Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RHNA 1988
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 lill *NEW FILE* City Council Meeting September 26, 1988 Agenda Item No. I-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Status Report regarding SCAG Regional Strategic Plan and Assessment Suggested Action If desired, (a) Authorize the City Manager to sign the attached letter to SCAG with the City's comments on the Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment? and (b) direct staff to continue monitoring the preparation of the SCAG Regional Strategic Plan. Discussion Since the August 8, 1988 report on the Regional Strategic Plan (RSP)(copy attached), staff has reviewed the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The attached letter, which is the subject of the suggested action, compares the City's General Plan projections to the RHNA, discusses the basis for the City appeal of the RHNA numbers and recommends a housing need figure consistent with the conditions that exist in Newport Beach. By taking an official City Council action, this appeal may also be directed to the State Department of Housing and Community Development should SLAG deny the appeal. Staff has also attended a September 9, 1988, joint meeting of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the 'South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). At that meeting the Draft Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was adopted by both boards and released to the public. Staff has reviewed the AQMP and is waiting for the Appendices to review the details of the proposed control measures. There will be an Orange County public hearing on the AQMP on October 27, 1988. Staff will prepare a staff report on the AQMP, with a proposed City response if appropriate and present that at an October City Council meeting. The Preliminary Draft Growth Management Plan (PDGMP) which staff has reviewed has become obsolete with the adoption of a Draft,Growth Management Plan (DGMP) by SCAG. The DGMP has not been approved for circulation. The comments recom- mended on the RHNA will also influence the DGMP. Staff will also respond directly to the DGMP when it is released to the ,public. TO: City Council - 2. The remaining three plans (Mobility, Water Quality and"Environmental and Haz- ardous Waste Plan) are not available at this time. Staff will review these plans when they become available and report on them to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by / C CRAIG T. ELL Senior P nner CTB/kk CC24 Attachment City Council Meeting September 26, 1988 Agenda Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Suggested Action I-1 Plan and if desired, (a) Authorize the City Manager to sign the attached letter to SCAG with the City's comments on the Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment; and (b) direct staff to continue monitoring the preparation of the SCAG Regional Strategic Plan. Discussion Since the August 8, 1988 report on the Regional Strategic Plan (RSP)(copy attached), staff has reviewed the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The attached letter, which is the subject of the suggested action, compares the City's General Plan projections to the RHNA, discusses the basis for the City appeal of the RHNA numbers and recommends a housing need figure consistent with the conditions that exist in Newport Beach. By taking an official City Council action, this appeal may also be directed to the State Department of Housing and Community Development should SCAG deny the appeal. Staff has also attended a September 9, 1988, joint meeting of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). At that meeting the Draft Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was adopted by both boards and released to the public. Staff has reviewed the AQMP and is waiting for the Appendices to review the details of the proposed control measures. There will be an Orange County public hearing on the AQMP on October 27, 1988. Staff will prepare a staff report on the AQMP, with a proposed City response if appropriate and present that at an October City Council meeting. The Preliminary Draft Growth Management Plan (PDGMP) which staff has reviewed has become obsolete with the adoption of a Draft Growth Management Plan (DGMP) by SCAG. The DGMP has not been approved for circulation. The comments recom- mended on the RHNA will also influence the DGMP. Staff will also respond directly to the DGMP when it is released to the public. TO: City Council - 2. The remaining three plans (Mobility, Water Quality and Environmental and Haz- ardous Waste Plan) are not available at this time. Staff will review these plans when they become available and report on them to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by CRAIG T. BLUELL Senior Planner CTB/kk CC24 Attachment City Council Meeting August 8, 1988 Study Session*Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: SCAG REGIONAL STRATEGIC PLAN The Regional Strategic Plan (RSP) was prepared over the past year and one-half by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), with input from committees of local officials and directly :from local jurisdictions. It is SCAG's intent that the RSP be a comprehensive vision for the SCAG region and a framework to integrate and coordinate the following six planning documents: 1) Growth Management, 2) Mobility, 3) Air Quality, 4) Water Quality, 5) Housing Needs Assessment and 6) Environmental and Hazardous Waste Plans. The RSP also includes broad goals for attaining a strong competitive economy; maintaining a favored quality of life through assuring adequate housing, mobility, infra- structure and level of services; supporting the social/governmental viability, cultural vitality and excellence in education; preserving the quality of the environment; and securing individual life style options and choices. The RSP also contains a variety of implementing strategies for creation of an action plan. The action plan when implemented would shape future growth in the SCAG region to achieve the goals of the six plans within the RSP. A Preliminary Draft Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) have been distributed. The Draft GNP, Mobility, Air Quality, Water Quality and Environmental and Hazardous Waste Plans will be distributed in September. The RHNA was completed prior to the other draft documents because State Planning Law mandated a July 1, 1988 date for completion. The Preliminary Draft GMP was released early because it contains the growth pro- jections used in the RHNA. The growth projections in the GMP are also used in the other planning documents. Staff has copies of the Preliminary Draft GMP and the RHNA. These documents are being reviewed, and a report will be prepared for the City Council for a meeting in September. Review of the other RSP documents will occur after their release in September, and a report will be prepared for the City Council. Adoption of the various plans comprising the RSP is expected in December, 1988. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN by CTB/kk CC24 City Council Meeting August 8, 1988 Study Session Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: SCAG REGIONAL STRATEGIC PLAN Ll The Regional Strategic Plan (RSP) was prepared over the past year and one-half by the southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), with input from committees of local, officials and directly from local jurisdictions. It is SCAG's intent that the RSP be a comprehensive vision for the SCAG region and a framework to integrate and coordinate the following six planning documents: 1) Growth Management, 2) Mobility, 3) Air Quality, 4) Water Quality, 5) Housing Needs Assessment and 6) Environmental and Hazardous Waste Plans. The RSP also includes broad goals for attaining a strong competitive economy; maintaining a favored quality of life through assuring adequate housing, mobility, infra- structure and level of services; supporting the social/governmental viability, cultural vitality and excellence in education; preserving the quality of the environment; and securing individual life style options and choices. The RSP also contains a variety of implementing strategies for creation of an action plan. The action plan when implemented would shape future growth in the SLAG region to achieve the goals of the six plans within the RSP. A Preliminary Draft Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) have been distributed. The Draft GMP, Mobility, Air Quality, Water Quality and Environmental and Hazardous Waste Plans will be distributed in September. The RHNA was completed prior to the other draft documents because State Planning Law mandated a July 1, 1988 date for completion. The Preliminary Draft GMP was released early because it contains the growth pro- jections used in the RHNA. The growth projections in the GMP are also used in the other planning documents. Staff has copies of the Preliminary Draft GMP and the RHNA. These documents are being reviewed, and a report will be prepared for the City Council for a meeting in September. Review of the other RSP documents will occur after their release in September, and a report will be prepared for the City Council. Adoption of the various plans comprising the RSP is expected in December, 1988. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN, by CTB/kk CC24 City Council Meeting August 8, 1988 Study Session Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: SCAG REGIONAL STRATEGIC PLAN 0 The Regional Strategic Plan (RSP) was prepared over the past year and one-half by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), with input from committees of local officials and directly from local jurisdictions. It is SCAG's intent that the RSP be a comprehensive vision for the SCAG region and a framework to integrate and coordinate the following six planning documents: 1) Growth Management, 2) Mobility, 3) Air Quality, 4) Water Quality, 5) Housing Needs Assessment and 6) Environmental and Hazardous Waste Plans. The RSP also includes broad goals for attaining a strong competitive economy; maintaining a favored quality of life through assuring adequate housing,. mobility, infra- structure and level of services; supporting the social/governmental viability, cultural vitality and excellence in education; preserving the quality of the environment; and securing individual life style options and choices. The RSP also contains a variety of implementing strategies for creation of an action plan. The action plan when implemented would shape future growth in the SCAG region to achieve the goals of the six plans within the RSP. A Preliminary Draft Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) have been distributed. The Draft,GMP, Mobility, Air Quality, Water Quality and Environmental and Hazardous Waste Plans will be distributed in September. The RHNA was completed prior to the other draft documents because State Planning Law mandated a July 1, 1988 date for completion. The Preliminary Draft GMP was released early because it contains the growth pro- jections used in the RHNA. The growth projections in the GMP are also used in the other planning documents. Staff has copies of the Preliminary Draft GMP and the RHNA. These documents are being reviewed, and a report will be prepared for the City Council for a meeting in September. Review of the other RSP documents will occur after their release in September, and a report will be prepared for the City Council. Adoption of the various plans comprising the RSP is expected in December, 1988. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAM by CTB/kk CC24 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REQUESTING A REVISION TO THE JUNE 1988 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) AND'AUTHORI2iNG THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AND SUBMIT THAT REQUEST WHEREAS-, the City Council has reviewed the request for a revision to the RHNA at a public meeting, and WHEREAS, the City Council has taken into consideration all comments made concerning the RHNA, and requested. WHEREAS, the City Council supports and desires the revision NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City, Council requests a revision to.the June 1988 RHNA in accordance with the attached letter. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to sign and submit the revision request to the Southern California Association of Governments. ADOPTED this day of , 1988. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK CTB/kk CC24 Attachment V f CITY' OF NEWPORT BEACH C04NCIL MEMBERS MINUTES G �CG���� ROLL CALL �� CTP September 26, 1988 INDEX i Motion x Motion was made to schedule public U/P 3279 All Ayes hearing on Use Permit No. 3279, Lido Lido Mdcl Medical,Center on property located at Ctr 351 Hospital Road, for October 10, 1988, and that said hearing be heard prior to the contined hearing on the General Plan Upda e. H. ORDINAN ES FOR ADOPTION: 1. Proposed 0 INANCE NO. 88-33, being, Ord 88-33 Bal Is Ferry AN ORD ANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Franchise THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GRANTING (42) A FRANCHI E TO THE BALBOA ISLAND FERRY, INC. was presented for econd reading with recycled report dat4 September 12, 1988, from the Execu ve Assistant'to the City Manager. Motion x Motion was made to adopt rdinance No. All Ayes 88-33. 2'. Proposed ORDINANCE No. 88-35 being, Ord 88-35 Escort Srvs AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY UNCIL OF (27) THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DING CHAPTER 5.90 TO THE NEWPORT EACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ESCORT SERVICES, was presented with recycled report fro the Assistant City Attorney dated September 12, 1988. Motion x Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No. All Ayes 88-35. I. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Status reDort from the Planning SCAG Rgnl Departments regarding SCAG REGIONAL SP/Rgnl Hag STRATEGIC PLAN AND -REGIONAL HOUSING (68) NEEDS ASSBSSMENT, was presented Motion x . Motion was made to adopt_ Resolution No. Res 88-95 88-95, authorizing the City Manager to sign the letter to Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) with the City_'s_comments on the_Regional Housing Needs Assessment, with the request that reference be made in said letter to possible_ annexations of Santa Ana Heights, the Banning/Beeco property and the Down Coast property; and to direct staff to continue monitoring the preparation of the SCAG Regional__ Strategic Plan. Volume 42 - Page 385 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MM ES OR All Ayes Motion Ix All Ayes ,S� September 26, 1988 Council Member Turner suggested another word be substituted for the word "infill" in the subject letter, inasmuch as there is no specific and accurate definition for the word "infill." The motion was voted on and carried. J. CURRENT BUSINESS: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS/CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE VACANCY: tion was made to accept the re gnation letter of Thomas C. Edwards (ap inted to the Planning Commission); and d er to October 10, 1988, (District 4) Cou it Member Turner's appointment to fill he unexpired term ending December , 1988. Adjourned at 11:2 p.m., to 6:00 p.m., October 10, 1988. The agenda for this eeting was posted on September 22, 1988 at 9:45 a.m., on the City hall Bulletin oard located outside of the City of wport Beach Administration Building. Volume 42 — Page 386 EQA/CAC .. I Ot �riU; RESOLUTION NO. 88-95 0 N pOCPtf`PCjfiS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REQUESTING A REVISION TO THE JUNE 1988 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AND SUBMIT THAT REQUEST WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the request for a revision to the RHNA at a public meeting, and WHEREAS, the City Council has taken into consideration all comments made concerning the RHNA, and requested. WHEREAS, the City Council supports and desires the revision NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council requests a revision to the June 1988 RHNA in accordance with the attached letter. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to sign and submit the revision request to the Southern California Association of Governments. ADOPTED this 26th ATTEST: . _ r ; � .�` CITY CLERK CTB/kk CC24 • • City Council Meeting September 26, 1988 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Status Suggested Action SCAG and If desired, (a) Authorize the City Manager to sign the attached letter to SCAG with the City's comments on the Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment) and (b) direct staff to continue monitoring the preparation of the SCAG Regional Strategic Plan. Discussion Since the August 8, 1988 report on the Regional Strategic Plan (RSP)(copy attached), staff has reviewed the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The attached letter, which is the subject of the suggested action, compares the City's General Plan projections to the RHNA, discusses the basis for the City appeal of the RHNA numbers and recommends a housing need figure consistent with the conditions that exist in Newport Beach. By taking an official City Council action, this appeal may also be directed to the State Department of Housing and Community Development should SCAG deny the appeal. Staff has also attended a September 9, 1988, joint meeting of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). At that meeting the Draft Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was adopted by both boards and released to the public. Staff has reviewed the AQMP and is waiting for the Appendices to review the details of the proposed control measures. There will be an orange County public hearing on the AQMP on October 27, 1986. Staff will prepare a staff report on the AQMP, with a proposed City response if appropriate and present that at an October City Council meeting. The Preliminary Draft Growth Management Plan (PDGMP) which staff has reviewed has become obsolete with the adoption of a Draft Growth Management Plan (DGMP) by SCAG. The DGMP has not been approved for circulation. The comments recom- mended on the RHNA will also influence the DGMP. Staff will also respond directly to the DGMP when it is released to the public. • • • TO: City Council - 2. The remaining three ardous Waste plans when th Respectfully PLANNING DEPA JAMES D. HEWI by d4ZZ CRAIG T. Senior P] CTB/kk CC24 Attachments plans (Mobility, Water Quality and Environmental and Haz- .� ...419 voviam 1'}1P4P • • • City Council Meeting August 8, 1988 Study Session Agenda Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: SCAG REGIONAL STRATEGIC PLAN 2 The Regional Strategic Plan (RSP) was prepared over the past year and one-half by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), with input from committees of local officials and directly from local jurisdictions. It is SCAG's intent that the RSP be a comprehensive vision for the SCAG region and a framework to integrate and coordinate the following six planning documents: 1) Growth Management, 2) Mobility, 3) Air Quality, 4) Water Quality, 5) Housing Needs Assessment and 6) Environmental and Hazardous Waste Plans. The RSP also includes broad goals for attaining a strong competitive economy; maintaining a favored quality of life through assuring adequate housing, mobility, infra- structure and level of services; supporting the social/governmental viability, cultural vitality and excellence in education; preserving the quality of the environment; and securing individual life style options and choices. The RSP also contains a variety of implementing strategies for creation of an action plan. The action plan when implemented would shape future growth in the SCAG region to achieve the goals of the six plans within the RSP. A Preliminary Draft Growth Management Plan (GNP) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) have been distributed. The Draft GMP, Mobility, Air Quality, Water Quality and Environmental and Hazardous Waste Plans will be distributed in September. The RHNA was completed prior to the other draft documents because State Planning Law mandated a July 1, 1988 date for completion. The Preliminary Draft GMP was released early because it contains the growth pro- jections used in the RHNA. The growth projections in the GMP are also used in the other planning documents. Staff has copies of the Preliminary Draft GMP and the RHNA. These documents are being reviewed, and a report will be prepared for the City Council for a meeting in September. Review of the other RSP documents will occur after their release in September, and a report will be prepared for the City Council. Adoption of the various plans comprising the RSP is expected in December, 1988. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAM by CTB/kk CC24 3 r C • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REQUESTING A REVISION TO THE JUNE 1988 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AND SUBMIT THAT REQUEST WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the request for a revision to the RHNA at a public meeting, and WHEREAS, the City Council has taken into consideration all comments made concerning the RHNA, and WHEREAS, the City Council supports and desires the revision requested. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council requests a revision to the June 1988 RHNA in accordance with the attached letter. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to sign and submit the revision request to the Southern California Association of Governments. ADOPTED this day of MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK • CTB/kk CC24 Attachment , 1988, L{ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF'THE CITY MANAGER (714) 644-3000 September 20, 1988 Mr. Don Griffin, President SCAG 600 S. Commonwealth Ave. Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Attention: Joe Carreras Dear Mr. Griffin: • The City of Newport Beach appreciates having this opportunity to comment on and request a revision of the City's future housing need as contained in the June, 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The content of this letter has been reviewed by the City Council at a public meeting and approved for submission to SCAG by a resolution of the Council. The information contained in this revision request may also be of value to SCAG for the preparation of the Growth Management Plan (GMT). The City is pleased to be able to assist SCAG through its comments since the accuracy of the GMP and the RHNA may have a direct effect on the success of the other Regional Strategic Plans such as air quality and mobility. Within the current boundaries of Newport 'Beach, the City's General Plan has identified seven vacant sites as being suitable for residential development. The General Plan designates these sites for the construction of 1,560 units. The General Plan designations for these sites are based on environmental considerations such as geologic hazards, coastal bluffs, archeological sites, paleontological sites, riparian areas, noise, air quality and water quality; infrastructure capacity considerations for sewer, water, traffic circulation, and parks; and market demand (type and tenure). The balance of the city's residential development as projected by the • General Plan is 3,420 infill units. These infill units will be constructed in areas of the City currently zoned and subdivided for 20 to 40 dwelling units per acre. Newport Beach's total projected residential buildout for the year 2010 as identified in the General Plan is 39,623 dwelling units, this includes the 1,560 new units and the 3,420 infill units. While the additional 4,980 dwelling units projected in the city's General Plan for the year 2010 are sufficient to meet SCAG's 2,535 future housing unit need for the 5 year period or the 3,430 future housing unit need for 65 City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Mr. Don Griffin, President SCAG • September 20, 1988 Page 2. the 64 year period, the Newport Beach housing market will not deliver the units within the 5 or 6k year periods nor will it be possible to achieve the housing unit affordability distribution identified in the RHNA. Of the 1,560 units to be developed on the vacant sites, 1,136 units will most likely be constructed over the next 6k years. These 1,136 units will be located on five of the seven vacant sites. Four of these five sites are located in the Coastal Zone and are subject to the provisions of the State Coastal Act and the City's State Certified Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Affordable housing requirements of 20% and 25% have been applied to 2 of the 5 sites during a discretionary approval stage of these projects. The affordable housing was required in accordance with the goals, policies, programs and implementation actions contained in the City's Housing Element. Similar affordable housing requirements areanticipated at the time tract maps or other discretionary approvals are made on the three remaining sites. Approximately 240 affordable units should be constructed in association with the 1,136 dwelling units. • The 3,420 infill units will be developed on very small parcels and quite often be the intensification of development on parcels in the City's multi- family areas. A factor for affordable housing density bonuses and "granny units" is included in the 3,420 units. Beyond this it will not be possible to achieve additional affordable units since the majority of the construc- tion will involve the addition of only one or two units per site. Further, in view of the City's high vacancy rate, it cannot be expected that market forces will cause the construction of infill housing units to occur at a significantly higher rate than previously experienced. The total time required for independent property owners to complete these small projects also influences the rate at which infill units can be provided. Given the 3,430 unit need identified in the RHNA for the 6�i year period , infill units would have to be provided at the rate of 351 units per year. This is nearly equal to the average annual delivery rate of 377 units for all residential construction, new and infill, as experienced over the past 12 years. Based on available sites, vacancy rates, time required for infill construc- tion, market demand, (type and tenure), and the housing market's ability to provide dwelling units, Newport Beach requests that SCAG revise the City's future housing need as contained in the June, 1988 RHNA to reflect these considerations. Based on these considerations, the City recommends that a istotal future housing need in the range of 1,550 to 1,650 units be es- tablished for the 5 year period. That the 18 month need be in the range of 465-495 units, and that the distribution of units by income group should not include any more than the 240 affordable units previously identified in the low and very low income categories. Once again the City would like to thank SCAG for the opportunity to comment on and request a revision to its future housing need in the June, 1988 RHNA. Should SCAG have any questions concerning the City's planning methodology I Mr. Don Griffin, President SCAG • September 20, 1988 Page 3. and data, please do not hesitate to contact Craig Bluell, City Senior Planner, at (714) .644-3225. The City is also preparing population and employment data that may provide useful input to the GMP. The City is looking forward to receiving a copy of the draft GMP with data aggregated at the city level. Sincerely, ROBERT L. WYNN RLW:CTB:jm C\CTB\SCAG-HE.988 • r: I 600 Louth Commonwealth Avenue •fulte 1000 • Lor October 6, 1988 Mr. Robert L. Wynn City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Rt /OUTHERO CALIFOROIA R&OCIATI00 OF GOVERI1111EnTJ nngelef • California • 90005.213/385-1000 r _4 OCT1119% cllr ©F NEWPOn F eEACH.) I CALIF. Attn.: Craig Bluell, City Senior Planner Dear Mr. Wynn: RE.E$` OCT 11 1988:, f City oi'ty Manager t Newport Beach (� This letter acknowledges the receipt of your request to revise the Regional Housing Needs Assessment figures for your jurisdiction. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Subcommittee will evaluate local revisions ("Appeals") and make recommendations to the Community Economic Human Development Committee (CEHD) on whether to approve, approve in part or deny the requested, change. The CEHD Committee will in turn make recommendations to the SCAG Executive Committee for final action. Jurisdictions may make an in -person presentation of no longer than 10 minutes to the RHNA Subcommittee when their local revision request is scheduled for evaluation. The schedule for evaluation and the staff report to the committee will be made available to jurisdictions scheduled to have their "appeals" heard at either one of the following RHNA Subcommittee/CEHD Committee meeting dates: o Thursday, October 20, 1988 o Thursday, November 17, 1988 A notice indicating the meeting time, place and a schedule will be mailed to you so that you will know in advance when your revision request will be considered. The majority of "appeals" will be scheduled on November 17th. According to the information we have received, your local revision involves the following types of changes: Change Future Growth (Households) Change Vacant Units Needed Change Replacement Housing Need Eliminate.or Change Lower and Moderate Change Existing Overpayment Need Other: Income HH Need J Mr. Robert L. Wynn Page 2 October 6, 1988 Please note that the following additional information is needed to review your request: An estimate of what you feel should be your regional share of growth and the basis for your changing our projection An explanation of the growth constraints that inhibit development in your community A letter signed by the City Manager or Mayor making your revision request official Other: In cases where additional information is needed, please submit your documentation by October 21, 1988. We intend to do everything we can to resolve any data conflicts and provide for a reasonable assessment of your community's share of regional housing needs. For additional information, you may call Joe Carreras or myself at (213) 385-1000. f J. JAMES )1TRUTO, Manager SCAG ousing Program JM:JC:bam MYIXI PA CA YIORAIR R W LI%IOA OI OOISPA %IA V 600 fouth Commonwealth Avenue .fulte 1000. Lor Rn9eler-,California - 90005.213/385-1000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 October 20, 1988 Mr. James Minuto, Manager SCAG Housing Program SCAG 600 So. Commonwealth Ave., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Dear Mr. Minuto: The following supplemental information is being provided to help SCAG understand the detailed planning that supports Newport Beach's projected residential development. The enclosed colored map shows all the vacant sites within the City and a 450 acre site which is in the County of Orange. This site is colored blue and is currently used to produce oil. The red line is the coastal boundary. The pink area to the north is owned by the owner of the blue site. The State owns the pink site to the south and is negotiating to sell it to the owner of the blue site. The pink and blue sites will be developed as a single planned development. Even if the process began today, this area would not develop within the next six years. Complex issues involving hazardous waste, geologic faults, significant street improvements, annexation, affordable housing, environmental concerns, and public interests must be resolved prior to construction. Further, the property owner is not interested in development of the property at this time. The remaining yellow and green sites are all owned by one company. The green sites are designated for commercial development and the yellow sites are designated for residential development. The ownership of the remaining vacant sites by two large corporations puts the City in a unique position of having to approve development that is acceptable to the property owner in order to cause construction. The City must also satisfy the requirements of State planning law, the concerns of local citizen groups, and the needs of the City, such as infrastructure, public facilities, and revenue. Local citizen groups have successfully used referenda and environ- mental lawsuits to influence development throughout Newport Beach. The City is currently involved in a major revision of its General Plan. This amendment should be approved by the City Council on October 24, 1988. The revision proposes to eliminate 19,500,000 sq.ft. of potential commercial development from the City. The General Plan revision also resolves issues concerning residential development and establishes the maximum number of residential units that can be constructed in the City. The allocation of development to the commercial and residential sites involved a detailed negotiation process that included considerations such as the construction of needed infrastructure, affordable housing, environmental constraints, the demands of the Coastal Act and public needs such as a library, museum, and 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Mr. James Minuto October 20, 1988 Page 2. transit facility. The allocation of residential units to the residential sites was made on the basis of factors unique to each site. 1. Castaways: 151 Residential Units a. This site is within the Coastal Zone and is subject to additional regulatory control. b. The entire eastern and southern boundary of the site is an unstable coastal bluff. This bluff requires large setbacks. C. There are unique coastal views from the site. d. There are riparian areas on the site. e. There are paleontological areas on the site. f. There is a pedestrian and bike trail easement on the site. g. The coastal bluffs and proximity to the Upper Newport Bay create drainage problems. h. This site is such a unique coastal resource in terms of environ- mental and public benefit considerations, that it may be 1 of 2 sites acquired next year through a local bond program. 2. Newoorter North: 212 Residential Units a. This site is within the Coastal Zone and is subject to additional regulatory control. b. The entire western boundary of the site is an unstable coastal bluff. This bluff requires large setbacks. C. There are unique coastal views from the site. d. There are riparian areas on the site. e. There are palentological areas on the site. f. There are significant archeological areas on the site. g. There are areas of endangered flora. h. The coastal bluffs and proximity to the Upper Newport Bay create drainage problems. i. This site is also a significant coastal resource in terms of environmental and public benefit considerations. Newporter North is the other site that may be acquired next year through the local bond program. 3. Villa Point: 228 Units: 20% Affordable Housing Requirement This project has received all of its discretionary approvals and should be under construction in the near future. 4. Block 800: 245 Units This site is to be developed with a high density multi -family residen- tial tower, at approximately 40 dwelling units per acre. 5. San Diego Creek South: 300 Units:'258 Affordable Housing Requirement Residential development on this site will be multi -family with an average density of 15 dwelling units per acre. Mr. James Minuto October 20, 1988 Page 3. Also enclosed is a copy of the General Plan Amendment EIR which includes the General Plan Traffic Analysis and a copy of the proposed Circulation Element of the General Plan. On page 20 of the Circulation Element is a list of road improvements to be made to the City's circulation system. These circulation improvements are necessary to accommodate projected traffic. The improvements to be made in conjunction with development adjacent to the green and yellow sites are highlighted in blue. As stated in the City's letter of September 20, 1988, 1,136 units will most likely be constructed over the next 6 1/2 years on vacant sites. It should be noted that the successful approval of a local park bond program would reduce this total to 773 units. These units are to be constructed on the five sites discussed in this letter. In the September letter, the City also identified 3,420 infill units to be developed on very small parcels in the City's high density multi -family areas. While the 4,556 total of infill and vacant site units is sufficient to accommodate the units identified in the RHNA, all of those units will not be delivered during the term of the RHNA. SCAG's advice to the City that this should not be of concern to the City because there are sufficient units to accommodate the RHNA, and it is not the fault of the City if the market does not deliver the units as long as the City does not obstruct the construction of those units, is most trouble- some to the City. This is troublesome to the City for the following reasons. First, it has been argued in the past that the development procedures of the City of Newport Beach obstruct development. It concerns the City that unattainable projected residential development will create new opportunity for the City and all other local jurisdictions to be criticized and even litigated on all of their development approval procedures. Second, the use of the Growth Management Plan housing unit projections which are trend and employment driven does not take into account factors that effect the rate of delivery of housing units at the local level. Even with the jobs/housing balance targeted at the subregional level, the issue of future rate of delivery is ignored by both the Growth Management Plan and the RHNA.. This results in a misallocation of housing units at the local level in the short term. Establishing unattainable housing goals at the local level with the ultimate blame for a short fall in production on the market just advances the point in time that a problem will be resolved. This is of the greatest concern when SCAG proposes to solve problems such as housing supply, traffic congestion, and air quality, to a large measure, by growth management. To not recognize the rate at which dwelling units can be provided over the short term, 5 - 6 1/2 years, in each jurisdiction predes- tines the RHNA, the Growth Management air quality control measure, and regional circulation system to failure. The problems created by a misal- location of units are also compounded by the fact that the shortfall units have not been allocated elsewhere in the subregion, and with the passage of time, the land resources to accommodate their production is lost to other uses. II ___ Mr. James Minuto October 20, 1988 Page 4. Third, coastal communities absorb significant costs to manage recreational resources that benefit a subregional area. Absent a sharing of revenue from cities whose residents use coastal resources, it is necessary to generate revenues to offset those costs. Moreover, Coastal Act policy obliges coastal cities to adequately provide visitor serving, facilities. A trend and employment driven housing allocation unfairly ignores a coastal com- munity's extra revenue needs, the extra commercial square footage needed to serve a subregional recreational demand and the obligations of State law. Fourth, a housing allocation that is trend and employment driven ignores two significant issues. A communities holding capacity and the extent to which a community must approve residential development to attain the jobs/housing balance. The City of Newport Beach has a wide variety of housing types and densities, with a substantial area zoned at 20 to 40 dwelling units per acre. Neither the GNP nor the RHNA establishes a maximum residential intensity development standard. Absent this type of standard, there is no "ground rule" which defines the extent to which a local jurisdiction must approve residential development to satisfy a portion of a subregion's need for housing. A community with a well balanced mix of housing types and densities should not be asked to upset that balance, especially, when that would have consequences well beyond the issue of jobs/housing balance. This letter and the enclosed information should be considered supplemental to the information in the September 20, 1988 letter. Based on the City's best estimate of future residential development, it recommends that the RHNA show 1,583 housing units for the 5 year period and 500 housing units for the 1 1/2 year period. Should SCAG require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 644-3225. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D.--HEWICKER, Director By / CRAIG TUELL . Senior1 nner C\CTB\SC A.00T 1. Vacant Site Map 2. General Plan EIR 3. Draft Land Use Element 4. Draft Circulation Element 5. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan 6. Ecological Survey CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 November 3, 1988 Mr. James Minuto, Manager SCAG Housing Program SCAG 600 So. Commonwealth Ave., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Dear Mr. Minuto: Since the City's supplemental information letter of October 20,1988, the City and SCAG have been discussing the methodology used to project future housing units. From this discussion, the City has become aware of SCAG's use of occupied housing units (OHU) as the basis of the "trend projection" of the housing market's future ability to deliver housing. In the City's opinion, this is not a direct or accurate method of using past trends to project the market's future delivery of housing. The attached table shows the housing unit (HU) and CHU growth information for Newport Beach. The State Department of Finance (DOF) housing unit estimates come from data provided to DOF by the City. The source of the HU information for DOF estimates is the City's final building permit records. As can be seen on the table, the actual delivery of new housing units as estimated by DOF is consistent with the City's reports of final building permits. The DOF HU estimates are the -direct and accurate measurement of how many housing units the housing market delivered in Newport Beach. Since 50% of the City's housing stock is rental housing and the vast majority of that rental housing is controlled by landowners with duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, the use of OHU as the "tool" to project the housing market necessarily includes very unpredictable factors. This is shown by the differences that exist between the change in HU and the change in OHU. These differences make it clear that the ability of the market to deliver new housing units can not be projected on the basis of OHU. Also included in the table is a separation of new units by those constructed on vacant sites and those developed as infill, recycled units. As stated in the City's two previous letters, there are five vacant sites for a total of 1,136 units which should develop over the next 6 1/2 years. In addition, there is a maximum total of 3,420 infill (recycle) units to be developed on very small parcels. As shown on the table, the majority of units added to the City's housing stock have come from development on vacant sites, 2,101 units as compared to 241 units, over the eight -year period. The 1987 and 1988 infill units include three large projects: 65 units in 1986 and 14 and 24 units in 1987. These projects are not typical of infill projects. Two of them (65 and 24 units) involved over 1.4 million dollars in CDBG funds, which are not available to the City for the next 6 years, and these large infill sites are no longer readily available. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Mr. James Minuto, Manager SCAG Housing Program November 3, 1988 Page 2. SCAG's revised proposed RHNA of 2,349 units is still 766 units above the City's recommendation of 1,583. When the 1,136 new units on vacant sites is deducted from the 2,349 units, a balance of 1,213 units must be provided by the infill market over the five year period of the RHNA. The City's projection of an average of 90 units per year results in a short -fall of 763 units. To assume that this short -fall in units will be accomplished by decreases in vacancy rate or greater production ignores the trend in Newport Beach's housing market. Also included in the 1980 growth data (1/1/81 estimate) is an annexation of developed land. This annexation does not represent a growth in units. The City contacted DOF and DOF reported that the City's 1981 estimates included 661 HU and 595 CHU which were attributed to the annexation. These units must be deducted from the trend data so as not to over project future housing units. Should SCAG require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 644-3225. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES DitiEWICKER. Director %L3lUeF� CRAIG T. Senior P CTB: jm CTB\SCAG U.LTR Attachment Est.Date Period Vacant Jan. 1 of Growth Sites Infill 1988 1987 911 82 1987 1986 246 72 1986 1985 222 5 1985 1984 ill 5 1984 1983 202 21 1983 1982 118 3 1982 1981 149 0 1981 19805 142 53 1980 19796 1979 1978 1978 1977 1977 1976 1976 1975 NEWPORT BEACH GROWTH DATA Cityl to DOF DOF-HU DOF/SCAG DOF/SCAG HU/OHU Total DOF-HU Change CHU OHO Change Difference 993 34,336 971 31,415 1,190 219 318 33,365 306 30,225 331 25 227 33,059 216 29,894 289 73 116 32,843 108 29,605 267 159 223 32,735 225 29,338 114 (111) 121 32,510 100 29,224 225 125 149 32,410 161 28,999 318 157 195 32,2492 8522 28,6813 8613 94 31,397 246 27,820 215 29 30,770 446 28,007 513 67 30,324 437 27,494 453 16 29,887 357 27,041 488 131 29,530 26,553 1 Final building permits. 2 Includes 61 units annexed to the City in December, 1980, without annexation growth is 191 units. 3 Includes 595 occupied units annexed to City December, 1980, without annexation growth is 266. 4 Difference without annexation 75 units. 5 All estimate numbers adjusted for annexation. 6 All estimate numbers adjusted for U.S. Census. Q SEW PORT _° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 C'9Cl FO KN�P . PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 November 7, 1988 Mr. Greg Lepoure Orange County Administrative 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Mr. Lepoure: Enclosed is the information you requested on the City's response to the RHNA. A fourth letter may be sent, a copy of which will be sent to you. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at the above number. