature by 12/31/22.
4. Amendments made to Joe Serna Farmworker Housing Grant Program [H & S 50517.5].
5. Amendments made to CalHome Program [H & S 50650].
6. Amendments to Housing Trust Fund Matching Grants including lowering grant to $500,000 for newly established funds.
7. Additional points and preference to city with HCD-compliant housing element and designated prohousing for Infill Incentive Grant Program of 2007 funds released after July 1, 2021.
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814-3916 | www.cacities.org | (916) 658-8200
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Proposed Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation Methodology The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) will conduct four public hearings related to the Proposed RHNA Allocation 0HWKRGRORJ\ZLWKRSWLRQVZKLFKLVRIÀFLDOO\DYDLODEOHIRUSXEOLFUHYLHZDQGFRPPHQWDVRI$XJXVW 7KH5+1$LVPDQGDWHGE\6WDWH +RXVLQJ/DZWRTXDQWLI\WKHH[LVWLQJDQGSURMHFWHGQHHGIRUKRXVLQJE\LQFRPHFDWHJRULHVIRUHDFKORFDOMXULVGLFWLRQGXULQJVSHFLÀHGSODQQLQJ SHULRGV6&$*LVLQWKHSURFHVVRIGHYHORSLQJWKHWKF\FOH5+1$DOORFDWLRQSODQZKLFKZLOOFRYHUWKHSODQQLQJSHULRG2FWREHUWKURXJK 2FWREHU $IWHU6&$*DGRSWVWKH5+1$DOORFDWLRQSODQLQ2FWREHUORFDOMXULVGLFWLRQVZLOOKDYHRQH\HDUWRXSGDWHWKHLU+RXVLQJ (OHPHQWVWRHQVXUHDGHTXDWH]RQLQJFDSDFLW\IRUWKHDOORFDWHGKRXVLQJQHHGVE\LQFRPHFDWHJRULHV7KHIROORZLQJSXEOLFKHDULQJVZLOOSURYLGH information regarding SCAG’s proposed RHNA allocation methodology options, and serve as an opportunity for any member of the public to SURYLGHFRPPHQWVUHJDUGLQJWKHVHRSWLRQV Thursday, August 15, 2019, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m 6&$*/RV$QJHOHV2IÀFH Regional Council Conference Room :LOVKLUH%RXOHYDUG6XLWH/RV$QJHOHV&$ :HEFDVW YLHZRQO\ KWWSV VFDJ]RRPXVM
Tuesday, August 20, 2019, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. :HEFDVW YLHZRQO\ KWWSV VFDJ]RRPXVM 7KLVPHHWLQJDOVRSURYLGHVYLGHRFRQIHUHQFLQJDW6&$*·VUHJLRQDORIÀFHVOLVWHGEHORZ Due to limited space, please RSVP by emailing KRXVLQJ#VFDJFDJRY 6&$*/RV$QJHOHV2IÀFH 6&$*5LYHUVLGH&RXQW\2IÀFH :LOVKLUH%RXOHYDUG6XLWH/RV$QJHOHV&$ WK6WUHHW6XLWH5LYHUVLGH&$ 6&$*,PSHULDO&RXQW\2IÀFH 6&$*6DQ%HUQDUGLQR&RXQW\2IÀFH 1,PSHULDO$YH6XLWH(O&HQWUR&$ :HVWUG6WUHHW6XLWH6DQ%HUQDUGLQR&$ 6&$*2UDQJH&RXQW\2IÀFH 6&$*9HQWXUD&RXQW\2IÀFH 6RXWK0DLQ6WUHHW6XLWH2UDQJH&$ 0LVVLRQ2DNV%OYG6XLWH/&DPDULOOR&$
Thursday, August 22, 2019 Tuesday, August 27, 2019 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. City of Irvine 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR&RXQW\7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ$XWKRULW\ Conference and Training Center %RDUGRI'LUHFWRUV5RRPQG)ORRU &LYLF&HQWHU3OD]D,UYLQH&$ :HVWUG6WUHHW6DQ%HUQDUGLQR&$ (no webcast) :HEFDVW YLHZRQO\ KWWSV VFDJ]RRPXVM
,I\RXDUHDWWHQGLQJDSXEOLFKHDULQJLQSHUVRQDQGZRXOGOLNHWRUHTXHVWVSHFLDODFFRPPRGDWLRQVRUWUDQVODWLRQVHUYLFHVSOHDVHHPDLO\RXU UHTXHVWDWOHDVWKRXUVSULRUWRWKHSXEOLFKHDULQJWRKRXVLQJ#VFDJFDJRY6&$*HQFRXUDJHVLQWHUHVWHGSDUWLHVWRVXEPLWZULWWHQFRPPHQWV to KRXVLQJ#VFDJFDJRYZKLFKZLOOEHDFFHSWHGXQWLO SPRQ6HSWHPEHU RUE\86PDLODW 6RXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD$VVRFLDWLRQ RI*RYHUQPHQWV$WWHQWLRQ 5+1$ :LOVKLUH%RXOHYDUG6XLWH/RV$QJHOHV&$ )RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKH3URSRVHG 5+1$$OORFDWLRQ0HWKRGRORJ\RSWLRQVSOHDVHYLVLW KWWS ZZZVFDJFDJRYKRXVLQJ)RUTXHVWLRQVDERXWWKHSXEOLFKHDULQJVSOHDVHHPDLO KRXVLQJ#VFDJFDJRY