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By CRAIGfA.LTR ELL Senioer CTB:jm CTB\OCA- Enclosures 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN LIMA TEPROGRAM RESIDENTIALAND COMMERCIAL GROWTH PROJECTIONS PREPARED MAY 1988 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW Interim Report Introduction The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council, Planning Commission and all inter- ested citizens summaries of the base data and a variety of growth projections for commercial and residential land uses in the City of Newport Beach. This information has been used by staff to develop the new traffic model and will be further used to develop the additional development build -out scenarios which will form the basis of the General Plan Review. Definitions: EXISTING DEVELOPMENT: For commercial areas the existing development data has been gathered in 1987 and 1988 on a lot -by -lot basis and represents gross floor area. In residential areas the existing development is based on the 1980 census data updated regularly from build- ing permit records. Certain commercial land uses are normally accounted in measures other than square feet. For these uses, a standard conversion table was developed for estimating floor area, as follows: 1. 1,000 sq.ft per hotel room. 2. 800 sq.ft. per motel room. 3. 15 sq.ft. per theater seat. 4. 1,500 sq.ft. per hospital bed. 5. 1,000 sq.ft. per convalescent hospital/monastery resident. 6. 25 sq.ft. per student for elementary schools. 7. 35 sq.ft. per student for high schools. 8. 25 sq.ft. per student for private schools. 9. 100 sq.ft. per acre for utility yards. 10. 8,000 sq.ft. per acre for auto dealers. TREND GROWTH: Trend Growth is a term which was first employed in the traffic studies conducted for the adoption of the General Plan in 1973. It represents a growth projection which takes into account zoning intensity limits, height limits, parking requirements and the patterns of development in each area of the City. The concept of Trend Growth has been car- ried through all the major General Plan revisions and correlation studies conducted since the original adoption of the General Plan. -1- .5 MODIFIED (1): The .5 Modified (1) development projection is an application of a Floor Area Ratio of one-half square foot of development to each square foot of commercial land in each commercial area and Trend Growth for residential projections. The following excep- tions to .5 FAR were included in the commercial projections. 1. Any lot currently developed to a floor area ratio higher than .5 is carried at the existing development level. This is based on the assumption that if .5 were adopted as a standard, these non -conforming uses and structures will remain for many years. 2. Any commercial area with specific development levels established in the General Plan, through recent Planned Community zoning or through some other mechanism which is considered to be committed, is carried at those levels of entitlement. EXISTING REGULATION. The existing regulation growth projection is the maximum amount of development established by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance without regard for the feasibility of constructing those levels of development within other controlling factors, such as height limits, parking requirements and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Residential projections are the same as Trend Growth. FLOOR AREA RATIO: The ratio of building square footage to total lot size, and is ab- breviated with the acronym FAR. STATISTICAL DIVISIONS/AREAS: A system of dividing the City into areas and divisions for the purpose of data base management and population projections. The Statistical Division system is the organizational basis of the existing General Plan. A copy of the Statistical Divisions/Areas Map is included in this report. COMMERCIALAREAS: A name and number system devised for this review to identify the distinct commercial districts in the City for the purpose of organizing commercial land use data and developing commercial growth projections. A map showing the location of the com- mercial areas is included in this report. DESCRIPTION OF COMMERCIAL GROWTH PROJECTIONS BY COMMERCIAL AREA 1. MOBIL ARMSTRONG: This commercial area is 30.3 acres in the Newport Ranch Planned Community. The site is located northerly of the Newport Crest area and is cur- rently vacant and used for oil extraction. All growth scenarios use the limit established in the Planned Community text of 400,000 sq.ft., which is .3 FAR. 2. HOAG HOSPITAL: The existing campus of Hoag Hospital is currently developed with 350 hospital beds for an estimated total square footage of 525,000 (.69 FAR). Trend growth will allow 493 beds or an estimated floor area of 739,500 sq.ft. (.97 FAR). The .5 Modified (1) projection assumes the existing development, and the existing regulation (zoning) would allow 2.0 FAR. -2- 3. HOAG EXPANSION: The Hoag Expansion site is approximately 22 acres bounded by Villa Balboa, Newport Boulevard, Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. It is currently undeveloped. The site is in the Unclassified district, and all growth projections assume a .5 FAR. 4. PARK LIDO: This area is bounded by Newport Boulevard, Hospital Road, Superior Avenue and the City boundary. Existing commercial land uses total 774,737 sq.ft. (.47 FAR). Trend growth and .5 Modified (1) assume .5 FAR, and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 or 3.0 FAR. 5. NORTHWEST NEWPORT: This area includes the developed areas northwest of Su- perior Avenue. The existing commercial development is 819,193 sq.ft. (.31 FAR). Trend growth assumes .7 FAR, .5 Modified (1) assumes .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0 FAR. 6. NEWPORT SHORES: This area includes the commercial strip north of West Coast Highway between 59th Street and the westerly City boundary. Existing commercial land uses total 104,198 sq.ft. (.67 FAR). Trend growth assumes no additional development, .5 Modified (1) would allow .5 on sites which are currently under that level (17,525 ad- ditional sq.ft.) and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 7. BALBOA COVES: This area consists of two commercial sites on either side of the entrance to the Balboa Coves area, on the south side of West Coast Highway. Existing commercial land uses total 6,200 sq.ft. (.29 FAR). Trend growth assumes 1.0 FAR, .5 Modified (1) assumes .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 8. FINLEY AREA: This area is located on the westerly side of Newport Boulevard be- tween the Newport Island Channel and 32nd Street. Existing commercial development totals 38,706 sq.ft. (.62 FAR). Trend growth assumes .7 FAR, .5 Modified (1) would allow.5 on sites which are currently under that level (16,343 sq.ft.) and the existing regula- tion (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 9. SUPERIOR/PCH: This area is located on the southeasterly corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. Existing commercial development totals 16,897 sq.ft. (.18 FAR). Trend growth and .5 Modified (1) assume a .5 FAR and existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 10. CANNERY VILLAGE: This area is bounded by the Rhine Channel, 32nd Street, Bal- boa Boulevard and 26th Street. Existing commercial development totals 411,872,sq.ft. (.42 FAR). Trend growth assumes a floor area ratio of .75, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 1.0 FAR. 11. CITY HALL (Hughes): This area is bounded by Newport Boulevard, Via Udo and 32nd Street. Existing commercial uses total 188,109 sq.ft. (.39 FAR). Trend growth and .5 Modified (1) assume a .5 FAR and the existing regulation allows 2.0 and 3.0 FAR. -3- 12. LIDO PENINSULA: This area is bounded by Lafayette Avenue, the West Lido Chan- nel, Newport Channel and the Rhine Channel. Existing development totals 67,600 sq.ft. (.19 FAR). Trend growth assumes no additional development, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (LCP/zoning) allows .5 FAR. 13. LIDO VILLAGE: This area is bounded by Newport Boulevard, the Lido Turning Basin and Via Lido. Existing uses total 188,619 sq.ft. (.66 FAR). Trend growth assumes a .65 FAR on all sites which are currently under that level of development, .5 Modified (1) as- sumes a .5 FAR on all sites which are currently under that level of development and ex- isting regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 or 3.0 FAR. 14. MCFADDEN SQUARE: This area is bounded by Newport Bay,19th Street, the Public Beach, the alley between 23rd Street and 24th Street, Newport Boulevard and 26th Street.. Existing development totals 198,691 sq.ft. (.31 FAR). Trend growth assumes a .75 FAR, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 1.0 FAR. 15. 15TH STREET: This area includes all commercial and institutional land uses in the vicinity of 15th street and Balboa Boulevard on the Balboa Peninsula. Existing land uses total 23,310 sq.ft. (.14 FAR). Trend growth assumes a .6 FAR, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 16. ISLAND AVENUE: This area includes all commercial and institutional land uses in the vicinity of Island Avenue and Balboa Boulevard on the Balboa Peninsula. Existing land uses total 14,770 sq.ft. (.40 FAR). Trend growth assumes a 1.0 FAR, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 17. CENTRAL BALBOA: This area is bounded by Newport Bay, "A" Street, the Public Beach and Adams Street, plus the commercial areas fronting on Balboa Boulevard be- tween Adams Street and Coronado Street. Existing land uses total 226,866 sq.ft. (.47 FAR). Trend growth assumes a 1.0 FAR, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the ex- isting regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 18. BALBOA ISLAND (Agate Avenue): This area includes all commercially designated land fronting on Agate Avenue and on South Bay Front in the vicinity of Agate Avenue. Existing land uses total 26,350 sq.ft. (.29 FAR). Trend growth and .5 Modified (1) as- sume a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 19. BALBOA ISLAND (Marine Avenue): This area includes all commercial areas front- ing on Marine Avenue. Existing land uses total 92,478 sq.ft. (.65 FAR). Trend growth assumes a .75 FAR, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR on all sites which are currently under that level of development and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 20. OLD CORONA DEL MAR: This area is the commercial strip along East Coast High- way between Zahma Drive and Buck Gully. Existing land uses total 580,372 sq.ft. (.42 FAR). Trend growth assumes a .75 FAR, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the ex- isting regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 and 3.0 FAR. 21. BAYSIDE DRIVE: This area is the strip of commercial land along Bayside Drive below Irvine Terrace. Existing land uses total 62,839 sq.ft. (.19 FAR). Trend growth and .5 Modified (1) assume a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 22. BAYSIDE/MARINE: This area is located on the southeasterly corner of Bayside Drive and Marine Avenue. Existing land uses total 35,938 sq.ft. (.34 FAR). Trend growth and .5 Modified (1) assume a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 23. BAYSIDE CENTER: This area is located on the northwesterly comer of Bayside Drive and Marine Avenue. Existing land uses total 61,883 sqft. (.18 FAR). Trend growth as- sumes no growth, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 24. BAYSIDE/PCH (Iverson): This area is bounded by Coast Highway, Bayside Drive and the Promontory Point Apartmentproject. Existing land uses total45,703 sq.ft. (.19 FAR). Trend growth assumes no growth, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 25. BAYSIDE/PCH (Reuben's): This area is bounded by Newport Bay, East Coast High- way and Linda Isle Drive. Existing land uses total 31,390 sq.ft. (.17 FAR). Trend growth assumes no growth, .5 Modified (1) assumes a.5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 26. BALBOA YACHT BASIN: This area is bounded by Harbor Island Drive, Promontory Bay, the Balboa Island Channel and Beacon Bay. Existing land uses total 11,282 sq.ft. (.04 FAR). Trend growth assumes no growth, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 27. OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD: This area is bounded Santa Ana Avenue, Newport Boulevard,15th Street and the Newport Heights area. Existing land uses total 184,821 sq.ft. (.32 FAR). Trend growth assumes a .7 FAR, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 28. DOVER/16TH: This area is on the southwesterly comer of 16th Street and Dover Drive. Existing land uses total 73,648 sq.ft. (.48 FAR). Trend growth assumes no growth, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 29. DOVER/CLIFF: This area is on the northwesterly corner Cliff and Dover Drives. Ex- isting development totals 12,000 sq.ft. (.17 FAR). Trend growth assumes no growth, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 30. BAY CLUB TO DOVER: This area is comprised of the commercial strip on West Coast Highway from the Balboa Bay Club to Dover Drive. Existing land use totals 93,113 (.21 FAR) (exclusive of the Bay Club). Trend growth assumes a .8 FAR, .5 Modified (1) as- sumes a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. -5- 31. MARINER'S MILE: This area is the commercial strip on West Coast Highway from Rocky Point to Newport Boulevard. Existing land use totals 474,946 sq.ft. (.26 FAR). Trend growth assumes a .8 FAR, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 1.0 FAR. 32. CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL: This area consists of the five (5) acre site on the northeasterly comer of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. The site is currently vacant. All growth projections are controlled by existing regulation (General Plan). 33. WESTCLIFF: This area includes the Westcliff Plaza Shopping Center, and the com- mercial/office area on the south side of Westcliff Drive between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive and the west side of Dover Drive between Westcliff Drive and 16th Street. Existing land use totals 368,038 sq.ft. (.3 FAR). Trend growth assumes no growth for the shopping center and a .5 FAR for the remainder of the area, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 or 3.0 FAR 34. UNIVERSITY DRIVE: This area consist of the YMCA and an office site on the north side of University Drive easterly of Irvine Avenue. Existing land uses total 83,720 sq.ft. (.24 FAR). Trend growth assumes increased development of the YMCA as set forth in the master plan use permit for the site,and no additional development on the office site, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and the existing regulation (zoning) allows 2.0 FAR. 35. BAYVIEW: This area includes the commercial land on the southwesterly corner of Jamboree Road and Bristol Street. Existing development totals 599,660 sq.ft. (.28 FAR). All growth projections assume development under the existing regulation (PC Text). 36. SANTA ANA HEIGHTS: This area consists of the commercial areas south of Bristol Street and west of the Bayview area. Existing commercial uses total 487,900 (.18 FAR). All growth projections assume development under the existing regulation (Specific Plan). 37. BAYSIDE/PCH (DeAnza): This area is located on the northwesterly corner of Bayside Drive and East Coast Highway. The site is currently undeveloped. All growth projec- tions assume a .5 FAR. 38. NEWPORT DUNES: This area is located in Upper Newport Bay between the DeAnza Mobile Home Park and the Newporter Inn. Existing land use is the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park. All growth projections assume the development allowed under the terms of the Newport Dunes Settlement Agreement. 39. NEWPORTER INN: This site is located on the west side of Jamboree Road between Back Bay Drive and John Wayne Gulch. Existing development includes the Newporter Resort hotel and John Wayne Tennis Club (est..11 FAR). Trend growth assumes an additional 40,000 sq.ft. and the .5 Modified (1) and existing regulation projections as- sume .5 FAR. iI 40. EASTBLUFF CENTER: This site is located on the northwesterly comer of Eastbluff Drive and Vista del Sol. Existing land uses total 61,596 sq.ft. (.2 FAR). Trend growth assumes no growth, .5 Modified (1) assumes .5 FAR and existing regulation (zoning) al- lows 2.0 FAR. 41. NEWPORT CENTER: Newport Center is bounded by East Coast Highway, Mac- Arthur Boulevard, San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. Existing commercial land uses total 5,642,041 sq.ft. (.25 FAR). All growth projections assume development under the existing regulation (General Plan). 42. BIG CANYON SERVICE STATION: This area is located on the northeasterly comer of San Joaquin Hills and Jamboree Roads. Existing land use totals 1,834 sq.ft. (.04 FAR). Trend growth assumes no additional development and .5 Modified (1) and ex- isting regulation would allow .5 FAR. 43. FORD AERONUTRONIC: This area is within the Belcourt Planned Community bounded byFord Road, MacArthur Boulevard, BisonAvenue and Jamboree Road. Ex- isting development totals 1,227,488 sq.ft. (.29 FAR). All growth projections assume development under the existing regulation (PC Text). 44. NORTH FORD: This area is within the North Ford Planned Community, bounded by Bison Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, San Diego Creek and Jamboree Road. Existing development totals 171,242 sq.ft. (.03 FAR). Trend growth assumes a .35 FAR, and .5 Modified (1) and existing regulation assume development as allowed by the P.C. Text with .5 FAR on Site "A" -- San Diego Creek South. 45. SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH: This site is bounded by San Diego Creek, the Corona del Mar Freeway and Jamboree Road. The site is currently vacant. Trend growth projects a floor area ratio of .35 for this site, .5 Modified (1) and existing regulation project the existing regulation limit of 52,727 sq.ft. (General Plan). 46. CAMPUS DRIVE: This area is bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Bris- tol Street North and Campus Drive. Existing land uses total 885,202 sq.ft. (.36 FAR). All growth projections use the existing regulation limit of .5 FAR (General Plan). 47. JAMBOREE/MACARTHUR: This area is bounded by the Corona del Mar Freeway, MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The site is currently vacant. Trend growth projects .35 FAR for the site, and .5 Modified (1) and existing regulation show .5 FAR on the site. 48. KOLL CENTER: This area is bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. Existing development totals 3,562,921 sq.ft. (.51 FAR). All growth projections assume development under the existing regulation (PC Text). -7- 49. NEWPORT PLACE: This area is bounded by Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Bristol Street North. Existing development totals 2,554,524 sq.ft. (A FAR). All growth projections assume development under the existing regulation (PC Text). 50. HARBOR VIEW HILLS CENTER: This area is located on the southeast comer of San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive. Existing development totals 78,723 sq.ft. (.3 FAR). Trend growth assumes no growth, .5 Modified (1) assumes .5 FAR and ex- isting regulation (zoning) allows 3.0 FAR 51. NEWPORT HI LS CENTER: This area is located on the southeasterly corner of Ford Road and San Miguel Drive. Existing development totals 83,965 sq.ft. (.24 FAR). Trend growth assumes no growth, and .5 Modified (1) and existing regulation show .5 FAR on the site. 52. DOWNCOAST NEWPORT BEACH: This area consists of the Newport Beach Sphere -of -Influence on the southeast City limit. The area is currently vacant. All growth projections assume development under the certified Local Coastal Program. 53. ROGER'S GARDENS: This area is located on the southeasterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. Existing land use totals 56,766 sq.ft. (.2 FAR). Trend growth assumes no additional development of the site, .5 Modified (1) assumes a .5 FAR and existing regulation (zoning) allows a .8 FAR. GENERAL PLAN REVIEW GROI+THAROJECTIONCOMPAMSON 18 ....... .... .......... ...... . . . .............. . ....... . . ....... . .... .. ..... .... ... ........... ...... .. .... .... . .. ........ .... ... ....... .... ....... .... ............ ... . ........ ..... .. 16 1 ... ... ..... .................. ........ EXISTING ....... ..... .. **""*'* .. ..... .. . ....... ..... 14 . .... ..... ... .. . .. .. ...... .. . . TREND . . ...... .. . . . ............ . . .. . . ... .... ...... ......... 12 . .... ... ....... .......... . . .. ... . .5 MOD(l) . .. ..... .. .. ....... ...... ...... ..... . . .............. ................................. WLlo.. ■ EX. REG. . .... .. ...... .. .............. ..... ... ..... . ....... ........ ... ... ........... .. . L ..... . .......... w iY8 . . ............ ........... . ..... .... ..... . . . .. ...... . . ... . ............... .. .. . .......... ....... ..... .. .... . .... .... .. . . ....... ... ... ..... ..... ... . .. ... . .............. .. .. ..... ... ..... ..... . ..... .......... . ... ......... . ....... ........ .. ........... . . ...... .. ............. ... 4.. . .......... .. ... . .. ............ ..... ... .. . .... .. . .. . ..... .. .. ... .. ... ... 2 F . . ....... ... .. ... ....... ... ...... I .. ...... .. .. ...... . A B D E F G H i K L STATISTICAL DIVISION . ... ... ....... . . .. ..... ... .............. .. .. .. . . . ....... . ....... ... . . ....... .. .......... .... ... .. .......... . ... ...... . . .. .............. L ... .. ........... m IZ GENERAL PLAN REVIEW GROWTH PROJECTION COMPARISON GROWTH PROJECTIONS BY STATISTICAL DIVISION Statistical Division Existing Development Scenario Trend .5 MOD(1) Ex Reg. A —West Newport Area 2,118,930 4,445,557 3,881,110 10,419,966 B—West and Central Newport Area 1,220,892 1,982,477 1,815,222 3,999,523 D--Balboa,PeninsulaArea 264,946 538,147 374,514 1,058,220 E—Balboa Island 118,828 164,187 147,386 467,742 F--Corona del Mar Area 679,149 1,310,868 1,062,951 3,597,182 G--Promontory Bay Area 150,258 150,258 539,279 2,157,116 H--Newport Heights Area 838,528 2,325,760 1,642,361 4,315,884 J--Westcliff/Santa Ana Heights Area 1,539,318 3,057,927 3,263,850 6,066,812 K--Eastbluff Area 497,062 1,200,608 1,798,636 2,252,999 L—Newport Center/Airport Area 14,045,252 16,411,774 16,051,216 16,051,216 M—Harbor View Area 219,454 219,454 454,454 1.198,072 TOTAL (ALL DIVISIONS) 21,692,617 31,807,017 31,030,979 51,584,732 COMMERCIAL AREAS El 16 li an of xeweoxr eencx r —_ COIN COMMERCIAL LAND EXISTING COMMERC'L TREND ASSUMPTIONS TREND PROJECTION TREND GROWTH .5 MODIFIED(1) ASSUMPTIONS .5 NOD(1) PROJECTION .5 NW(1) GROWTH REGULATIUN SOURCE ER. REb. PROJECTION GROWTH AREA AREA NAME mssassaszszs+sszzxxxsm AREA asass:aa 1,319,868 smsszs 0 ssassmssszszsssaaasaszuszm PC TEXT 400,000 400,000 s:assssmsszsssmmsszsszssss.. PC TEXT 400,000 400,000 szmmsssgsssssz+zssssszmrzzzzxzuss ZONING 400,000 400,000 1 MOBIL ARMSTRONG 2 HOAG 1 765349 525,000 493 beds 739,500 214:500 .5 525,000 0 ZONING 1,530,698 1.005,698 3 HOAG 2 891:673 0 0.5 0.5 445,837 1,079,706 445,837 304,969 .5 .5 445,837 1,079,706 445,837 304,969 ZONING ZONING 445,837 2,760,463 445,837 1,985,726 4 PARK LIDO 5 W NPT TRIANGLE 1.623,692 2,655,145 774,737 819,193 0.7 1,730,515 961,322 .5 1,430,567 611,374 GP/ZONING 5,282,969 4,463.776 6 NEWPORT SHORES 154,845 104,19E NO GROWTH 104,198 0 .5 121,723 10,800 17,525 4,600 ZONING ZONING 279,090 43,200 174,892 37,000 7 BALBOA COVES 8 CITYHALL-NEWPORT 21,600 62,232 6,200 38,706 1.0 0.7 21,600 55,049 15,400 16,343 .5 .5 47,071 8,365 ZONING 124,464 85,758 9 SUPERIOR PCH 93,218 16,897 0.5 0.75 46,609 795,967 29,712 354,095 .5 .5 46,609 612,446 29,712 200,574 ZONING ZONING 186,436 981,431 169,539 569,559 10 CANNERY VILLAGE 11 CITYMALL-HUGHES 951,431 477,297 411,872 188,109 0.5 272,157 84,048 .5 272,157 84,048 ZONING 1,005,490 817,381 12 LIDO PENINSULA 1,201,484 67,600 NO GROWTH 67,600 0 51,413 .5 201,253 219525 133,653 30,906 LCP/ZONING ZONING 224,078 575,805 156,478. 387,186 '13 LIDO VILLAGE SQUARE 284,625 634,241 188,619 198,691 0.65 0.75 240,032 379,266 180,575 .5 .5 283:639 54,948 ZONING 480,529 281,838 14 MCFADDEN 15 15-TH STREET 171,150 23,310 0.6 50,772 27,462 .5 45,820 22,510 5,930 ZONING ZONING 175,000 40,650 151,690 25,860 16 ISLAND AVENUE 37,200 483,797 14,770 226,866 1.0 1.0 37,200 450,175 22,430 223,309 .5 .5 20,700 3D7,994 81,128 ZONING 842,570 615,704 17 CENTRAL BALBOA 18 BALBOA ISLAND(AGATE) 92,121 26,350 0.5 49,011 22,661 .5 49,011 22,661 ZONING 164,242 157,892 191,022 19 BALBOA ISLAND(MARINE) 141,750 . 1,367,049 92,478 580,372 0.75 0.75 115,176 1,090097 22,698 509,725 .5 .5 98,375 842,180 5,897 261,808 ZONING ZONING 283,500 2,714,098 2,133,726 20 OLD CDM 21 BAYSIDE DRIVE 336,693 62,839 0.5 168:347 105,508 .5 168,347 105,508 ZONING ZONING 673,366 209,698 610,547 173,760 22 BAYSIDE/MARINE 104,549 35,938 61,883 0.5 NO GROWTH 52,425 61,883 16,487 0 .5 52,425 174,277 16,487 112,394 ZONING 697,108 635,225 23 BAYSIDE CENTER 24 BAYSIDE/PCH(IVERSON) 348,554 245,582 45,703 NO GROWTH 45,703 0 .5 .5 122,791 77.086 ZONING 491,164 445,461 25 BAYSIDE/PCH(REUBENIS) 179,502 31,390 NO GROWTH 31,390 0 0 .5 89,751 152,460 55,361 141,178 ZONING ZONING 359,004 609,840 327,614 598,558 26 BEACON BAY 27 OLD NEWPORT BL 304,920 552015 11,282 184,821 NO GROWTH 0.7 11,282 422,001 237,180 .5 .5 325,410 140,589 ZONING 1,164,030 979,209 28 DOVER 16TH 152:365 73,64E NO GROWTH 73,648 0 0 .5 83,155 34,930 9,507 22,930 ZONING ZONING 304,730 139,720 231,082 127,720 29 DOVER CLIFF 30 BAYCLUB DOVER 69,860 452,406 12,000 93113 NO GROWTH 0.8 12,000 362,225 269112 .5 .5 227,928 134,815 ZONING 904,812 811,699 31 MARINERtS MILE 1,802,592 176,854 474:946 0 0.8 GENERAL PLAN 1,455,886 40,000 980:940 40,000 5 GENERAL PLAN 970,939 40,000 495,993 40,000 ZONING GENERAL PLAN 1,802,592 40,000 1,327,646 40,000 32 CASTAWAYS COW 33 WESTCLIFF 1,218,540 368,038 0.5(OFF.AREA) 486,280 118,242 44,564 .5 5 611,881 208,606 243,543 124,886 ZONING ZONING 2,914,207 709,242 2,546,169 625,522 34 UNIVERSITY DR 35 SAYVIEW 354,621 2,127,383 83,720 599,660 YMCA UP PC TEXT 128,284 1056,096 456,436 PC TEXT 1056,096 456,436 ZONING 1,056,096 456,436 36 SANTA ANA HIS. 2,670,182 487,900 0.5 1:347,267 859,367 .5 1:347,267 859,367 ZONING ZONING 1,347,267 121,250 859,367 121,250 37 BAYSIDE/PCH(DE ANZA) 38 NEWPORT DUNES 242,500 5,252,291 0 25,466 0.5 SETLMNT AGR 121,250 567,762 121,250 542,296 .5 SETTLEMENT AGR. 121,250 567:762 121,250 542,296 SETTLEMENT AGR. 567,762 542,296 39 NEWPORTER INN 3,812,939 410,000 40,000 SQ.FT. 450,000 40,000 0 .5 958,169 151,455 548,169 89,859 0.5 ZONING 958,169 605,818 548,169 544,222 40 EASTBLUFF CENT. 41 NEWPORT CENTER 302,909 22,722,435 61,596 5,642,041 NO GROWTH GENERAL PLAN 61,596 5,893,707 251,666 .5 GENERAL PLAN 5,893,707 251,666 GENERAL PLAN 5,893,707 25,178 251,666 23,344 42 BIG CAN. SERV. 43 FORD AERO 50,355 4,271,232 1,834 1,227,488 NO GROWTH PC TEXT 1,834 1,331,000 b 103,512 5 PC TEXT 25,178 11331,000 23,344 103,512 0.5 ZONING 1,331,000 103,512 44 NORTH FORD 6,660,105 171,242 0.35 955,277 784,035 PC TEXT;.5 ON A 678,187 506,945 PC TEXT;.5 ON A PLAN 673,187 52,727 506,945 52,727 45 SAW DIEGO CREEK NORTH 544,500 2,442,661 0 885,202 0.35 0.5 190,575 1,261,727 190,575 376,525 GENERAL PLAN .5 52,727 1,261,727 52,727 376,525 GENERAL GENERAL PLAN 1,261,727 376,525 46 CAMPUS DRIVE 47 JAM80REE/MACARTHUR 206,910 0 0.35 72,419 721419 .5 103,455 103,455 0.5 ZONING 103,455 3,702,960 103,455 140,039 48 KOLL CENTER PLACE 7,035,229 6,328,434 3,562,921 2:554,524 PC TEXT PC TEXT 3,702,960 3:002,275 140,039 447,751 PC TEXT PC TEXT 3,702,960 3,002,275 140:039 447,751 ZONING 3,002,275 447,751 49 NEWPORT 50 HARBOR VIEWHILL 264:844 78,723 NO GROWTH 78,723 0 0 .5 135,856 177,028 57,133 93,063 ZONING ZONING 794,532 177,028 715,809 93,063 51 NEWPORT HILLS 354,055 283,140 83,965 56,766 NO GROWTH NO GROWTH 83,965 56,766 0 .5 .5 141,570 84,804 0.8 226,512 169,746 53 ROGERS GARDENS 1 1 TOTAL EXISTING TOTAL LAND AREA FAR EXISTING Ixzz=ate--__�xx- v=-zz---xaczz-: 85,361,224 0.25 21,692,617 TREND PROJ TREND PROJ TREND PROD 1 .5 MODIFIED(l) ,5 MOD(l) .7 MUO(1) LA. BtUULAuue CA.scu. cn.nca. FAR TOTAL GROWTH FAR TOTAL GROWTH FAR TOTAL GROWTH 0.37 31,807,016 10,114,399 0.36 31,030,975 9,338,358 _ 0.60 51,485,730 29,793,113 Iw f WEST NEWPORT AREA STATIST/CAL DIIIISION A # 5.5 �EXISTING 4.5 Ej TREND 4.0 ru .Ill , 2.01 1.5 tl� �I� �I �I �I .. 1.01 tl�`=_n HOAG HOAG PARK a HOSPITAL EXPANSION LIDO COMMERCIALAREA NAME (#) MOBIL ARMSTRONG HOAG HOSPITAL HOAG EXPANSION PARK LIDO NORTHWEST NEWPORT (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) EXISTING -0- 525,000 -0- 7749737 819,193 SQ.FT. TREND 400,000 7390500 445,837 19079,706 1,780,515 GROWTH .5 MODIFIED 400,000 525,000 445,837 1,079,706 1,4300567 (1) EXISTING 400,000 A 1530,698 445,837 21760,436 5,2820969 REGULATION WEST AND CENTRAL NEWPORT 300 250 ru L 0 200 0 150 a € 100 50 0 STATIST/CAL DIVISION 'B" NEWPORT BALBOA FINLEY SUPEHFUH/ SHORES COVES V S AREA PC COMMERCIAL AREA NAME (#) NEWPORT BALBOA FINLEY SUPERIOR/ S O ES CO��V�ES A�aEA CH 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 UJI LL 0.6 cccco 0.5 ?9 0.4 c3€ 0.3 to 0.2 0.1 moo CENTRAL NEWPORT AREA STATIST/CAL DIVISION'S" CANNERY CITYHALL/ LIDO LIDU naurr+Uucn VILLAGE HUGHES PENINSULA VILLAGE SQUARE (10) (11) (12) (13) ' (14) COMMERCIAL AREA NAME (#) CANNERY VILLAGE CITY HAW HUGHES LIDO PENINSULA LIDO VILLAGE MC FADDEN SQUARE (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) EXISTING 411,872 188,109 67,600 188,619 198,691 SQ.FT. TREND 795,967 272,157 67,600 240,032 379,266 GROVITH 612,446 272,157 201,253 219,525 283,639 EMODIFIED g81 431 1,005,490 224,078575,805 480,529 •ea ;7- ae BALBOA PENINSULA AREA w o 500 L 400 300 CO onn 1 111 STATIST/CAL DIVISION ID" 0 EXISTING TRENDt�. ® .5 MOD (1) EX. REG. 15thSTREET ISLANDAVENUE CENTRALBALBOA (15) (16) (17) COMMERCIALAREA NAME (#) 15TH ISLAND CENTRAL STREET AVENUE BALBOA EXISTING 23,310 14,770 226,866 SQ. FT. TREND 50,772 37,200 450,175 GROWTH .5 MODIFIED 45,820 20,700 307,994 EXISTING 175,000 40,650 842,570 REGULATION I� 300 250 w 200 �a owc 150 100 50 co BALBOA ISLAND STATIST/CAL DMISION IE" AGATEAVENUE MARINEAVENUE (18) (19) COMMERCIAL AREA NAME (#) AGATE MARINE AVENUE AVENUE EXISTING 26,350 92,478 SQ.FT. TREND 49 011 115,176 GROWTH ' .5 MODIFIED 49,011 98,375 (1) EXISTING 184 242 283,500 REGULATIO ' m R W IL y c o Ci CORONA DEL MAR AREA STATIST/CAL DIIIISION /F" OLD C R NA DEL MAR BAY �21� DRIVE BAYSIDE/MARINE COMMERCIAL AREA NAME (#) OLD BAYSIDE BAYSIDE/ DRIVEMARINE UM ) G 580,372 62,839 35,938 SQ.FT. Q.FT. TREND 1,090,097 168,347 52,425 GROWTH .5MODIFIED 842,180 168,347 52,425 (1) EXISTING LATION REGULATION 2,714,098 673,386 209,698 19 PROMONTORY BAY AREA 700 jTj 500 a LL o Lu 1 400 ¢o d € 300 200 1 STATIST/CAL DI!/ISION'G" 0 EXISTING TREND ..5 MOD (1) EX. REG. BAYSIDECENTER BAYSIDE/PCH BAYSIDE/PCH BALBOAYACHT (23) (VERSON) (REUBEN'S) BASIN (24) (25) (26) COMMERCIAL AREA NAME (#) BAYSIDE CENTER BAYSIDE PCH (PIER BAYSIDE/PCH (REUB WS) BALBOA YAC HGT BSN SON) EXISTING 61,883 45,703 31,390 11,282 SQ.FT. TREND 61,883 45,703 31,390 11,282 GROWTH .5 MODIFIED 174,277 791 89,751 152,460 (1) r491,164 EXISTING 697,108 359,004 606,840 REGULATIO Is NEWPORT HEIGHTS AREA STATIST/CAL DIVISION'H" 2. w 1 w9 �� 0 0 CJ Cl) 0 F C EXH SQ TRI GF .5 M I EXI: REG WESTCLIFFAREA STATIST/CAL DIIIISION I 3.0 EXISTING 2.5 TREND .5 MOD (1) 2.0 LL EX. REG. Z w0 Q�1.5 U)) 1.0 0.5 CASTAWAYS WESTCLIFF UNNERSIIY COMMERCIAL (33) DRIVE COMMERCIAL AREA NAME (#) (36) COMMERCIA WESTCLIFF (33) U DRIVES BAmEW ( ) SHEIGHTSA (32) (34) (36) EXISTING _0_ 3689038 83,720 599,660 487,900 SQ.FT. TREND GROWTH 40,000 486,280 128,284 1,056,096 1,347,267 .5 MODIFIED 40,000 611,881 208,606 1,056,096 1,347,267 (1) EXISTING 40,000 2,914,207 709,242 1,056,096 1,347,267 REGULATION yJ EASTBLU FF AREA STATIST/CAL DIVISION 1 r 1.0 0.9 eo EXISTING 0.8 "'" TREND 0 7 .5 MOD (1) 0 0.6 REG. 0.5 0.3 >IDE/PCH NEWPORT NEWPORTER EANZA) DUNES INN (37) (38) (39) COMMERCIAL AREA NAME (#) BAYSIDE/PCH NEWPORT NEWPORTER EASTBLUFF (DE ANZA) (37) DUNES (38) INN (39) CENTER (40) EXISTING -0- 25,466 410,000 61,596 SQ.FT. TREND 121,250 5679762 450,000 61,596 GROWTH .5 MODIFIED 121,250 567,762 450,000 151,455 (1) EXISTING 1219250 567,762 450,000 605,818 REGULATION .7.3 I NEWPORT CENTER AREA STATISTICAL DIIIISION T // 6 EXISTING 5 TREND 4- .5 MOD (1) EX. REG. milimm F- 1 El NORTHFORD (44) COMMERCIAL AREA NAME (#) NEWPORT BIG FORD NORTH CENTER CANYON AERO FORD (41) (42) (43) (44) EXISTING 5,642,041 1,834 1,227,488 171,242 SQ.Fr. TREND 5,893,707 1, 834 1,331,000 995,277 GROWTH .5 MODIFIED 5,893,707 25,178 1,331,000 678,945 (1) EXISTING 51893,707 25p178 1,331,000 678,945 RigGULATION )4 BE 3.5 3.0 Cu 2.5 w LL z 2.0 w ?� 1.5 a) 1.0 W . AIRPORT AREA -- STATISTICAL DIIIIS/ON "L " EXISTING TREND ■ .5 MOD (1) EX. REG. CAMPUS JAMBOREE/ KOLL NEWPORT DRIVE MACARTHUR CENTER PLACE (46) (47) (48) (49) SAN DIE CREEKI (45) EXISTING -O- SQ.FT. TREND 190,5 GROWTH .5 MODIFIED 52, I EXISTING 52,7 REGULATIO m 700 600 175 o 500 w 400 � a300 co --- 100 U HARBOR VIEW AREA STATISTICAL DIIIISION "W HARBOV, EX TI GF .5 M E) REC J RESIDENTIAL GROWTH BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS HARBOR VIEW AREA M NEWPORT CENTER & AIRPORT L EASTBLUFF K WESTCLIFF j NEWPORTHEIGHTS H PROMONTORY BAY G CORONA DEL MAR F BALBOAISLAND E BALBOAPENNINSULA p LIDOISLAND C WEST & CENTRAL NEWPORT B WEST NEWPORT A EXISTING 0 PROJECTED * PROJECTION YEAR 2010 DWELLING UNITS (THOUSANDS) Y GENERAL PLAN REVIEW Residential Growth DWELLING UNITANDPOPULA7YONBYSTA77S77C4LDIVISION Statistical Existing Trend Existing Trend Division # D.U.'s # D.U.'s INCREASE Population Population INCREASE A -West Newport Area 2,582 5,901 3,319 5,124 11,710 6,586 B-West & Central Newport Area 4,055 4,613 558 8,047 9,154 1,107 C-Lido Isle 919 1,191 272 1,824 2,363 540 D-Balboa Peninsula Area 3,188 3,339 151 6,326 6,626 300 E Balboa Island 2,228 3,175 947 4,421 6,301 1,879 F-Corona del Mar Area 4,445 5,272 827 8,821 10,462 1,641 G--Promontory Bay Area 1,029 1,032 3 2,042 2,048 6 H--Newport Heights Area 2,099 2,392 293 4,165 4,747 581 J--Westcliff/Santa Ana Heights Area 4,635 5,060 425 9,198 10,041 843 K-Eastbluff Area 3,591 3,804 213 7,126 7,549 423 L-Newport Ctr./Airport 1,876 3,174 1,298 3,723 6,299 2,576 M-Harbor View Area 4,058 4,280 222 8,053 8,493 441 TOTAL(S) 34,705 43,233 8,528 68,869 85,792 16,923 IncorporatedAreas* 34,188 40,105 5,917 67,843 79,585 11,742 *Less Mobil/Armstrong and Santa Ana Heights Areas Note: Assume 1.98 + persons per D.U.; or the 1 January 1988 State of Calif. population estimate for the City of Newport Beach/ The Planning Department estimate for the # of existing D.U.'s. SINGLE FAM. MOBILE TOTAL DETACHED MULTI-FAM. HOMES STAT. # (D.U.$) # (D.U.$) # (D.U.$) # (D.U.$) AREA Exist. Trend INCR. Exist. Trend INCR. Exist. Trend INCR. Exist. ----- Trend ----- INCR. ----- ------ Al ------ 281 ----- 2747 ----- 2466 ------ 0 ----- ----- 300 300 ------ 281 ----- ----- 2447 2166 0 0 0 A2 1405 1953 548 11 0 -11 1097 1953 856 297 0 -297 A3 896 1201 305 0 0 0 896 1201 305 0 0 0 B1 662 598 -64 459 459 0 139 139 0 64 0 -64 B2 733 785 52 218 68 -150 515 717 202 0 0 0 B3 1086 1189 103 246 130 -116 840 1059 219 0 0 0 B4 837 1070 233 339 185 -154 498 885 387 0 0 0 B5 737 971 234 52 64 12 431 650 219 254 257 3 C1,C2 919 1191 272 791 990 199 128 201 73 0 0 0 D1 814 894 80 207 69 -138 549 825 276 58 0 -58 D2,3,4 2374 2445 71 1228 1273 45 1146 1172 26 0 10 0 E1,2,3 2228 3175 947 990 43 -947 1238 3132 1894 0 0 0 F1 490 492 2 408 410 2 82 82 0 0 0 0 F2 861 1112 251 445 78 -367 416 1034 618 0 0 0 F3 1068 1306 238 544 585 41 524 721 197 0 0 0 F4 1276 1530 254 645 50 -595 631 1480 849 0 0 0 F5 290 370 80 168 163 -5 122 207 85 0 0 0 F6 142 142 0 142 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F7 144 144 0 142 142 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 F8 174 176 2 174 176 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 F9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 1029 1032 3 245 246 1 784 786 2 0 0 0 H1 380 535 155 278 192 -86 102 343 241 0 0 0 H2 773 776 3 685 684 -1 88 92 4 0 0 0 H3 519 636 117 307 294 -13 212 342 130 0 0 0 H4 427 445 18 258 257 -1 169 188 19 0 0 0 J1 397 585 188 397 585 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 J2 1978 1978 0 217 217 0 1761 1761 0 0 0 0 J3 459 488 29 459 488 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 J4 631 631 0 631 631 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J5 417 480 63 384 447 63 33 33 0 0 0 0 J6 753 898 145 662 727 65 91 171 80 0 0 0 K1 1597 1810 213 0 212 212 1306 1306 0 291 292 1 K2 1538 1538 0 1374 1374 0 164 164 0 0 0 0 K3 456 456 0 456 456 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L1 161 1108 947 0 0 0 161 1108 947 0 0 0 L2 658 781 123 440 483 43 218 298 80 0 0 0 L3 1057 1285 228 141 237 96 916 1048 132 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ml 812 812 0 445 445 0 367 367 0 0 0 0 M2 488 588 100 488 488 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 M3 751 751 0 2 2 0 749 749 0 0 0 0 M4 1048 1143 95 1048 1143 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 M5 959 986 27 871 900 29 88 86 -2 0 0 0 TOTAL(S):34705 43233 8528 16997 15835 -1162 16744 26849 10105 964 549 -415 (includes Mobil/Armstrong [Al], and Santa Ana Heights[J6]) A r7o—,e%ff"AiFrAff'r'ffAff AP%"rMHAZTr" z z Z Jo W WEST NEWPORT AREA STATISTICAL DIVISION "A ff 3.0 . .... .... ... ...... .. .... .... ...... . .. . . ...... ..... ..... ......... .... ........ ................. .... . .... ............ . ..... .. . . ...... ... 'or I 1.51 .. .. ...... ... ... .. .. . m ....... ........ ....... ... ..... . . m ..... ... .... ...... .......... ........ ...... ... ...... . ......... STATISTICAL AREA EXISTING BUILDOUT RESIDENTIAL GROWTH WEST AND CENTRAL NEWPORT STATISTICAL D1111SION /H" 1.2 . ......... . ... .... . .. .... ...... .... .. -- -------- --- -- - - - ........ . .... .. I ..... 1.0 .. . ..... ... ... . . .......... ..... . .... ........... . ocon-*� 0.8 . ............. . ........... .. ... ... . ......... . .. .... ... . .. . .. ............. ....... . . Cn 0.6 . . . ....... .... . . .... . ..... 110 LU 0 0.2 =. ............ . 0.0 Bl B2 R3 STATISTICAL AREA EXISTING BUILDOUT I Ly 4 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH CENTRAL NEWPORT AND BALBOA PENNINSULA STATISTICAL DIVISIONS 17AND lDfl 2.5 . .... ..... ...... .. . .. . ...... .. . . .. . .. .... ... ... .. .......... .. . ...... ..... ..... .... . .. .. .. .. -.1 ....... .................. I . ...... ............... .. ...... ......... . ...... ... .. .. .. 2.0 1 ..... ..... . .. .. ..... . ...... 0-0 C1/C2 Dl D2/D3/D4 STATISTICAL AREA rlq AES/DEAMAL GROM TH BALBOA ISLAND AND CORONA DEL MAR STATIST/CAL D/I//SIONS'E"AND'F' 1.2 1.0 0 0.8 z z n 0.6 -J 0.4 W 0.2 0.0 E1/E2/E3 F1 F2 F3 STATISTICAL AREA EXISTING . BUILDOUT F4 L RESIDENTIAL GAOOTH PROMONTORY BAY AND NEWPORT HEIGHTS STATISTICAL DIVISIONS 'G"AND'H" 1.1 1.0 �.— 0.9 Z can 0.8 Z 0.7 Q3 0.6 Z =0 0.5 � 0.4 IJJ � 0.3 �j 0.2 ❑ 0.1 MR G1 H1 H2 H3 H4 STATISTICALAREA LW WESTCLIFF AREA STATISTICAL DIVISION IP ....... .. ................. . ....... . ..... . .. ........ ............ . . .. . ..... ............. .. ..... .. .. ........... ......................... .. ....... . .......... .. ............. .. .. . . . ... 3.0 I.' , 2.5 ........ co F- 2.0 . . . . .. ...................... .. z 0 1.5 . ......... .......... ..... ......... Z -j o 1.0 .J -r ............. .. .. ..... LU 0.5 .. .. ... . ........ ........ ..... 0.0 A STATISTICAL AREA MSTING BUILDOUT J3 IyCJ/UAC1Vl1 yl- [7/7vFF l r7 EASTBLUFF AND NEWPORT CENTER H z � p 0 Q Z = J p J r W 0 STATISTICAL DIVISIONS'KAND "L " 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 K1 K2 K3 L1 L2 L3 STATISTICAL AREA L J7,CJ/LJCIVIZ L Vl LfVrff 7 HARBOR VIEW AREA STATISTICAL DIMISION'%til" 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 6 STATISTICAL AREA MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY October 30, 1987 TO: Jim Hewicker, Planning Department Bob Lenard, Planning Department Patty Temple, Planning Department Craig Bluell, Planning Department }j 4 N 1�• FROM: Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney RE: Attorney General Opinion I have enclosed a copy of a recent Attorney General opinion responding to questions relative to fair share allocations. The opinion concludes that SCAG must include both existing and projected housing needs in determining each city's fair share. In evaluating each locality's fair share, SCAG must consider the availability of suitable housing sites based upon existing zoning and "alternative zoning ordinances and land use restrictions that would allow the potential for increased residential development." Finally, the A.G. concludes that income categories are to be established by reference to Section 50093 and related provisions of the California Administrative Code. Please call if you have any questions. RHB/jc �l\ VI October 6,1987 i An exception applies to the use of amboae beverage: Ifroo 21 Is the adult age, (aus. a Prof. Cafe, 125M.) d. AID,00gh we Invalidated an age•baeed w3unctonan to late kogth of sentence for public offenses in People v, 011vu UM) 17 Cal,2d 2m. that case wag decided OR We grarrod tbat the ckesiteaun involved a fundamental lntenrt In tberty, • , .•' e. In Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wall,". supra, 00 Cai.3d et page 740, the court re manyoflheemeproferediugtneatansforanspertmenteompkx4Manketex t Butwhens Ieeede� a�� Ne Unruh Act, the blanket exclusion mree (IbMJ'The ratonalbeela test applied In to case it bar U a less etrlN'atandeK F tuthermore, when AmUnldng social Or economic rili"atr ouch as thh, we lee• some On meaeura Is constltutonsl. „ 1 , •' •', ton questions concerning the determination of a locality's sham Of ttib regional housing needs by a council of goyernments:•ar•• 'r )a) :1, Must the determination inctude.both the existing and prb.' jected housing needs of the.locatlty?-• ", ; ' r' :: : ). ,'do based Must the availability fistinof a�tuiehousing sites be considered nces and !land use resMctions based upon fife existing coning of the locality, or based upon -the potential for increased resided. Had development udder alternative caning ofdbumeee and land u6v restrictions? • v " •° v :, .. •..:. • . ` • • - • • • , .:: Arai : 3.•Must the income categories of sections 69108902 of titidl2t:. of the California Administrative Code be used?; ,i, �.1 n; -V CONCLUSIONS : 'i •' sq 'f:)17ie�det "t ` "' 'Ho`ti'bf a locality's ahe4+e'ot'the regtottial ht>bq• Ing deeds by`e t+otinctl of'gdvei5lmeilts indst include both thevt istingand.projeetedhoifsingneeds'of:t1wlocality.•; lite coverage of the Unruh Act's agedlecrlminatlen•In haah,g porUloes.. i•'• . ; abni id �:2.Theayall tyotstiitablehotts gbitbs•must bbcollsidered the exit 2:onin ordinances stallland use ,i p.. .I,. ., .•; .,;,. ;;••,.,•.,p>.r.,,�,. ,, •:" based li$t Only vl>� -� - ?.. .. ;.restfletia COUNSEL FOR PARTIES:. d1nAUCN3 FOR PETITIONERS: • BARRETT, BLANK & DIRfNGER R ' ' ri;ils.r. 9.Tht CALIFORNIA'RVRALLEGAL'ASSISTANCE, Calif" ino Marsh St., Ste.204'fir-I i;; •,.':'; ,;j;. ,;,. San Luis Obispo, CA98401, ;'•+f, • .•)r, :g:t,,:'.+'~.ci;j' c000i}+'se (NS)'544-7994, , .::,a .,,' .,:r,•',,u., ,.,,:.s •,::"a,,;,,:,:.,,1, ofgobcYfr FOR PETITIONERS: ' ... rl ,<•; )' =•: ,t,"{'t') `):&"; questiom JAMES R, PROVENZA ESQ• ••.:•',1: ; �.:, h LEGAL AID fatutttil COUNTY• ;y„• „• , ,Lap`:.: ; .. t t : ip)Is COUNTY.. Garitea A lo32 Santa Barbara St Santa Barbara,CA93101;,,;� _,,:,Ii', ;):;::`, :'i,:+.il`:;( hierarch: (805) 963.6754 ,• , :, e' .. ,-:! .r•;Ld •i.;;e 1:,:': `i4ry °) (Nefobo FOR -REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST ,, ':.1; Cal•Apb: DALE HANST ESQ : r ; :.., <•, „I SCHRAMM & RADDUE w ::. r. t•e in I'-. , t .":'-•s `) c "long-b 35West Carrillo St. •^' : �,'•;:,c" ., ,,;:;, rou a: : :PO Box1200'''• :, , 'r. ,' )u: rl;,• •. .. 'B;l;jin" •.:�-,t 'C:1Sili;;, .•i;;+ti,lr County 'fib Santa Barbara; CA 93102 i;:;, i, hifl)e; (805) :,: ;r:' ':'r''`_";' '' " •' 963-�dr rain 1 :�'.,. �S.'•,,'...',:�i•;,t.';a;:,.�;',:yl.'j.. TRIAL'COUR NO •aah%tl :, „ ;; ','t';•,:- ;.;;,.,b • SANTA BARBARA SUPERIOR dOURT,r ,Sectltm'6 Superior Court No. SM'40062 ... :.•, :., , : ; ;,, ,h•, ; : :'y TRIAL JUDGE: HONORABLE ZEL CAN7,:.,:1'' ry,i'; 1,iil te, :i•:,:Irn . All t6av •:' r.. .., :�� ,. „i�.�:e .I^,''. 'L:'�t. Vl::ai :i lNl:: .,.wwv (i' ''.' :I,.y,- ^u n,:r, iv:.:7.^•iai ,,tY•� r� �'.•l.p6a,�i '.:•�*'tl • ...,.'" ;,•: `' ..,•c, REAL PROPERTY' ":,,;.,..i:.:. `'.lit@rat' ).• Journal:'D;A--A'.' .'�187;.r Cite as 87� Daily '- � :I, • vide t •N.b' ;i.'f,F :: .• ,s'nrtt OPINIONof eP v: the 26 of flee *;Athena VMtr h Plahnit)g Depk '016h'is atop IN thig"land used! fiYhris (19m) 156 A imedts spl caned M Mod 65302: '-'0' OM t ahallcoroint M a statement'of dM1OPt-.>W ill intiade a diaWalftV diagrams andrry (c) A housing element as pirovided in Article 10.6 (ebm• n :.1;.lxs di:': :': i.'t'nj �:"i" ;'!:+{1?wi�Yi i""'•C•.P :F7�,:,Ia,. ;h•i•: ;IOiZ i'housing'element`'its''proi1ded'lit, e IoA"it* t 6580855�9.6) mustlhioerdetafikr(iquiretlieilt9. Sdetian83553p SecHbn:- ;':' The,holi6i; element shall conalst Si ae identificatioe ,:dtaATeJlailwn'anNnrawfedhbtisidtlHeedskid:i08 ;JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP, rq ..:•r :;) u„ �Rr ,n : •.�'i'Wtem66kdf''goals, policids, quaff ified'objettiVes, add'�A Attorney General ' :" ,..: r • 'r , r'f t _rl: ,;; • •auled for, the, ptektvation, hriprovtmtent, endi'B RODNEYO.LILYQUIST; .' ::''i;!.4':a;•ii,f' , ;>>d ntofahbu4'in�:KildhouSin�elelhdntab6nideriNfyxk Deputy Attorney General, ::ant;.a',: u',sdj(hate+sitesfoi:botising,lndudingrentalhtrtlsht�;factoidIVI • No. 87.206 '' i'bWlt libtisteg, ttdd mobtlehbtfiea, and shall make adelptate rat OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL t ' : ; cr; provisionfor the existing and projected needs bf Phil ellomWO State of California ' . I : I '') w fs of the community i, Thd element shell contain all' ni Filed October 1,1987 ' ; ' ; ; , •, ;:'I n >•.. , , , Inb THE HONORABLE DAVID ROBERTI, MEMBER, CALIii 69 r: f' !'(a) -AA assessment of hou§tag needs and'an inventol'y}:Ifit NIA STATE SENATE, has requested an opinion on the following; wof resources and constraints televant to the meedng'of theall v_: 7188 xaGg�11. tffoi Report Monday, 'October.5,1.987 needs:The -assessment and daventory shall?include, the •,A councils of governments:-, :r' -; . ;,. , - , ..' • •,;:, rfollowing;a::: , ,, . r• ,• . , I;,,., .: •, ., : r,,; , : ' :', ^i;: t r "(1) Analysis of population and employment,trends and. 11(1) Local governments within theregional urisdiction• ' documentation of projections and'a'quantification• of, the. • ,; '; of the S6utherngCalifornia Association of Governments: Ju- )y9, 1984, for.