Southern California Association of Governments 900 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017 T: (213) 236-1800 | www.scag.ca.gov DRAFT CONNECT SOCAL REGIONAL GROWTH FORECAST PRINCIPLES
August 8, 2019 Version
Excerpted and edited from p. 70 of the 2016 RTP/SCS:
Principle #1: The preferred scenario will be adopted at the jurisdictional level, and directly reflects the population, household and employment growth projections that have been reviewed and refined with feedback from local jurisdictions through SCAG’s Bottom-Up Local Input and Envisioning Process. The preferred scenario maintains these locally informed projected jurisdictional growth totals, meaning future growth is not reallocated from one local jurisdiction to another.
Principle #2: The preferred scenario at the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) level is controlled to be within the maximum density ranges of local general plans.
Principle #3: For the purpose of determining consistency with Connect SoCal for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), grants or other opportunities, lead agencies such as local jurisdictions have the sole discretion in determining a local project’s consistency; consistency should be evaluated utilizing the goals and policies of Connect SoCal and its associated Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
Principle #4: TAZ level data or any data at a geography smaller than the jurisdictional level has been utilized to conduct required modeling analyses and is therefore advisory only and non- binding, given that sub-jurisdictional forecasts are not adopted as part of Connect SoCal. TAZ level data may be used by jurisdictions in local planning as they deem appropriate. There is no obligation by a jurisdiction to change its land use policies, General Plan, or regulations to be consistent with Connect SoCal.
Principle #5: SCAG will maintain communication with agencies that use SCAG’s sub-jurisdictional level data to ensure that the “advisory and non-binding” nature of the data is appropriately maintained.
Excerpted and edited from p. 70 of the 2016 RTP/SCS (with tracked changes):
Principle #1: The preferred scenario will be adopted at the jurisdictional level, thus and directly reflecting reflects the population, household and employment growth projections derived from the local input process and previously that have been reviewed and approved by refined with feedback from local jurisdictions. through SCAG’s Bottom-Up Local Input and Envisioning Process. The preferred scenario maintains these locally informed projected jurisdictional growth totals, meaning future growth is not reallocated from one local jurisdiction to another.
Principle #2: The preferred scenario at the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) level is controlled to be within the maximum density ranges* of local general plans or input received from local jurisdictions.