-tbe first revision and July lot1989, for the se-. ' piocality'sexistingandprojectedbousing,needsforallincome cond revision.oval :. ,. ;. M. levels. These existing and projected needs shall include the. •. , , ,... no (2) Local governments within the regional :'1ccality's share of the regional housing need,in accordance' iu with Section 65584.. • ,; r' -• ; ;.:,, , ; E.,;; I,,.. • uary 1,19 5, • of.WAssociaftion o(,Bay Area Governments: January 1,1985, . a„ta .. .; ... >n ,:•: ,.•,.` " :,: or its on, and IM, for the second revision—, ". ea:..ra..:a Section 65584 sta(esi j"` ,., • , .: ,,, ;, ,; ,:• „- µ 1ij :n.> i.-,• „(3),I.ocalgovernmen thinthe regional jurisdiction .i it within ;_; of the San Diego Association of Governments, the'Council "(a)•For purposes; of subdivioion'(aS of Section 65583; "t of Fresno Cqunty Governments, the Kea County Council of a locality's share o[ the regtohal lieusing needs lndudes that „ Governments, the Sacramento Council of Governments, and. , ,;share of,the b"Ing.need of persons at:all Income level's ' i %, tthe•Association•of Monterey Bay Area Governments: July ;, within• the area,signiGcantiy affected by;a; juris'diction's". • ; n:1,1985, for the first revision; and July,1,1991, for the second ,,,general plan. The distribution of regional housing heeds aha11, revision.!! -„ :...:. ,+...:. •,. ,,: , .. • : •.. .. • , ; •. phased upon -available data,, take Into consideration market ,, ;i Thereafter a housing element revision is required "not less than demand for' housing, employment opportupities;, ,the,.,, availability of suitable sites and public faciliGes,,commuting, every five years." (§ 65598, subd. (b).) The focus of the three inquiries Is directed at both sections 65583 patterns, type and tenure of housing need, and the housing;, p, ., and ms'm. Several well -recognized principles of statutory construc- needs of farmworkers. The distribution shall seek to avoid tion aid our analysis of these legislative enactments, In constrn- further impaction of, localities with relatively high piopor-i� 1 ' ing statutory language,, we, are to; "ascertain the intent of the bons of lower income households, Based upon"data pivid- , '• Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the laW ,", (SeledBase ed by the Department of Finance, In consultation with each ' , , Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645; accord Pea council of government,,theDepartment ofHousing and Com.,.., pie v.Davis (1981)29Ca1.3d814,M.)"In determining such intent, munity, Development shall determine the, regional share of. ;; the statewide, housing need at,least two years prior, to the;',;, the court 'turns first to the words themselves for the answer' [cita- tions]." (People v. Craft (1986) 41 Ca1.3d 5% 560.) The words are - second rebision,andallsubsequentrev)sionsasrequimdliur-•,,' to be given "their ordinary and generally accepted meaning." (Pee. t'suant to•Section 65588. Based upon data,pavided'by the Fy;i pie v+'Castro (1985) 38 Cal,3d•301, 310.) Moreover, "legislation „Department.? of Housing, and Community Development„:.t should be construed so as to harmonize its various elements without' •relative to the statewide need for housing', each councll of'.,':, , doing violence to its -language or spirit," (Wells v. Marian City Pro - governments shall determine the existing and projected ;;;j, perties, Inc; (1981) 29 Ca1.3d 781, 788J:"Wherever reasonable, in - housing need for its region, Within 3o daya following notifica-•.,,, 'tion of this determination„the Department of Housing'and I terpretations which produce internal harmony, avoid redundan- cy and accord significance to every word and phrase are prefer-, .;Community Development shall ensure that this determhta- k red," (Pacitle Legal Foundation Y. Unemployment Ins. Appeals •,tion'is consistent with the statewide housing need and may " Bd.• (1981) 29 Ca1.3d 101,114.) "Interpretive constructions which .;revise'the determination of the council of governments if ' render some words surplusage, defy common sense,.or:lead to necessary to obtain this consistency: Each locality's share ` ' ' mischief or absurdity; are to be avoided." (CalifornlaM(rs.,Assn. shall be determined by the appropriate councG'of govern-;• .. meets conslstenfwith the criteria above witb'the advice of .. •. v. Public UGGtles-Com. (1979) 24 Ca1.3d 836, 844.) •,, 1. Existing and Projected Housing Needs, the department subject to the prg6edureestablishedp4rsuant;:• , ,Thefirstquestionposediswhetherthecouncil'sdetern6a- to subdivision'(c) at least one year prior to the seeond'revi-". ' tion. of a locality's share is .to include both the existing and sion, and at five-year intervals following the second revision: a ; prejecteds housing needs of the locality, We conclude'that it does. pursuant to Section 65588.. I,.; •.,;,, . r ,•, i„ ,..; •,. t • (b) For. areas with nocouncil,of governments;,the, Section 65684 directs a council to "determine the existing and housing r•.l.:• •. projected need for its region."The purpose ofsuch deter - .,,.Department of Housing and Community Development shall, minetionistocalculate and apportion shares ofthis need toall cities h determine housing market: areas and define, the regional, and counties in the region. "Each locality's share shall be deter - .,.,housing need for localities within these areas. Where the' mined by the appropriate council of governments." (§65584, subd. 'department determines that a.local government possesses (a).) -the the capability and resources and has agreed to accept the,:. Two components thus comprise regional housing need: the (" responsibility, with respect to its jurisdiction, for theiden- existing housing need and the projected housing need. When shares ' j E titicaGon and determination of housing market Areas and.,-' ', regional housing needs, the department shall delegate tails ' of the regional housing need are apportioned to the communities in area, .; responsibility to the local governments within these, W,' the each'share contains, both components,. No provision of the statute remotely suggests that one of the necessary com- 7." e. "• t .- • • , • •,• • • , • • • • ponents is to be omitted when apportioning shares :.,Secttop 65589 gives the Department of Houshg Arid ComMun4' ' Such construction of section 85584 is supported by the language ty,Development ("Department") various responsibilities idc(uding - , of section 65583. As previously quoted; the latter statute requires the duty to define the -regional housing need for localities= In areas . ' that the housing element of a city or county contain "a quantifica- not covered by a eouncil'of goveamgntqi; unless it has delegated tion of the locality's existing and projected hodsing needs for all such authority to a local •government,' For cities and `counties' income levels" It then provides, •"These existing and projected located in areas served by a council of governments, the council needs shall include the locality's share of the regional housing need performs this function: "' ' , ;',. ', ,; ' in accordance with Section 65584," Hence the reference In section SecGoa65584requlreatheDepartmentoracwuncittoaotwhento"existing and projected housing needs" in conjunction with early indicates of the sbboth a housing element of a city or county is revised':'pursuant to See- lion 65588." The latter statute designates various dates,for bous• • thatthethe llatttter incorporates atescoonal mponents • ,. ing element revisions, including for•areaa covered by specified ,^ One of the purposes of the )egislation governing' housing elements is' [tlo ensure Umt each'locai government cooperates detolm 6, 1987 with other local governments in order to address regional housing:% needs" (§ 65581, subd. NO Regional housing needs include both". existing and projected needs (§ 65584, subd. (a).) Both components 11 are "addressed" by apportioning shares thereof to each community is In the region. By so construing section 65584, we give'each df Its ;I provisions meaning and carry out the apparent intent of the ,-. Legislature r ' : ^ S •''>' )" In answer to the first question; therefore, we conclude that the - determination of a locality's shire of the regional housing, needs ,r 'by a council of governments must include both the'existing and"' projected housing needs of the locality, :.'''r .:7r: ;,•• • : e', : ' a• 2, Current Zoning Ordinances. The second question concern whether in maldngits determina• lion of a locality's share of the regional honing needs, a council' of governments is to consider the availability. of suitable housing sites based upon the existing zoning ordinances and land use restric.'r tions of the locality or upon alternative coning ordinances hndland'' use restrictions that would allow the potential for Increased residen- , tiai development. We conclude that both existing and alternative"' zoning ordinances and land use restrictions must be considered ' The council of governments is directed.to determine a loball-,,. ty's share of the regional housing needs based upon the following criteria "The market demand for housing, employment oppor- tunities, the availability of suitable sites and public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need, and the housing needs.of farmworkers [and tlWavoidance of] fur-"W4 Cher impaction of localities with relatively high pbportibrtt!"'r of lower income households."'(§ 65584, subd. (a).) We find no indication in section 65584 that current zoning'ori'•' dinances and land use restrictions are to limit the factor of "the availability of suitable sites." A housing site would be unsuitable based upon Its physical characteristics, not because of some governmental control of an artificial and external nature. The plan ding process of sections 65563 and 65504 contemplates an identifica- tion of adequate sites that could be made available through dif-" ferent policies and development standards. Existing -zoning policies would be only one aspect of the "available data" upon which the factor of "the availability of suitable sites" is to be considered under section 65584. To argue that this part of the general plan is required to conform to existing zoning practices would be anomalous and ' circuitous, since section 65M requires the zoning ordinances of a' locality to be consistent with Its general plan Subdivision (d) of section 65584 emphasizes this fact by expressly providing that a . local government's share of the regional housing need is not sub. ' jest to reduction, except in one narrow circumstance, b�: .. any ordinance, policy, of standard of a city,"coon• ty, or city and county which directly limits, by number, the building permits which may be issued for residential,con- struction, or which limits for a set period of time the number of buildable lots which may be developed for residential pies"' r Our constructiowof section 65584 is consistent with the goals of the statutory scheme as a whole (§§ 65580.65589.8) and the par- ticular requirements specified for hous]ng elements (§ 65563). The legislation has as its primary purpose "to expand housing oppor- tunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels." (§ 65580, subd. M.) Cities and counties are directed to "recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal." (§ 65580, subd. (a).) Each local government is "to cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs." (§ 65560, subd. (e).) Allowing a city or county to prevent being allocated a share of the regional housing needs through restricted zoning ordinances would be contrary to the manifest Intent of the Legislature,4 The housing element of a 1bCa1 govermdent,must apecifleally' 'tnetllde: ',. p;•,r,r ,ir .,..�..,•.......... {, •:.'(,Tr..•.. r ,...r"An•lnventory of land suitable tor.residentiai develop• „went, including yacantaites and sites having potential for."'!j redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of xom• I Ing and public facilities and seryjces to these sites,,; (I", subd. (a) (A) it .::::. • , 7r It la the `,'relationship'!, of current zoning.ordlnances that must be lion gl'aIR,UTAi WIL:•:i' ..:, '�: P ,.,. i .• r.. ....... ... .� •- ii._ h rldeatify adequate sites which' will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and, with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a.variety of types of housing z .; for all income levels .:.., (§ 85583, subd., (c) (t).) suchlanguage uamistakatilyeontemplatea that zoning ordinances and land use resh [ctions may require In cation during the five• year period to accommodateal lity's projected housing needs. Consistent'with this interpretationIs the requirement that the f[ve- yearprogram: ',ri: n' '1 .IS•vi. .ns H} Address and, where hpproprlate and legallypdssible, •ri. remove governmental cohstraiW to the mainfenadce, irno,r peoOment,' gild -development of h6whig.111d§ 6M, adbdr• (c)(3).) These "governmental constraints" must be analyzed in detail In the housing element;,the element must•eontaim.,;;> ,• A:"Analysis of•potential and 'actual governmental ebw i. straidts'upowthe maintenance,'improvement, or•develop•',' mentof hohsingforall lncomelevels, Including land inecan- trels;'ibuilding••codes'and,•their'enforcement, site:Imatis provements, fees and other exactions retuned of developers; ), and local processt wadpehWtprocadues.';(§65683;subdb•'; (a)(4))) ^i 4: i'JI i!I: P'iq ::IBSil9:6'r*;P r 41 rj 7, I17 In sum, a local government mast provide in' Ili housing ele- ment for the existing and projected housing needs ofall eeonomic:' segments -of the community. (§ 65583.) In doing so, it Wrequlred.i to Identify suitable housing sites•, (§ 65583; subd. (a)(3)() The city or county must Identify those sites "which will be made available - through appropriate -zoning and development standards" -during the ensuing five-year period. (§6W,'aubd: (c)(1>:)'Itmust "under- take fo'implement the policies'and achieVd the goals and objec=,Y fives of the housing element'through the admidistration of land use ' and development controls." (§ 65583; subd. 0):) The required'edn- ' sideration and evaluation of zoning changes'necessary to'meet the identified needs of the -community would be precluded by allow- ing:existing•zoning limitations to define what housingsitea'ate'' „suitable.'.'+;;~;; ,;, i,, c 1„s ,,{•(e .4,1 ':vv--':,4.. A:q,, t.v •,. coundl'of'governmenta'thus would ndt be able tb perform • the.task mandated for It withoUt consideration of land uses:thst +,: are'possible'despite•exiating•zoning restrictions:,The`suitable••, sites'.' factor tb beconsidered by a council pursuant to section 65564 must be -read in conjunction with the phraseG-"land suitable for residential development" of section 65563 that'reguires considers. r" Non of zoning limitations but is not limited W lands presently ton- ed for audrdevelopmente . :•i= •��• • i •'+! ' ' c ;n • J • •In an4wer.to the second question; therefore; we cobelude,that a council of governments must consider the availability ofsuitable'S housing sites'based not only upon the existing zoning ordinances and•land use restriction -of the locality but,also based:bpon the potential for increased residential development under alternative. zoning ordinances and land use -restrictions when'determWngm, 'a locality's share of: the regional, housing needsx•: ,, . for• :! ;tl. ',I, - r `.•.••+'.':'"{C'':v4�i`L"ifL'iS.a,.��; il��s, .::' 'S'�7•''��dN.)@6K, .. vi:: Liyrnl si 7 7�:: ,�t,YL'i•.4 ,. l: p'f .^.§'.••'.. c:'... _ 3. Calculation of Income f evels, The third gtiestion presented'is whether a council of govern-,, ments is required to follow the regulations (Cal. Admin. Code:'tit: 25, if 6910-M) of the Department deCiaingincome categories when determining a locality's share of the regional housing needs,'We conclude that it must. ' , ": '' ' Regulation 6926 states in part: "'Very low income households' means persons aid'" families whose gross incomes do not exceed the qualifying' ! " limits for Very lowincomefamilies establishedandamend- "Oa edfrom tlmetotime pursuant toSection 8ofthe United States :,+u 'HowiagActof 1937. The qualilyinglimitsare setf4rthinSec=''''1 tion 69n. These limits are equivalent to 50 percent of Hie area'•I`: ' median income, adjusted forfamilysize by the United States ' Department of Housing and Urban Development.": (,Cal; Ad- i:' min. Code,.gt. 25, § 6926, subd.(a)J'•' Regulation 692E provides in pait: „ I , :::) •+ :. •, All, "'Lower income households' means'peisone "and'( families whose'gross Incomes do not exceed the qualifying' limits for lower income families as established and amend- ed from time to time pursuant to Section 8 of the United States'-'"` Housing Act of 1937. The qualifying limits are set forth in Sec-' •.. ) lion 6932. These limits are equivalent to 00 percent of the area < median income, adjusted for family size and other adjust- ment factors by the United States Department of Housingar and Urban Development." (Cal. Admhr. Code; tit. 25, $ 6928; r: Regulation 6930 states in part: "'Moderate income'households' means persona,.hi P W", families who are not lower income households and .whose gross incomes do not exceed 120 percent of the area.median sr, income adjusted fortamily size in accordance,with adjust,a- meat factors adopted by the United States Department ofe,' Housing and. Urbon,Development In establishing income.q limits for lower Income families. For purposes CoMf this sub, is ' chapter, the income limits are set forth in Section 6932." (Cald;) Admin. Code, tit. 251 § 6930, subd. (a).),. ; ?:,•,:, nl ni These regulations are authorized by and are consistent with Health•^. and Safety Code sections 50079.5.(lower income households)i 50093 (moderate income households), and 50105 (very, low Income a: households) i !-%i :I., ,i .• ; ,. r :•,t,,,, .::- ,., : A council of governments must determine a locality's share '. t of the regional housing needs "of persons at all intone levelswithiu:;' the area." q 6sm, subd.W.) This determination is to be!' Chisel I. l- ed upon data provided by the Department.'! (ibid.) It)s the Depart- •): ment that assesses the state housing needs upon,whirh the regional,.: . housing needs are calculated. The Department is also required to,i:, revise any determination of regional housing needs made by a corn-!); cH that:is inconsistent with the state -housing needs. Obid.) The,,.+ Department follows state law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 50079.50 50093, 60105; Cal. Admin.-Code, Ut..25, §§ 6910.6932) in categorizing in- come levels for its calculations and the data provided to the coun-.d. tits. For a council to "base" its determinations upon.the Depart+-•: meat's data, we believe that it is directed to,use the Income:i+. categories selected by the.Deparhnent. No other definitions of•:o moderate income, lower income, or very low income may be found • , in state law governing this Issue,. ;t . : , . . t.: •' •• !:: nil We note also that the Legislature has specifically referred to!., "persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50M of the Health and Safety Code" when mandating then a review and revision of housing elements. Q mm, subd.(d).) ,1+•:+-- Requiring a council of governments to -follow the income classifications established by the Legislature and Department pro- vides consistency between sections 65M and 65580. Such intmWeta.'. Non of the terms of section 6%K facilitates the administration of •s. it" Report. Monday, October • theiptato housing laws. Allowing each council of governments, on the other hand,.to create Its own Income classifications would be impractical and would defeat the purpose of meeting the state hous- ing needs in a consistent and effective manner. Uniformity of, deadication allows the local governments "to cooperate with other, local governments and the state In addressing regional housing needs." Q 65500, subd. (e).) In answer to the third.question, therefore, we conclude that the income categories of section 6910-6932 of title 25 of the Califor- nia Administrative Code must be used by a council of governments when determining a locality's share of the regional housing needs. 1. All section references betanm to the Government Code and by section number ow :.,.,,. �t:rmouowAtiwstatutaryadi "locality"4umdlnterchuyablywith"am• mudty; . ")oa1 /wenun..A,"sad "J,rtadictlsn"and man elther the city or the county to Sae P}aniseu wblch Is a city and county), (5 6m, subd. (a).) e. Alonllb''s "Preleclod" botalnaneds would be thodefcr the neat nve year period. (sae/e36ed, suMM..(b), (pb)., ,s•i. �. ' 'ti Tbeonly aud;wiwdexception Isa loaaty'a "moratedum on residential cotateuc- tion foes, setperlei of time In order to prestrve and protect the public health and safes ty." tt SIM, subd. (d)(2).) , C . . FOR THE RECOAD: In the Friday, October 2,1987 D.A.R., Okum v. Okum should be on page 7119 instead of page 7114 in the Table of Contents. We regret any inconvenience this error may have caused. .,. ten Your business. clients need theInformation you'll get in ' LAW IN •' BUSINESS . Mondays in The Daily Journal MEMORANDUM December 15, 1988 TO: Executive Committee FROM: Community, Economic and Human Development Committee SUBJECT: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT At the RHNA Subcommittee meeting on November 3, 1988, the members reconsidered the length of time communities should have to address existing vacant unit need and reviewed proposed local revisions to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) by 18 jurisdictions. It recommended the following actions which were, in turn, recommended by the CEHD Committee at its November 17, 1988 meeting: o Approval of a 10 year rather than a 5 year basis for achieving the ideal existing housing vacant unit need in cases where a community has less than the ideal number of vacant units. This will allow a 50% reduction in this component of housing need. The future vacant unit need associated with growth would not be affected. The RHNA Subcommittee felt that asking communities to build additional units to house expected households with an ideal vacancy rate, while also requiring communities to go back to the existing housing stock and, in those cases where the vacancy rate is lower than the ideal, demand that that vacancy rate be corrected in five years, is burdensome. This is particularly true in the "built out" urban area where the housing market has been "tight" for 10 years or more and existing vacant unit need is, in a number of cases, higher than anticipated household growth. Also, in densely developed cities with a high proportion of multifamily units (predominately "affordable" housing), current policy forces them to become even more densely developed and "impacted" with low cost units if for no other reason than to meet ideal vacancy levels. The change is intended to establish a more realistic timeframe for meeting the ideal vacancy goal for the existing housing stock and to equalize extra vacancy goals between single and multifamily type localities. It would be applied to all jurisdictions submitting a local revision request, while an advisory would be sent to all other communities recommending that they incorporate this change in their revised local housing needs assessment. r Memorandum to The Executive Committee December 15, 1988 Page 2 The CEHD Committee, at its November 17, 1988 meeting also recommended approval of the following adjustments to the RHNA which were recommended to it by the RHNA Subcommittee at its November 3, and 17, 1988 meetings. Orange County Unincorporated: Approved the requested demolition adjustment and increase in household growth for the southeast unincorporated area and new cities by 8,397 households. This revision will be further broken down to separate the new city growth estimates from the county unincorporated area forecast. The change is based on more recent data provided by the county. The new data enables the unincorporated area to be treated as if it were a city rather than as a residual after all city adjustments are made. This change redistri- buted growth in the south county subregion. An advisory will be sent to all communities in the subregion notifying them of the change in growth distribution, and the adjustment will be implemented for localities from the area that have submitted local revision requests based in whole or in part on the growth distribution method (e.g., Costa Mesa, Irvine, Newport Beach and San Clemente). Approved a housing vacancy need adjustment based on the additional growth and new goal for addressing existing vacancy need by 1994. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT * ORIGINAL 21,325 19,726 771 592 235 * REVISED 29,458 28,123 386 844 105 * Includes new cities (minus 2,741 units for Mission Viejo and 2,526 for Dana Point) 2. Costa Mesa: Evaluated the city request for a reduction of future housing unit need from 5,155 to 2,020 and use of substitute local vacancy data. Approved a reduction of future housing need from 5,155 to 3,963 based on a redistribution of growth in southeast Orange County. Denied substitute local vacancy data since it would eliminate comparability across the region. Approved a change in the existing housing vacancy need goal for 1994. 2272 r Memorandum to The Executive Committee December 15, 1988 Page 3 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 5,155 4,332 593 156 75 REVISED 3,963 3,467 297 124 75 3. Irvine: Approved local revision request to reduce total future housing unit need from 14,337 to 13,188 and denied change in ideal vacancy level. Change is based on the redistribution of growth in southeast Orange County. Denied substitute ideal vacancy level since it would eliminate comparability across the region, but approved new vacant unit need levels based on the drop in household growth and a new goal for addressing existing vacant unit need by 1994. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 14,337 13,642 307 386 2 REVISED 13,188 12,673 154 359 2 4. Newport Beach: Partial approval of local revision request. Evaluated the city request to reduce future housing unit need from 2,849 to 1,583 and to reduce affordable housing need to no more than 240 units. Approved a 2,349 unit future need based on the redistribution of growth in southeast Orange County and further reduced it to 2,062 units as a result of an assessment of annexations that influenced original estimates. Denied change in income distribution of future need since neither error no�r1 avoidance of impaction were issues. ` 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED 4HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 2,849• 2,535 -136 84 365 REVISED 2272 Iq 2,062 1,774 —136 177 i �2 6% Vol' 5 �� a99 ,�b 0, `� 2)(62 9 59 365 Memorandum to The December 15, 1988 Page 4 Executive Committee 5. San Clemente: Evaluated the city request to reduce future housing need from 4,227 to 3,000 units. Approved a 3,237 unit future growth based on the redistribution of growth in southeast Orange County and denied any further reduction due to the existence of available sites. Approved a new goal for addressing existing vacant unit need by 1994. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 4,227 3,712 360 120 35 REVISED 3,237 2,927 180 95 35 6. Ventura County Unincorporated: Approved request to reduce anticipated household growth from 3,109 to 2,576. This change is based on the same method used in adjusting the growth in the Orange County Unincorporated area. An advisory will be sent to all jurisdictions in the Simi/Thousand Oaks subregion notifying them of the change and its redistributional impact. Approved an adjustment to vacant unit needs based on the lower level of growth and new policy on addressing existing vacant unit need by 1994. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 3,573 3,109 297 79 88 REVISED 2,878 2,576 149 65 88 7. Moorpark: Evaluated the city request to reduce future need from 3,318 to 1,003 units. Approved a reduced housing unit need of 2,743 based on a 1984-86 550/year growth trend, eliminating the "bulge" of 1,530 units in 1987 that resulted from a local ordinance and not trend. 2272 Memorandum to The Executive Committee December 15, 1988 Page 5 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 3,318 3,311 -83 85 5 REVISED 2,743 2,750 -83 71 5 8. Santa Paula: Approved local revision request to reduce future need from 729 to 620 units based on the County AQMP limit of 124 units/year. Other proposed constraints were not deemed to be sufficient. Approved an adjustment in the 1994 existing housing vacant unit goal. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 729 516 161 16 37 REVISED 620 487 81 15 37 9. Commerce: Approved local revision request to eliminate household growth and vacancy adjustment and increase replacement housing need from 73 to 86 units. Revision is based on severe environmental constraints and local demolition data. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 319 169 72 5 73 REVISED 86 0 0 0 86 10. E1 Segundo: Evaluated the local revision request to reduce future housing need from 1,196 to 715. The change was not approved since the City indicated that it had the capacity to grow to the projected level by 1994. City concerns about the rate of growth, given economic and 2272 Memorandum to The Executive Committee December 15, 1988 Page 6 regulatory constraints, pertains more to 1994-2010 growth. Approved an adjustment in the 1994 existing housing vacant unit goal. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 1,196 844 169 30 153 REVISED 1,112 844 85 30 153 11. Hermosa Beach: Approved the local revision request to reduce future housing need from 947 to 513 units. The change is based on an error in the application of the growth distribution methodology. Approved a change in the 1994 existing housing vacant unit goal. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 947 485 196 17 248 REVISED 513 161 98 6 248 12. Hidden Hills: Because state housing law does not provide for change in future need income distribution except to avoid impaction or to correct a factual error, the RHNA Subcommittee rejected a request for a second postponement, then denied the local revision to eliminate very low, low and moderate income future need, reallocating it to upper income need, and eliminating existing overpayment need. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ORIGINAL 46 42 1 1 REVISED 46 42 1 1 DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT 2 2 2272 Memorandum to December 15, Page 7 The Executive Committee 1988 13. La Canada-Flintridge: Because state housing law does not provide for changing future need income categories except to avoid impaction or to correct for a factual error, the RHNA Subcommittee rejected a request for a second postponement, then denied the local revision to reduce very low and low and moderate income housing need from 104 to 29, and reallocate it to upper income need. Approved a new goal for addressing existing vacant unit need by 1994. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 323 198 112 4 8 REVISED 266 198 56 4 8 14. Pico Rivera: Approved the local revision request to reduce future need from 1,266 to 595. The request to reduce lower income housing need was withdrawn. The basis for the change was the lack of available sites as 50 of the 96 vacant acres were found to be on school sites that are not available for housing development, nor are anticipated to be available by 1994 due to increased school enrollments. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 1,266 914 228 23 102 REVISED 595 370 114 9 102 15. Redondo Beach: Approved the local revision request to reduce future household growth as a result of an assessment of annexations that influenced the original estimate. Denied requested vacancy adjustment reduction, but approved a change to the 1994 existing housing vacant unit goal. 2272 Memorandum to The Executive Committee December 15, 1988 Page 8 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ORIGINAL 3,803 2,365 427 88 REVISED 3,030 1,825 214 68 DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT 923 923 16. San Marino: Approved the local revision request to reduce future need from 60 to 18 units due to land unavailability. Approved a new existing housing vacant unit goal per new RHNA Policy. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 60 2 56 0 2 REVISED 18 2 14 0 2 17. Signal Hill: Approved local revision request to reduce future household growth from 708 to 354 because of limited site availability due to oil production, slopes and soil conditions. Approved a change in the 1994 existing housing vacant unit goal. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 805 708 38 27 32 REVISED 419 354 19 14 32 18. West Hollywood: Evaluated the proposed vacancy adjustment from 879 to 559 units due to unavailability of sites, lack of recycling potential, local regulations on demolitions, infrastructure and other constraints. Rent control has increased unit demand and artificially increased existing housing vacant unit need. Rent control was not deemed to be a basis for establishing a lower ideal vacancy level. 2272 M Memorandum to The Executive Committee December 15, 1988 Page 9 However, due to the new policy on addressing existing housing vacancy goals by 1994, the total housing need was adjusted from 1,102 to 668 units. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 1,102 206 870 10 17 REVISED 668 206 435 10 17 19. Buena Park: Evaluated requested revision of future need for the 6-1/2 year 1988-1994 period from 1,855 to 913 units. Partly approved the reduction based on lack of enough available sites and recent recycling rates. Adjusted existing vacancy need by 1994 per new RHNA policy. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 1,522 1,004 409 31 78 REVISED 1,061 756 205 22 78 20. Huntington Beach: Evaluated requested reduction of future need from 6,786 to 3,203 units based on environmental constraints and site unavailability. Denied this revision because land not now zoned residential was potentially available. Adjusted existing vacancy need by 1994 per new RHNA Policy. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ORIGINAL 6,786 5,360 1,117 171 REVISED 6,228 5,360 559 171 DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT 138 138 2272 1 M Memorandum to The Executive Committee December 15, 1988 Page 10 21. Los Alamitos: Evaluated requested revision to reduce future need from 443 to 300 units. Denied the revision because adequate sites are available. Adjusted 1994 existing vacancy goal per new RHNA Policy. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 443 266 88 9 80 REVISED 399 266 44 9 80 22. Placentia: Requested reduction of demolition adjustment denied since no basis provided. Adjusted 1994 existing vacancy goal per new RHNA Policy. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 1,672 1,501 109 44 18 REVISED 1,.618 1,501 55 44 18 23. Tustin: Evaluated requested revision of existing need, vacancy ad�iustment, demolition adjustment, and household growth. Approved in part household growth reduction based upon change in Orange County unincorporated forecast for Southwest Orange subregion. Denied other revisions, but adjusted 1994 existing vacancy goal per new RHNA Policy. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 2,866 2,314 393 '92 67 REVISED 2,085 1,751 197 70 67 2272 i Memorandum to The Executive Committee December 15, 1988 Page 11 24. Westminster: Evaluated requested reduction of household growth from 975 to 377 and vacancy adjustment from 467 to 80. Denied household growth reduction request due to availability of sites and vacancy reduction since approval would lead to lack of conformity regionwide. Adjusted 1994 existing vacancy goal per new RHNA Policy. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 1,524 975 437 30 82 REVISED 1,306 975 219 30 82 25. Banning: Approved requested increase in future need based upon market demand, approved projects, and building trends. To be offset by advisory reduction on Riverside County unincorporated. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 948 333 0 25 35 REVISED 3,515 3,383 0 97 35 26. Moreno Valley: Approved requested increase in future need based upon market demand and building trends. To be offset by advisory reduction in Riverside County unincorporated. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 17,741 17,410 -107 424 15 REVISED 2272 N Memorandum to The Executive Committee December 15, 1988 Page 12 27. Perris: Approved requested increase in future need based upon market demand, approved projects, and building trends. To be offset by advisory reduction in Riverside County Unincorporated. Also adjusted 1994 existing vacancy goal per new RHNA Policy. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 1,945 1,839 12 62 32 REVISED 7,509 7,228 6 243 32 28. Redlands: Because State Housing Law does not permit revisions'based on local growth control ordinances, the committee denied the requested reduction of future need from 3,981 to 2,000 units. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL <> <> <> <> <> REVISED <> <> <> <> <> 29. City of San Bernardino: Because adequate potential sites are available, the requested reduction of future need from 8,021 to 5,553 units was denied. The physical and fiscal constraints to this level of development, however, are valid bases for revisions to the local housing element and SCAG will support the jurisdiction in seeking approval of this revision from the State HCD. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL <> <> <> <> <> REVISED <> <> <> <> <> 2272 1 Y Memorandum to The Executive Committee December 15, 1988 Page 13 30. Ojai: Approval of requested reduction of future need based upon Ventura AQMP limit. Adjustment of 1994 existing vacancy goal per new RHNA Policy. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 243 193 36 5 8 REVISED 133 112 18 3 8 31. Arcadia: Reduce household growth to 500 based on sites availability and recycling potential. Adjust 1994 existing vacancy goal per new RHNA Policy. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 1,067 642 234 20 172 REVISED 805 500 117 16 172 32. Baldwin Park: Approval of requested reduction of future need from ,22� units based upon lack of available sites. Adjusted 1994 existing vacancy goal per new RHNA policy. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ORIGINAL 1,228 938 14 25 REVISED 627 358 7 10 DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT 252 252 2272 Memorandum to'The Executive Committee December 15, 1988 Page 14 33. Covina: Approval of requested reduction of future need based on lack of sufficient suitable sites. Revised total based upon city's proposed acceleration of recycling and rezoning of part of non-residential vacant land. Adjusted 1994 existing vacancy goal per new RHNA policy. Denied change in demolition adjustment. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 1,744 1,403 236 43 92 REVISED 976 743 118 23 92 34. Industry: Because sites are available and no constraints beyond local zoning appear, requested elimination of future need was denied. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL <> <> <> <> <> REVISED <> <> <> <> <> 35. Manhattan Beach: Approval of reduction in future need based upon correction to growth forecast methodology. Adjusted 1994 vacancy goal per new RHNA Policy. Denied change in income distribution of future need per State Housing Law. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 1,435 981 4 27 423 REVISED 1,088 645 2 18 423 2272 Memorandum to The Executive Committee December 15, 1988 Page 15 36. Monterey Park: Partial approval of requested reduction of future need from 1,423 to 500 units based on unavailability of sites due to hillside land and built-up character of city. A reduction to 900 units was approved due to development trends. Adjusted 1994 vacancy goal per new RHNA Policy. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 1,423 824 345 24 230 REVISED 900 483 173 14 230 37. Pomona: Approval of requested revision of future need based upon lack of sufficient available sites. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 2,736 2,593 -132 79 197 REVISED• 2,097 1,972 -132 60 197 38. Rancho Palos Verdes: Approved reduction in future need for 886 to 502 units. City requested reduction to 413 units based on site avail- ability and other constraints. Error in DOF base data is basis for this revision. Adjusted 1994 existing vacancy goal per new RHNA Policy. Denied existing need change as not consistent with RHNA methodology. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 886 748 115 19 3 REVISED 502 430 58 11 3 2272 U L Memorandum to The Executive Committee December 15, 1988 Page 16 39. Rolling Hills Estates: Approved requested reduction in future need form 208 to 30 units based on limited available sites due to topography, and lack of infrastructure. Denied requested revision in income distribution per State Housing Law. Adjusted 1994 existing vacancy goal per new RHNA Policy. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 208 192 9 4 3 REVISED 30 22 5 0 3 40. West Covina: Approved requested reduction in future need household growth from 1,619 to 941 units based on change in growth forecast methodology. Denied existing need reduction per State Housing Law. Adjusted 1994 existing vacancy goal per new RHNA Policy. 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION TOTAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORIGINAL 1"988 1,619 280 45 43 REVISED 1,150 941 140 26 43 Finally, the CEHD approved the RHNA Subcommittee's recommendation that the 1994 existing vacancy goal changes also be made in those jurisdictions whose revision requests were heard earlier. The resultant approved revisions would be as follows: TOTAL Brea ORIGINAL 1,673 REVISED 1,600 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL GROWTH VAC. VACANCY 1,372 147 43 1,372 74 43 DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT 112 112 2272 u Memorandum to The Executive Committee December 15, 1988 Page 17 TOTAL Fullerton ORIGINAL 1,756 REVISED 1,437 Beverly Hills ORIGINAL 1,157 REVISED 835 Burbank ORIGINAL 3,798 REVISED 2,970 Glendale ORIGINAL 7,108 REVISED 5,601 La Habra Heights ORIGINAL 119 REVISED 110 JC/bam 1989-1994 FUTURE NEED HH EX. ADDITIONAL DEMOLITION GROWTH VAC. VACANCY ADJUSTMENT 1,011 639 33 73 1,011 320 33 73 470 389 18 280 470 195 18 152 2,175 82 74 1,467 2,175 41 74 680 4,048 977 152 1,932 4,048 489 152 912 93 19 2 5 93 10 2 5 2272 JU ow 031,116630 tm 0i (_ IG R110CIRT1.......... Commonwealth Avenue •fulte 1000 • Lot Angeles• California • 90005.213/385-1000 June 30, 1988 Dear City/County Official: Enclosed is a copy of the 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) that SCAG prepared under state mandate. Since the last housing document (the RHAM) was issued, the population figures projected for the region have increased greatly. The employment rate is also growing faster than expected. To meet the state's deadline for RHNA adoption, SCAG's Executive Committee adopted the RHNA at its June 30 meeting. For 90 days thereafter, jurisdictions can appeal their RHNA allocations to SCAG. Under some circumstances, modification may be made directly in the housing element submitted to the state Housing and Community Development Department for review. The housing quantities given in the final RHNA, existing need and future need, are for use in the local Housing Elements of General Plans, which will be done by each jurisdiction over the next year. (Existing Need is the number of very -low-income and low-income households paying more than 30% of income for housing. Future Need is the number of housing units that would have to be added for each income level from July 1989 to July 1994 to house the added population, have a desirable vacancy rate, and compensate for expected demolitions.) The allocation of housing for most jurisdictions will be higher than that in the RHAM, which was based on a lower population forecast. A series of workshops will be held t the RHNA in their Housing Element to Jim Minuto or Joe Carreras of the Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, w Don R. Griffin President & Councilmember City of Buena Park DRG:JM:kkm Encl: o assist local planning staffs in using work. Any questions should be directed SCAG Housing Staff. ! RfCE'AS�• P13n�ir�C � JUG p 81988 z,. �J () REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA � � w w 0 0 JUNE 190 I�I�J1�� 7=I7 nommmoFommmlw lomim��u 1988 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSENMENT FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JUNE 1988 Prepared Pursuant to Housing Law of The State of California DECEIVED FlanniM,, 9 nor ' nt JULO 61988 MEWPOM 0EACH. CALIF. Y EXECUTIVE COMMITTER DON GRIFFIN, President Councilmember, City of Buena Park MIRE ANTONOVICH, First Vice President Supervisor, County of Los Angeles CHRISTINE REED, Second Vice President Councilmember, Second Vice President City of Santa Monica Delegates THOMAS BRADLRY, Mayor, City of Los Angeles RAY CENICEROS, Supervisor, County of Riverside JACK CLARKE, Councilmember, City of Riverside DEANE DANA, Supervisor, County of Los Angeles ROBERT FARRELL, Councilmember, City of Los Angeles JOHN FLYNN, Supervisor, County of Ventura TIN JOHNSON, Councilmember, City of Redlands JOHN MELTON, Councilmember, City of Santa Paula JON MIKELS, Supervisor, County of San Bernardino GLORIA MOLINA, Councilmember, City of Los Angeles Q.J. SANTOS, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Brawley PEGGY SARTOR, Councilmember, City of Victorville ABE SEABOLT, Supervisor, County of Imperial CLARENCE SMITH, Councilmember, City of Long Beach ROBERT VAGNER, Councilmember, City of Lakewood HARRIETT VIEDER, Supervisor, County of Orange DORRILL 'WRIGHT, Councilmember, City of Port Hueneme Alternates RICHARD ALATORRE, Councilmember, City of Los Angeles JACKI BACBARACH, Councilmember, City of Rancho Palos Verdes EVAN BRAUDE, Councilmember, City of Long Beach ELMER DIGNEO, Mayor, City of Loma Linda JAMBS DOUGHKRTY, Supervisor, County of Ventura MELBA DUNLAP, Supervisor, County of Riverside EDMUND EDELMAN, Supervisor, County of Los Angeles BOB GENTRY, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Laguna Beach WILLIAM GIBSON, Vice Mayor, City of Desert Hot Springs NORMA HICKS, Mayor, City