Principle #3: For the purpose of determining consistency with Connect SoCal for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), grants or other opportunities, lead agencies such as local jurisdictions have the sole discretion in determining a local project’s consistency with the 2016 RTP/SCS; consistency should be evaluated utilizing the goals and policies of Connect SoCal and its associated Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
Principle #4: TAZ level data or any data at a geography smaller than the jurisdictional level has been utilized to conduct required modeling analyses and is therefore advisory only and non- binding, given that sub-jurisdictional forecasts are not adopted as part of the 2016 RTP/ SCS.Connect SoCal. TAZ level data may be used by jurisdictions in local planning as it deemsthey deem appropriate. There is no obligation by a jurisdiction to change its land use policies, General Plan, or regulations to be consistent with the 2016 RTP/SCS. Connect SoCal.
Principle #5: SCAG will maintain communication with agencies that use SCAGSCAG’s sub- jurisdictional level data to ensure that the “advisory and non-binding” nature of the data is appropriately maintained.
* With the exception of the six percent of TAZs that have average density below the density range of local general plans. The TAZs showing lower densities than GP designations are consistent with existing conditions and future land use and growth projections provided by local jurisdictions. SCAG did not lower the growth.
SCAG Region Density (Population per Acre) (Population is 2019 DOF data) City Size Population Density (Population County Subregion City (acre) (2019) per acre) Los Angeles GCCOG Maywood city 753 27,971 37.1 Los Angeles GCCOG Cudahy city 785 24,264 30.9 Los Angeles GCCOG Huntington Park city 1,928 59,350 30.8 Los Angeles WCCOG West Hollywood city 1,211 36,660 30.3 Los Angeles GCCOG Bell Gardens city 1,577 42,972 27.3 Los Angeles SBCCOG Lawndale city 1,259 33,436 26.6 Los Angeles GCCOG Hawaiian Gardens city 611 14,690 24.0 Los Angeles GCCOG Lynwood city 3,098 71,343 23.0 Los Angeles SBCCOG Hawthorne city 3,898 87,854 22.5 Los Angeles GCCOG Bell city 1,676 36,556 21.8 Los Angeles SBCCOG Hermosa Beach city 956 19,847 20.8 Los Angeles GCCOG South Gate city 4,703 96,777 20.6 Los Angeles GCCOG Bellflower city 3,955 78,308 19.8 Orange OCCOG Stanton city 1,986 39,307 19.8 Los Angeles SBCCOG Inglewood city 5,813 112,549 19.4 Orange OCCOG Santa Ana city 17,495 337,716 19.3 Los Angeles SGVCOG El Monte city 6,150 117,204 19.1 Los Angeles GCCOG La Puente city 2,222 40,795 18.4 Los Angeles GCCOG Paramount city 3,084 55,497 18.0 Los Angeles SGVCOG Baldwin Park city 4,335 77,286 17.8 Los Angeles SGVCOG Alhambra city 4,882 86,931 17.8 Los Angeles WCCOG Santa Monica city 5,458 93,593 17.1 Los Angeles GCCOG Norwalk city 6,242 106,744 17.1 Los Angeles SBCCOG Redondo Beach city 4,006 68,473 17.1 Los Angeles SBCCOG Lomita city 1,228 20,763 16.9 Los Angeles SGVCOG Rosemead city 3,309 55,097 16.7 Los Angeles City of Los Angeles San Fernando city 1,516 24,918 16.4 Los Angeles SBCCOG Gardena city 3,746 61,042 16.3 Los Angeles GCCOG Artesia city 1,039 16,919 16.3 Los Angeles SGVCOG San Gabriel city 2,643 41,178 15.6 Los Angeles GCCOG Compton city 6,460 98,711 15.3 Orange OCCOG Garden Grove city 11,465 175,155 15.3 Orange OCCOG Westminster city 6,441 92,610 14.4 Los Angeles GCCOG Long Beach city 33,135 475,013 14.3 Los Angeles GCCOG Downey city 8,039 114,212 14.2 Los Angeles SGVCOG Temple City city 2,575 36,583 14.2 Los Angeles SBCCOG Manhattan Beach city 2,553 35,922 14.1 Orange OCCOG La Palma city 1,154 15,820 13.7 Orange OCCOG La Habra city 4,713 63,542 13.5 Los Angeles GCCOG Lakewood city 6,046 81,352 13.5 Los Angeles City of Los Angeles Los Angeles city 302,810 4,040,079 13.3 Los Angeles SGVCOG Monterey Park city 4,949 61,828 12.5 Orange OCCOG Placentia city 4,235 52,333 12.4 Orange OCCOG Buena Park city 6,749 83,384 12.4 Los Angeles WCCOG Culver City city 3,285 40,173 12.2 Ventura VCOG Oxnard city 17,429 209,879 12.0 Los Angeles SGVCOG South Pasadena city 2,185 26,245 12.0 Los Angeles SGVCOG Montebello city 5,353 64,247 12.0 Orange OCCOG Cypress city 4,235 49,833 11.8 Orange OCCOG Huntington Beach city 17,414 203,761 11.7 Los Angeles SGVCOG South El Monte city 1,823 21,293 11.7 Orange OCCOG Aliso Viejo city 4,427 51,372 11.6 Orange OCCOG Costa Mesa city 10,138 115,830 11.4 Orange OCCOG Tustin city 7,123 81,369 11.4 City Size Population Density (Population County Subregion City (acre) (2019) per acre) Los Angeles SBCCOG Torrance city 13,156 148,054 11.3 Los Angeles GCCOG Pico Rivera city 5,695 64,033 11.2 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Montclair city 3,536 39,563 11.2 Orange OCCOG Anaheim city 32,537 359,339 11.0 Los Angeles SGVCOG Covina city 4,504 48,876 10.9 Los Angeles Arroyo Verdugo Glendale city 19,565 206,283 10.5 Los Angeles SGVCOG West Covina city 10,282 108,116 10.5 Los Angeles SGVCOG Pomona city 14,691 154,310 10.5 Orange OCCOG Fullerton city 14,357 142,824 9.9 Los Angeles SGVCOG Pasadena city 14,798 146,312 9.9 Los Angeles SGVCOG La Mirada city 5,017 49,558 9.9 Orange OCCOG Fountain Valley city 5,798 56,652 9.8 Los Angeles Arroyo Verdugo Burbank city 11,109 105,952 9.5 Los Angeles WCCOG Beverly Hills city 3,655 34,627 9.5 Los Angeles GCCOG Whittier city 9,379 87,526 9.3 Imperial ICTC/IVAG Holtville city 736 6,779 9.2 Los Angeles GCCOG Cerritos city 5,659 50,711 9.0 Orange OCCOG Orange city 16,491 141,691 8.6 Ventura VCOG Santa Paula city 3,654 30,779 8.4 Los Angeles GCCOG Signal Hill city 1,401 11,795 8.4 Orange OCCOG Mission Viejo city 11,519 96,434 8.4 Los Angeles SGVCOG Azusa city 6,178 51,313 8.3 Los Angeles SGVCOG Arcadia city 7,106 58,891 8.3 Orange OCCOG Dana Point city 4,164 34,249 8.2 Ventura VCOG Port Hueneme city 2,913 23,526 8.1 Orange OCCOG Lake Forest city 10,735 86,346 8.0 Riverside WRCOG Eastvale city 8,415 66,078 7.9 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Upland city 10,022 78,481 7.8 Orange OCCOG Laguna Woods city 2,115 16,518 7.8 Imperial ICTC/IVAG Calexico city 5,439 42,198 7.8 Los Angeles SBCCOG Carson city 12,115 93,604 7.7 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Fontana city 27,581 212,078 7.7 Ventura VCOG San Buenaventura city 14,201 108,170 7.6 Ventura VCOG Fillmore city 2,111 15,925 7.5 Orange OCCOG Laguna Hills city 4,252 31,572 7.4 Orange OCCOG Laguna Niguel city 9,458 66,748 7.1 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Rancho Cucamonga city 25,655 179,412 7.0 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Rialto city 15,427 107,271 7.0 Imperial ICTC/IVAG Westmorland city 362 2,461 6.8 Riverside WRCOG Corona city 25,132 168,101 6.7 Orange OCCOG Irvine city 42,194 280,202 6.6 Imperial ICTC/IVAG El Centro city 7,070 46,248 6.5 Riverside WRCOG Moreno Valley city 32,970 208,297 6.3 Riverside WRCOG Riverside city 52,126 328,101 6.3 Los Angeles North Los Angeles County La Verne city 5,450 33,201 6.1 Los Angeles SGVCOG Diamond Bar city 9,524 57,495 6.0 Orange OCCOG Rancho Santa Margarita city 8,273 48,960 5.9 Los Angeles SGVCOG Sierra Madre city 1,892 11,135 5.9 Orange OCCOG Brea city 7,816 45,606 5.8 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Ontario city 31,921 178,268 5.6 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Grand Terrace city 2,269 12,654 5.6 Imperial ICTC/IVAG Brawley city 4,902 27,337 5.6 Orange OCCOG San Clemente city 11,737 65,405 5.6 Los Angeles SGVCOG San Marino city 2,408 13,352 5.5 Ventura VCOG Camarillo city 12,642 69,880 5.5 City Size Population Density (Population County Subregion City (acre) (2019) per acre) Riverside WRCOG Murrieta city 21,501 118,125 5.5 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG San Bernardino city 39,914 219,233 5.5 Orange OCCOG Yorba Linda city 12,707 68,706 5.4 Imperial ICTC/IVAG Imperial city 3,736 19,929 5.3 Los Angeles SGVCOG Walnut city 5,744 30,551 5.3 Orange OCCOG Newport Beach city 16,508 87,180 5.3 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Colton city 10,313 54,391 5.3 Los Angeles North Los Angeles County Santa Clarita city 42,233 218,103 5.2 Los Angeles SGVCOG Duarte city 4,272 21,952 5.1 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Loma Linda city 4,839 24,335 5.0 Los Angeles SBCCOG Rancho Palos Verdes city 8,656 42,560 4.9 Los Angeles SBCCOG El Segundo city 3,483 17,066 4.9 Riverside WRCOG Temecula city 23,785 113,826 4.8 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Chino city 18,939 89,829 4.7 Ventura VCOG Simi Valley city 27,051 127,716 4.7 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Highland city 11,948 55,778 4.7 Ventura VCOG Moorpark city 7,982 37,020 4.6 Riverside WRCOG Hemet city 18,707 84,754 4.5 Orange OCCOG Los Alamitos city 2,617 11,721 4.5 Orange OCCOG Villa Park city 1,329 5,933 4.5 Los Angeles SBCCOG Palos Verdes Estates city 3,069 13,544 4.4 Los Angeles SGVCOG Monrovia city 8,796 38,529 4.4 Los Angeles SGVCOG Claremont city 8,614 36,511 4.2 Riverside CVAG Indio city 21,254 89,406 4.2 Los Angeles Las Virgenes Malibu COG Agoura Hills city 5,003 20,842 4.2 Los Angeles SGVCOG Glendora city 12,564 52,122 4.1 Orange OCCOG Laguna Beach city 5,652 23,358 4.1 Orange OCCOG San Juan Capistrano city 9,215 36,821 4.0 Riverside WRCOG Canyon Lake city 2,956 11,285 3.8 Riverside WRCOG Jurupa Valley city 27,931 106,318 3.8 Riverside WRCOG Perris city 20,269 76,971 3.8 Riverside CVAG Cathedral City city 14,574 54,907 3.8 Los Angeles Arroyo Verdugo La Canada Flintridge city 5,532 20,602 3.7 Ventura VCOG Thousand Oaks city 35,488 129,557 3.7 Los Angeles SBCCOG Rolling Hills Estates city 2,300 8,247 3.6 Los Angeles SGVCOG San Dimas city 9,858 34,584 3.5 Orange OCCOG Seal Beach city 7,475 25,073 3.4 Los Angeles GCCOG Santa Fe Springs city 5,677 18,261 3.2 Riverside WRCOG Menifee city 29,792 93,452 3.1 Riverside CVAG Palm Desert city 17,245 53,625 3.1 Los Angeles GCCOG Commerce city 4,192 13,021 3.1 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Redlands city 23,177 71,839 3.1 Imperial ICTC/IVAG Calipatria city 2,391 7,281 3.0 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Yucaipa city 18,069 54,844 3.0 Riverside WRCOG Norco city 8,948 26,386 2.9 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Chino Hills city 28,709 84,364 2.9 Riverside WRCOG San Jacinto city 16,654 48,878 2.9 Ventura VCOG Ojai city 2,796 7,769 2.8 Los Angeles Las Virgenes Malibu COG Calabasas city 8,805 24,239 2.8 Los Angeles SGVCOG Lancaster city 60,446 161,604 2.7 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Victorville city 47,356 126,543 2.7 Riverside WRCOG Beaumont city 19,173 48,401 2.5 Riverside CVAG Coachella city 19,138 46,351 2.4 Riverside WRCOG Wildomar city 15,157 36,066 2.4 Los Angeles Las Virgenes Malibu COG Westlake Village city 3,521 8,378 2.4 City Size Population Density (Population County Subregion City (acre) (2019) per acre) Los Angeles North Los Angeles County Palmdale city 67,994 157,854 2.3 Riverside CVAG Lake Elsinore city 27,600 62,949 2.3 Riverside WRCOG Banning city 14,822 31,044 2.1 Los Angeles GCCOG Avalon city 1,845 3,845 2.1 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Hesperia city 46,488 96,362 2.1 Riverside WRCOG La Quinta city 22,841 42,098 1.8 Los Angeles Las Virgenes Malibu COG Hidden Hills city 1,080 1,885 1.7 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Apple Valley town 47,927 73,464 1.5 Riverside CVAG Desert Hot Springs city 19,461 29,251 1.5 Los Angeles GCCOG La Habra Heights city 3,939 5,485 1.4 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Big Bear Lake city 4,116 5,461 1.3 Riverside CVAG Rancho Mirage city 16,065 18,489 1.2 Riverside CVAG Blythe city 17,437 19,428 1.1 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Adelanto city 33,804 35,136 1.0 Los Angeles SBCCOG Rolling Hills city 1,913 1,892 1.0 Riverside WRCOG Calimesa city 9,514 9,159 1.0 Los Angeles Las Virgenes Malibu COG Malibu city 12,613 12,046 1.0 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Barstow city 26,411 24,150 0.9 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Yucca Valley town 25,468 22,050 0.9 Los Angeles SGVCOG Bradbury city 1,255 1,077 0.9 Riverside CVAG Palm Springs city 60,437 48,733 0.8 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Twentynine Palms city 37,609 28,958 0.8 Los Angeles Unincorporated Unincorporated Los Angeles County 1,679,677 1,046,858 0.6 Riverside CVAG Indian Wells city 9,328 5,445 0.6 San Bernardino SBCTA/SBCOG Needles city 20,182 5,085 0.3 Los Angeles SGVCOG Irwindale city 6,162 1,506 0.2 Orange Unincorporated Unincorporated Imperial County 176,510 38,033 0.2 Ventura Unincorporated Unincorporated Orange County 1,063,642 129,128 0.1 Riverside Unincorporated Unincorporated Riverside County 4,078,448 394,200 0.1 Los Angeles GCCOG Vernon city 3,296 301 0.1 Los Angeles SGVCOG Industry city 7,699 432 0.1 Imperial Unincorporated Unincorporated Ventura County 2,843,170 96,377 0.0 San Bernardino Unincorporated Unincorporated San Bernardino County 12,300,111 312,654 0.0
SCAG Average 8.3 GCCOG Cities Average 15.3