of Brea FRANK McDEVITT, Mayor, City of Ojai JUDY NIEBURGER, Councilmember, City of Moreno Valley JOY PICUS, Councilmember, City of Los Angeles RON RODRIGUEZ, Councilmember, City of Vestmoreland PETER SCHABARUM, Supervisor, County of Los Angeles ARCHIE SNOW, Councilmember, City of Redondo Beach GADDI VASQUEZ, Supervisor, County of Orange JEANIE VOGEL, Supervisor, County of Imperial LARRY WALKER, Supervisor, County of San Bernardino MICHAEL WOO, Councilmember, City of Los Angeles COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC A HUMAN DEVELOPMENT'COMMIITEE Members ARCHIE SNOW, Councilmember, City of Redondo Beach (Chairperson) DOROTHY WEDEL, Councilmember, City of La Habra (Vice -chairperson) BETTY J. AINSWORTH, Mayor, City of Hawthorne MIKE G. BRASSARD, Mayor, City of Bellflower* DOUGLAS J. BYSTRY, Councilmember, City of La Habra TERRY CALDWELL, Mayor, City of Victorville ROBERT CUNNINGHAM, Councilmember, City of Bell Gardens DAVID FILL, Councilmember, City of Santa Monica SCOTT GARRETT, Councilmember, City of Hemet E.J. GAULDING, Councilmember, City of Pomona ARNOLD M. GLASMAN, Mayor, City of Montebello T. MILFORD HARRISON, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Loma Linda JOHN HEILMAN, Councilmember, City of West Hollywood HERB KATZ, Mayor Pro Temp City of Santa Monica SUSAN K. LACEY, Supervisor, County of Ventura AL LOPEZ, Councilmember, City of Corona MARCIA MARTIN, Councilmember, City of Redondo Beach NELL MIRBLS, Councilmember, City of Rolling Hills Estates GLORIA MOLINA, Councilmember, City of Los Angeles GRACE NAPOLITANO, Councilmember, City of Norwalk BILL E. POPE, Councilmember, City of Barstow LARRY L. RHINEHART, Mayor, City of Montclair DANIEL K. TABOR, Councilmember, City of Inglewood RAO TAKASUGI, Mayor, City of Oxnard ROBERT G. VAGNER, Councilmember, City of Lakewood EVLYN WILCOX, Mayor, City of San Bernardino KAY WILSON, Councilmember, City of Santa Paula MICHAEL COLTON, L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce (Representing Regional Advisory Council) Alternates WARNER McGUYRE, City of Hawthorne CAROL MORMAM, City of Hawthorne* DIANA BLAISURE, City of Huntington Beach KBNYON WRBSTER, City of Santa Monica NEU SOTO, Councilmember, City of Pomona PATI LONGO, County of Ventura CHRISTINE YEE HOLLIS, City of Los Angeles * former member REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUBCOMMITTEE Members ROBERT WAGNER, Councilmember, City of Lakewood (Chairperson) WILLIAM C. BAER, Ph.D., University of Southern California HOWARD BRICKER, Los Angeles Area Office, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development JOHN BRILMAN, Councilmember, City of West Hollywood JONATHAN LBHRER-GRAIWBR, Western Center on Law and Poverty AL LOPEZ, Councilmember, City of Corona FRANK McDEVITT, Mayor, City of Ojai JON MIKELS, Supervisor, County of San Bernardino GLORIA MOLINA, Councilmember, City of Los Angeles SYLVIA L. MUISE, Councilmember, City of Carson Alternates CHRISTINE Y. HOLLIS, City of Los Angeles RON MATYAS, County of San Bernardino IRUO NAKANO, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development STAFF • MARK A. PISANO, Executive Director LOUIS F. MORET, Chief Operating Officer r ARNOLD SHERWOOD, Director, Community and Economic Development Department Project Staff �� JIM MINUTO, Housing Program and Project Manager JOE CARRERAS, Senior Planner With Assistance of VIVIANE DOCHE-BOULOS, Senior Planner and Acting Manager, Growth Management Program GORDON PALMER, Manager, Economic Development and Planning JOHN OSHIMO, Senior Planner JIM JACOB, Senior Systems Analyst THOMAS DOUGLAS, Manager, Small Area Forecasting SRINIVASA BRAT, Associate Planner Consultants SYLVIA RUIZ, Tierra Concepts COLIN LENNARD, SCAG General Counsel Secretarial Coordination RAY MURARAMI, Administrative Secretary BETTY MANN, Administrative Secretary 1988 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. i. FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 II. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-i III. EXISTING NEED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 IV. FUTURE NEED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1 V. APPENDICES A. APPEALS PROCEDURES FOR JURISDICTIONS AND GROUNDS FOR APPEAL A-1 B. METHODOLOGY USED IN NEEDS IDENTIFICATION . . . . . B-1 C. LEGAL ISSUES DEALT WITH IN DEVISING METHODOLOGY . . C-1 D. ADVISORY ON HOMELESSNESS (NON -BINDING) . . . . . . D-1 LIST OF TABLES PAGE NO. TABLE 1: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT: EXISTING NEED III-3 (LOS ANGELES COUNTY) TABLE 2: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT: EXISTING NEED III-5 (ORANGE COUNTY) TABLE 3: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT: EXISTING NEED III-6 (RIVERSIDE COUNTY) TABLE 4: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT: EXISTING NEED III-7 (SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY) TABLE 5: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT: EXISTING NEED III-8 (VENTURA-COUNTY) TABLE 6: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT: EXISTING NEED III-9 (IMPERIAL COUNTY) TABLE 7: FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS BY INCOME CATEGORY IV-2 (LOS ANGELES COUNTY) TABLE 8: FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS BY INCOME CATEGORY IV-4 (ORANGE COUNTY) TABLE 9: FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS BY INCOME CATEGORY IV-5 (RIVERSIDE COUNTY) TABLE 10: FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS BY INCOME CATEGORY IV-6 (SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY) TABLE 11: FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS BY INCOME CATEGORY IV-7 (VENTURA COUNTY) TABLE 12: FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS BY INCOME CATEGORY IV-8 (IMPERIAL COUNTY) TABLE 13: FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS BY INCOME CATEGORY IV-9 (COUNTY SUMMARY) TABLE 14: RHNA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS (LOS ANGELES COUNTY) IV-10' TABLE 15. RHNA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS (ORANGE COUNTY) IV-12 TABLE 16: RHNA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS (RIVERSIDE COUNTY) IV-13 TABLE 17: RHNA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS (SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY) IV-14 TABLE 18: RHNA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS (VENTURA COUNTY) IV-15 TABLE 19: RHNA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS (IMPERIAL COUNTY) IV-16 TABLE 20: RHNA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS (COUNTY SUMMARY) IV-17 TABLE 21: RENA FUTURE NEEDS TOTALS FOR 1/88-6/89 "GAP" PERIOD IV-18 TABLE 22: RENA HOUSING GROWTH (LOS ANGELES COUNTY) B-4 TABLE 23: RENA HOUSING GROWTH (ORANGE COUNTY) B-6 TABLE 24: RHNA HOUSING GROWTH (RIVERSIDE COUNTY) B-7 TABLE 25: RHNA HOUSING GROWTH (SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY) B-8 TABLE 26: RHNA HOUSING GROWTH (VENTURA COUNTY) B-9 TABLE 27: RENA HOUSING GROWTH (IMPERIAL COUNTY) B-10 TABLE 28: RHNA HOUSING GROWTH (COUNTY SUMMARY) B-11 TABLE 29: RHNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT (LOS ANGELES COUNTY) B-12 TABLE 30: RHNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT (ORANGE COUNTY) B-14 TABLE 31: RHNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT (RIVERSIDE COUNTY) B-15 TABLE 32: RHNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT (SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY) B-16 TABLE 33: RHNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT (VENTURA COUNTY) B-17 TABLE 34: RHNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT (IMPERIAL COUNTY) B-18 TABLE 35: RHNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT (COUNTY SUMMARY) B-19 TABLE 36: RBNA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT (LOS ANGELES COUNTY) B-20 TABLE 37: WA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT (ORANGE COUNTY) B-22 TABLE 38: RBNA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT (RIVERSIDE COUNTY) B-23 TABLE 39: RHNA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT (SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY) B-24 TABLE 40: ERNA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT (VENTURA COUNTY) B-25 TABLE 41: RBNA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT (IMPERIAL COUNTY) B-26 TABLE 42: RBNA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT (COUNTY SUMMARY) B-27 1988 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT The SCAG Region (Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange and Imperial counties) is one of the most rapidly growing areas in the United States -- over 13 million people live here now and an additional five million will come into the Region by the year 2010, raising the area population to over 18 million. Planning for such growth is the chief objective of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Consequently, the agency periodically develops a regional Growth Management Plan (GMP). The most recent GMP forecasts growth for the region to the year 2010 and identifies the areas where new jobs and'new development are expected to occur. Three other major plans developed by SCAG are the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (ERNA) Regional Mobility Plan (RMP) and the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Because housing, mobility and air quality are directly affected by growth patterns, these plans are related to the GMP. And, because each of these has some affect on the others, the four plans -- the GMP, the RHNA, the Regional Mobility Plan (RMP), and the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) -- are linked to each other. One result to be noted, is that a regional policy implemented in one of the plans may influence the distribution of growth in all the other plans. ' For example, the GMP clearly states that improved job/housing balance (a small shift of new jobs to housing -rich areas and of new housing to job -rich areas) would help to avert further congestion. In doing so, it would also help to improve air quality in the region. Based on the GMP, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is the tool which local jurisdictions use to determine their housing needs. Accordingly, it ensures that there is enough housing to accommodate the people expected to be in the region. California Housing Law requires that SCAG identify Existing and Future Housing Needs every five years. The most recent (1988) ERNA identifies each jurisdiction's Existing Housing Need (as of January 1, 1988) and Future Housing Need to July 1, 1994. It should be noted that by state law, SCAG cannot consider certain types of growth control measures when developing the ERNA. In addition, a State Attorney General's opinion has indicated that certain types of zoning and other land use restrictions may not be considered. The methodology used in the RHNA involved the resolution of many technical and policy questions. A housing allocation Subcommittee of the CEHD guided this process over several months and with a great deal of discussion of alternative approaches. in general, the methodology used in the previous RHAM was continued, but new circumstances compelled new approaches in several areas. The basis for much of the data, the 1980 census, was now eight. years old rather than three years old. This fact resulted for i instance, in a new approach to vacancy need determination. The new legal questions presented by changes in the law and the recent State Attorney Generals Opinion resulted in new decisions on the question of the extent to which RBNA could consider local growth management, zoning and ether land use practices. Finally, we learned from the last round and decided to make the application of income level distribution formulae adjustments uniform among all jurisdictions in the region. Once the RBNA is approved, each city and county (unincorporated area) must either use the numbers presented in it to identify its individual housing needs, or provide justification based on their circumstances for modifying such numbers. Those needs are then reflected in the revised Housing Element of each jurisdictions General Plan and provided to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (BCD) by July 1, 1989. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is one of four plans being issued by SCAG, which together create a management system for dealing with growth in the region. The Growth Management Plan (GMP) is the overall framework for defining the future of the region. It identifies the degree of growth expected and the patterns of land use, job development, and population that will result by 2010. The RHNA, using the GMP as a basis, determines the housing need that local jurisdictions will plan for in the Housing Elements of their General Plans. Current housing need and future housing need to July 1, 1994 are included in the RHNA. The other two plans - the Regional Mobility Plan and the Air Quality Management Plan - deal with the problems of transportation and air quality within this same GMP context. The Mobility Plan bases its recommendations for transportation policy upon the forecast presented in the GMP, while the GMP is reflective of transportation concerns in its incorporation of Job/Housing Balance policy. Job/Housing Balance policy in the GMP is translated into adjustments to the population and job location forecasts that reduce future commuting needs by making it possible for more people to live closer to their jobs. This not only assists in reaching a goal of avoiding further traffic congestion, but also results in advancing air quality goals. Finally, the AQMP will contain transportation control measures that will be incorporated in the Mobility Plan. This interdependence of the four plans forwards the goals contained in each of them. The RHNA makes possible meaningful local planning for the provision of housing adequate to meet regional housing needs. In so doing, it also acts as an implementing tool of the GMP. It brings the GMP forecasts a large step closer to reality, thereby bringing Job/Housing Balance, clean air, and better transportation that much closer as well. The RHNA is presented with this interdependence of plans in mind. It is not merely a plan required by law, but an integral part of a comprehensive approach to growth management in this region. The State Housing Law requires SCAG to identify both Existing and Future Housing Needs every 5 years. The 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment identifies each jurisdictions Existing Housing Need, as of January 1, 1988, and Future Housing Need for the July 19 1989 to July 11 1994 period. SCAG is doing this in compliance with the mandate of the State Housing Law. Each city and each county (unincorporated area) will then use these regional need numbers, identified for it in the RHNA, as a basis for the identification of housing needs in the 1989 Housing Element of its General Plan. EXISTING NEED: Existing Need in the 1988 RENA is defined as the number of lower income households paying more than 30X of their income for housing. This is the same definition used in the 1983 RHAM. The data base in the 1988 RHNA is also the same - the 1980 Census. I-1 FUTURE NEED: Future Need in the 1988 Assessment is also dealt with in a way similar to the current RMAM. It is defined as the number of units that would have to be added in each jurisdiction to accommodate the forecasted growth in the number of households by July 1, 1994, as well as the number of units that would have to be added to compensate for anticipated demolitions and changes to achieve an "ideal" vacancy rate. INCOME LBVELS: The Future Need additional units are then further broken down by the income levels of the households that they would be supplied for. the four household income categories used are defined by state law. They are "very low" (less than 50% of median), "low" (50% to 00% of median), "middle" (80% to 120% of median), and "upper" (more than 120% of median). The state housing law requires that in allocating this percentage distribution by income level for each city, further "impaction", or concentration of lower income households, be avoided• This means that the percentage distribution of very low and low income households accommodated by additional units should be less than the existing percentage of such lower income households in jurisdictions that already exceed the regional average percentage of such households. These jurisdictions with higher than average concentrations of lower income households are called "impacted" jurisdictions. The State Housing :lament Law calls for each jurisdiction to continue to house the total number of households in each income group which it has on the beginning date of the plan, plus the households, by income group allocated to it as Future Needs. The intent of the Future Needs Allocations by income group is to relieve lower income impaction. This will not occur unless local governments continue to provide housing opportunities for their existing lower income households as well as the additional opportunities called for in the Future Need Assessments. METHOD AND POLICY DECISIONS The Method and Policy decisions and assumptions used in the RENA were arrived at by the regional housing allocation Subcommittee of the Community Economic and Human Development (CBHD) Committee,. A complete record of those decisions is contained in the minutes of the meetings of the Subcommittee as well as in the actions of the CM and Executive Committee on issues that were forwarded to them. The REM Subcommittee has met monthly since April, 1981. IMPACTION: The 1988 RHNA deals with the "avoidance of impaction" issue by allocating reduced percentages of lower income and increased percentages of middle and I-2 _J upper income units to impacted jurisdictions, while doing the reverse for non -impacted jurisdictions. All jurisdictions are given Future Need lower income percentages 25% closer to the regional average percentage than the percentage now existing in each jurisdiction. (For example, if 40% of households in the region were lower income and 50% of the households in impacted jurisdiction "%" were lower income, the Future Need additional units would be 47.5% lower income. Likewise, a non -impacted jurisdiction "Y" with 30% of its households now lower income, would be allocated a 32.5% lower income proportion for its additional units.) In addition to this 1125%11 "avoidance of impaction" adjustment, the RHNA makes an additional adjustment for substantially impacted jurisdictions exceeding the regional average by more than 10% in 1994, even after the 1125X" adjustment. For these jurisdictions, the proportion of lower income future units is further reduced to a level, which if maintained for twenty years, would result in no jurisdiction exceeding the regional average by more than 10%, unless such an adjustment would mean its Future Need lower income proportion would be less than two-thirds of its current proportion. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: The state housing law, in addition to the requirements mentioned above, also requires the RHNA to meet several criteria in arriving at total Future Need for each jurisdiction. Many of these criteria are met in the course of SCAG's work on forecasting future population, housing, and household totals. Five years ago, the basis of the Regional Housing Allocation Model was the SCAG-82 Development Guide. This time, SCAG has no recently adopted forecast. In addition, the state requirements have become more explicit in terms of the. extent to which the RHNA may or may not take into account local "growth control", zoning, and other practices. In response to these new circumstances, it was decided that the RHNA would have to use the latest available growth figures consistent with the special constraints it faces. These special constraints have been imposed by state law with regard to "growth control", and by a recent State Attorney General's Opinion with regard to local zoning and other practices. The evolving Growth Management Plan (GMP) faces no such constraints. In addition, the RHNA must take into account two criteria which the GMP work is taking into account, but which the Baseline work which preceded it did not: commuting patterns and access to employment. The GMP work on job/hlls both basedoupongthealance D aft GMPentially adjustedfforiconstraintsiunder stateslaw. RHNA is. LEGAL ISSUES: In terms of "growth control", it is plain from the legislation that the RHNA may not take into account, in arriving at its estimate of a city's 1994 total number of households, any local measure which limits the number of housing units. From the Attorney General's Opinion, it was likewise decided that any adjustment made to Baseline in the GMP forecast work based on zoning only, would have to be "backed out" to be consistent with state law. The RHNA actually used estimates from the GMP of forecasted 1994 total households by jurisdiction. These forecasts were arrived at in the I-3 GNP work by evaluating past growth in each area and forecasted growth to 2010. USE OF REGIONAL NUMBERS IN LOCAL HOUSING ELEMENTS The final issue for cities will be the purpose to which their RHNA numbers are to be put. In the past, there has been a great deal of miscommunication and misunderstanding of the true significance of these numbers. They are NOT quotas for development which cities must reach by 1994. Rather, they are an identification of regional housing need and an allocation of it by jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction's allocation is to be used by it in the Housing Element of its General Plan. Ordinances and measures pursuant to the objectives of the General Plan must then be consistent with it. When a jurisdiction finds in its Housing Element that the allocation is not achievable by 1994 for certain reasons explicit in the State Housing Law, it may modify these numbers in accordance with state law. If, on the other hand, a jurisdiction finds its allocation not supported by other factors, it should avail itself of the Appeals Process to be conducted by SLAG after July 1, 1988. Most such appeals would be based not on the jurisdiction's ability to meet numerical goals, but rather upon some objective flaw in the allocation itself. I-4 II. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEV The State Housing Element Law requires SLAG to identify regional housing need every five years. The 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) fulfills this requirement in 1988. The 1983 Regional Housing Allocation Model (RHAM) fulfilled the requirement in 1983. IDENTIFICATION OF HOUSING NEED: This identified need has two components: Existing Need and Future Need. Both Existing Need and Future Need are identified on a regional level, and then allocated to the cities and county unincorporated areas according to certain criteria prescribed in the law, as well as pursuant to policy decisions made by the Council of Governments mandated to identify regional housing need. Existing Need, in both the 1988 RHNA and the 1983 RHAM was defined by SCAG in terms of overpayment by lower income households in each jurisdiction. Those households with less than 80% of the county median income paying more than 30% of their income for housing were deemed to be overpaying. This information was obtained from 1980 Census data for each city and applied directly to current household totals. Future Need identification involves a more complex set of criteria, factors and policy decisions. First of all, the state housing element law requires taking the following six criteria into account when determining the distribution of regional housing needs to jurisdictions: 1. Market Demand for Housing 2. Employment Opportunities 3. Availability of Suitable Sites and Public Facilities 4. Commuting Patterns 5. Type and Tenure of Housing Need 6. Housing needs of Farmworkers In addition, jurisdictions the distribution must with relatively high pr seek to avoid further "impaction" of oportions of lower income households. MEETING THE CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING NEED: SCAG's Growth Management account in arriving at totals for each area. Th in arriving at these f housing law is explicit i of "growth control" meas issued recently advises practices without looking words, "growth control", forecast may take into there are reasons to d consistently with state la Plan (GMP) work takes these six criteria into its forecast of future household and housing unit ere are certain factors that the GMP may consider orecast levels that the RENA may not. The state n barring the RHNA from considering certain kinds ures. In addition, an Attorney General's Opinion against considering zoning and other local beyond them to the six criteria above. In other zoning, and other local practices, which the GMP account, may not be considered by the RHNA unless o so independently of the measures themselves and w. The reason for this becomes apparent when one considers the use to which local jurisdictions will put the RHNA identified needs numbers. Before discussing this in mote detail, however, it is first necessary to complete our description of the RBNA and its purpose. The GNP forecast therefore serves as the basis for identifying the Future Need in each locality and as means by which SCAG takes the six criteria above into account. Market Demand for Housing is an outgrowth of the growth forecast which, based on the economic and demographic forces analyzed in the Baseline studies, determined the levels of future population, housing unit, household, and job growth by location. Employment Opportunities and Commuting Patterns find their realization in the Job/Housing Balance work that leads from the Baseline projections to the GNP forecast levels. This analysis was part of an interactive process carried out between those at SCAG responsible for growth forecasting and the Transportation Planning Progrem, which analysed the Baseline results in terms of resultant traffic levels and congestion. Policy options were then identified by the GNP staff aimed at dealing with the resultant congestion and mitigating its effects by channeling growth into more efficient patterns that minimized home to work travel. This adjustment, in turn, led to both the GNP forecast and to the basis for Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) planning, by minimizing sources of on -road mobile pollution through less congestion. Availability of Suitable Sites and Public Facilities were taken into account in the GNP work through the disaggregation of total regional growth to subregions and ultimately to cities. Type and Tenure of Housing Need was analyzed as part of the GNP effort by observing recent building type mixes and separately determining tenure through an analysis of the future age structure of heads of household in the region and the propensity at each age to either own or rent. Both results - building type and tenure preference - were then matched and analyzed in light of the current building type stock and and how it is held (tenure). The GNP effort then turned to the task of disaggregation by matching past local growth trends with unit mix and land availability data in order to arrive at local future forecast levels. Pinally, the estimation of Parmvorker Needs results from the economic forecasts for agricultural jobs, which are part of the overall job forecasts done for the GNP. This, then, is how the RHMA, the GMP, the Regional Mobility Plan, and the AQMP are linked together in their inception. They are also linked together in their purposes and in terms of being different parts of the same vision of the future. LINKAGE AMONG THE GMP, RHNA, AQMP, AND MOBILITY PLANS The GMP 'is the overall framework for defining the future of the region. It essentially paints a picture of that future by identifying land use patterns, population levels, housing and household growth, and job II-2 development locations. The Regional Mobility Plan then identifies how mobility is to be maintained, congestion mitigated, and air quality enhanced in this future region through the policies and actions it contains. The AOMP develops and, in turn, incorporates the transportation control measures in the Mobility Plan aimed at reducing emissions from motor vehicles. Finally, the RHNA determines the housing growth that local jurisdictions will plan for in the Housing Elements of their General Plans. While the Regional Mobility Plan will lead to an implementation of transportation and air quality policies and measures through the transportation planning processes established at the state and national levels, the RHNA will lead to an implementation of residential development patterns consistent with the needs it identifies through the local General Plans. How this works is dealt with in greater detail below. Generally, the needs identified in the RHNA, as modified by local jurisdictions in ways permitted by' the state Housing Law, will find their way into the Housing Elements of the local General Plans. Local zoning, subdivision, and other regulation will conform to local General Plans, thereby implementing the RENA and, indirectly, the housing component of the GMP. IDENTIFYING NEED: Existing Need, as noted above, identifies the number of lower income - households in each jurisdiction that are currently overpaying for housing. Future Need identifies the number of housing units that will have to be added to each jurisdiction's housing stock from July 1, 1989 to June 30, 1994, in order to accommodate household growth during that period, compensate for any demolitions carried out, and achieve a 1994 vacancy rate that will allow the market to operate efficiently. In addition, the additional units called for in Future Need must be broken down by the income level of the households they are meant to house. There are four household income level catagories defined in state law. They are "Very Low" (less than 50% of the median), "Low" (50%-80% of the median), "Middle" (80%-120% of the median), and "Upper" (more than 120% of median). Future Need is identified for all four of these income groups. In economic terms, Future Need therefore identifies both effective and latent demand for housing in each jurisdiction. Identification of Future Need for the higher income levels gives each jurisdiction an estimate of effective demand, or how much demand for housing there will be in their locality as a function of market forces. Future Need at lower income levels is often largely latent demand, since such income levels, without subsidy or other assistance, are often ineffective in causing housing to be supplied. The starting point for determining the income level distribution of Future Need within each jurisdiction is each jurisdiction's current household income distribution. For both the RHNA and the RHAM before it, the 1980 Census was the source of the data used in determining this. If the existing income distribution in each locality were allowed to determine its Future Need income distribution, no change would ever occur. Such a determination would run counter to the requirement in state law to seek to avoid "impaction" in jurisdictions with higher than average concentrations of lower income (i.e., Very Low and Low income) households. The way in II-3 which and the extent to which SCAG seeks to avoid "impaction" in the RHNA is a policy rather than technical decision. In order to make such decisions and deal with the interaction between policy and technical/legal requirements, a REAM Subcommittee to the Community Economic and Human Development (CRED) Committee vas established. METHOD AND POLICY DECISIONS: The Subcommittee, after extensive discussion of impaction avoidance methods used in the 1983 REAM and various other alternative approaches, decided that the RENA would follow a course similar to that used in the 1983 RHAM, but different in that its approach to impacted jurisdictions would be more uniform. In 1983, the REAM first adjusted each jurisdiction's percentage of Future Need lower income units in a way that would bring the percentage of such future additional units 25% closer to the regional average. The regional average percentage of lower income households was, and still is, 40.2X. If a locality was below this proportion, its percentage of Future Need units was increased 25X of the way toward 40.2%. If it was above this proportion, it was decreased 25X of the way. (For example, a "non -impacted locality with 30X lover income households currently would have a Future Need that was 32.5X lower income, while an "impacted" locality with 50X lover income households currently would have a Future Need that was 47.5% lower income). After making this "25X of the way" adjustment in 1983, the Review Process revealed that most jurisdictions were satisfied with it, except for some that were "impacted" and slow growing. The adjustment would not get some of them to levels near the regional average for all households (existing and future) for centuries, and more was called for. The proportion of lover income households in these few localities vas then further adjusted in a way that would result in their income mix of households being identical to the regional average within 100 years. This 0100 Year" adjustment was possible because it was not applied to all impacted localities and it involved no further adjustments to other communities. The Subcommittee knew it faced these same issues in the 1988 RONA and determined to reach an impaction avoidance policy decision that was both fair and uniform in its application. It decided to first make the same 025% of the way" adjustment made in the 1983 RHAM. It then decided to make a further adjustment for highly impacted jurisdictions - those that were more than 1OX above the regional proportion of lower income households. This adjustment guarantees that there will be many fewer such highly impacted jurisdictions in 20 years. The number of years to reach this goal was determined by subtracting lover income Future Need from the highly Impacted jurisdictions at a rate that would still allow the RENA to meet overall regional goal totals established by the state. Other policy decisions involved the conditions under and the extent to which the RONA would have to diverge from its GNP base in order to comply with the more stringent legal requirements relating to growth control, zoning, and other local practices. Here it was decided that the RENA would indeed be based on the GNP, since the GNP made compliance with the six II-4 criteria in the Housing Law possible. Any differences with the GMP resulting from the GMP properly taking into account factors that the RHNA could not would be dealt with by "backing out" such considerations from GMP levels to the extent that they made a difference. There were also other policy and method decisions made by the Subcommittee on a variety of issues. For instance, the demolition adjustment method was to be based on the assumption that the average number of units demolished per year between 1989 and 1994 would be the same as the three year average in the 1984-86 period for each jurisdiction. Vacancy adjustments were to be based upon the goal of achieving a 2% vacancy rate for single unit structures and a 5% rate for multi unit structures by mid-1994. In localities where the vacancy adjustment would have been negative and the State DOF estimated 10% or more of the housing stock was unoccupied, existing vacancy need was set at zero. These jurisdictions are designated with the letter "V""in Tables 29 through 34. It was assumed that they were vacation home locations. These adjustments add considerably to the housing need attributable to growth. This is due to the large stock of housing already in place and the very low current vacancy rates, respectively. These and other decisions are discussed more fully in the following chapters. USE OF RHNA NUMBERS BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: As was mentioned above, each local jurisdiction will use the Needs identified in the RHNA in the Housing Element of its General Plan. In some cases, the locality will choose to use the quantities identified directly and without modification.. In other cases, a locality may choose to avail itself of the options it has under the state Housing Law, and use the RHNA quantities as a "starting point" for its Housing Element work. This latter course can be followed if the city can demonstrate to the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), who reviews all Housing Elements, that, for certain permissible reasons, such quantities are not reasonably attainable by mid-1994 in that jurisdiction. These reasons include the inability of a city to be able to reach such goals. Once the locality has identified its housing need, either by using the RHNA quantities directly or by modifying them, the other elements of the General Plan, and the local ordinances implementing it will logically follow. This final step brings us to the issue of "circularity", which underlies the legal issues that have been presented in the RHNA process. LEGAL ISSUES: While the foregoing has already dealt with several legal issues, one major concern remains to be explained. That is the issue of "circularity" alluded to in the Attorney General's Opinion and obvious to all those who have dealt with RHNA issues. Quite simply, if the regional growth forecast were to take only local zoning and other measures into account without looking beyond them to the six criteria and to other objective factors, it would merely reflect such local zoning and other measures. The RHNA, without looking beyond them would also, in turn, merely reflect them in its Future Need identification to local jurisdictions. The localities would II-5 then be starting with a regional housing need number that did nothing more than ratify its existing zoning and other practices. Finally, the new ordinances implementing such a General Pion would not change existing ordinances in order to accommodate actual need, but merely to accommodate the need that the existing ordinances and practices were meant to meet. In other words, nothing would change in response to changing needs, becuase the entire process would be a closed loop. It was in order to avoid such "circularity", the RHNA was hold to more stringent standards. The RONA therefore door look at growth control and other local measures, as is explained in the discussion above on meeting the criteria for identifying need, in a way consistent with these legal requirements. THE MA APPEALS AND REVIEW PROCESS: Appendix A outlines the Appeals Process for Jurisdictions and the grounds for Appeal. The State Housing Law provides for a 90 day Appeals Period And 30-day Review Period. Local Jurisdictions will have the opportunity to appeal their RNA Needs identifications to SCAG during a 90 day period beginning on July 1, 1988. The grounds for such appeals should not be confused with those grounds upon which a locality may modify its numbers with HCD approval. Rather, these grounds for appeal deal mainly with either errors by SCAG, distribution of regional shares to the local level, or other problems not related to the city's ability to fulfill any particular need through its own resources. Issues brought ,to SCAG during the 90 da 1988 may also include mistakes of fact distribution of regional shares of growth. areas designated in Tables 29 through 34 have their existing vacancy need adjusted II-6 y Appeals Period beginning July 1, made in the RHNA or errors in the For instance, non -vacation home as vacation home areas may seek to from "O" to a negative value. III. EXISTING NEED The Regional Housing Needs Assessment identifies Existing Need in each jurisdiction in terms of overpayment by lower income households. Over- payment is defined as rent or house payments that exceed 30% of income. Lower income households are those within each jurisdiction that have incomes of less than 80% of the county's median household income. 6f.-n 1v ? The RHNA also identifies additional units needed to raise current vacancy rates in each jurisdiction to.levels at which the market would operate more freely. Because its current need affects the need for future housing development, it is included in Chapter IV, "Future Need", rather than here. Not every household that pays a disproportionately high amount of their income toward rent or a house payment is considered in need of housing assistance. A household is defined as in need of assistance only if it meets the following income and payment criteria: 1. Has an annual income of 80% or less of the median income for the standard metropolitan statistical area (usually, the county), and 2. Pays an inordinate share of that income (currently defined as greater than 30%) toward a house payment or rent. Households ,fiat--earn`_-8OX- -or---less.-_of, the median income -for. Ax area area termed "lower -- i'ncome'�.--- .-Amon'g' the -four income classes identified in the RHNA, they constitute the very low income (less than 50% of median) and low income (50-80% of median) categories. The households within these two categories that pay more than 30% of their income toward a shelter payment are the households that have an "existing" need for affordable shelter. This type of existing housing need is broken down by tenure type (owners and renters). The definition of existing need is not all inclusive. It does not count lower income households who do not pay an inordinate amount of their income for shelter, but live in substandard housing, nor does it include households who are homeless or live in overcrowded conditions. Existing household need is narrowly defined to include only lower income households who pay the defined inordinate amount of income toward a house payment or rent. The definition of lower income household and inordinate share of income (more than 3d%) is the same as that used by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This allows for consistency between the State Housing Element existing household needs assessment and the Federal Housing Assistance Plan -- Existing Household Needs Assessment for renter households. The income information used in the based on 1980 census information. available. Thus, the proportion income categories has not changed number of households in each category. existing household need assessment is No update of this information was of households in the very low and low since 1980, {That has changed is the For instance, while the proportion of very low and low income households is assumed to be the same in 1988 as in 1980, the number of households in the category was scaled up based on the amount of household growth that occurred in this time period. Consequently, if a locality experienced a IOX increase in all households, it was assumed that each of the income categories increased by 101. The proportion of lower income households that paid an inordinate share of income for shelter in 1988 was assumed to have stayed the same as it was in 1980. The 1988 number of very low and low income households in need may be adjusted downward by the number of additional households assisted by government subsidy programs since 1980 which reduce shelter payments to no more than 30X of household income (e.g. lower income households saaisted by Section 8 housing assistance payments or Public Housing subsidies). This adjustment would be made by local governments, outside the RONA adoption L process, when the local housing element is developed, on the other hand, the number of very low and low income households in need could be adjusted upward to account for the impact of homeless persons on the jurisdiction (households in need that are not living in an occupied unit). This adjustment would also be made outside of the RHNA adoption t process. As provided in the new state law (AB 1996), the homeless needs assessment could be performed as part of the required "identification of adequate sites for emergency shelters," required in local housing elements, VACANCY The existing need for vacant units is defined as the additional units needed to achieve an ideal vacancy rate of 2% in single-family units and 5% in multifamily units in 1988. The existing need for vacant units increases future housing needs in localities where the rate is below the ideal level ("deficit" in vacant units) and lowers future housing unit needs in communities that have a vacancy rate above the ideal level ("surplus" in vacant units), except in jurisdictions whose vacancy rate, as reported by DO?, exceeds 10%. Vacancy rate information was obtained from the latest Federal Home Loan bank Housing Vacancy Survey (1967). Because the existing need for vacant housing development in the future, this of the future housing used assessment. units affects the level of heeded component of existing need is part I TABLE 1: REGIONAL HOUSING NERDS ASSESSMENT: EXISTING NEED LOS ANGELES COUNTY - LOVER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS PAYING MORE THAN 30% OF INC ONE FOR SMELTER (OVERPAYMENT) 1988 LINKS OVERPAYING FOR SHELTER OWNERS LIHH OWNERS OVERPAYMENT BY OWNERS TENURE AND RENTERS INCOME RENTERS JURISDICTION HOUSEHOLDS LIBHs TOTAL VERY LOW LOW TOTAL VERY LOW LOU TOTAL VERY LOW AGOURA HILLS 6,039 839 546 230 316 342 139 203 203 91 ALHAMBRA 27,841 12,111 6,003 3,920 2,084 821 551 270 5,182 3,36E ARCADIA 18,556 5,066 2,642 1,604 1,038 428 277 151 2,213 1,328 ARTESIA 4,417 1,603 755 526 228 244 189 55 511 337 AVALON 1,082 532 286 191 96 20 12 8 265 179 AZUSA 12,374 5,296 2,419 1,577 842 377 250 127 2,042 1,327 BALDWIN PARE 16,236 6,852 3,501 2,321 1,180 1,221 756 465 2,280 1,565 BELL 8,755 4,745 2,379 1,738 641 181 138 43 2,198 1,600 BELLPLOVER 23,151 9,770 5,167 3,353 1,816 687 472 214 4,460 2,879 BELL GARDENS 9,210 5,452 3,078 2,254 824 320 199 122 2,758 2,055 BEVERLY HILL 15,360 4,762 2,760 1,714 1,046 288 183 105 2,471 1,531 BRADBURY 296 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURBANK 38,558 14,652 7,549 4,814 2,735 1,417 916 502 6,132 3,899 CARSON 23,831 5,886 2,713 1,648 1,065 1,266 710 556 19447 938 CERRITOS 15,233 1,493 884 452 432 600 296 304 284 156 CLAHER our 10,775 2,640 1,311 799 511 345 191 155 964 609 COMHRRCE 3,172 1,450 586 446 140 126 92 34 460 354 COMPTON 23,195 12,131 6,473 4,930 1,544 2,080 1,459 621 4,394 3,470 COVINA 15,710 5,216 2,620 1,692 929 668 414 253 1,951 1,276 CUDRAY 5,357 3,343 1,809 1,298 509 112 '83 29 1,696 1,215 CULVER CITY 16,556 4,702 2,208 1,287 921 349 221 128 1,859 1,067 DOWNY 33,472 11,146 5,893 3,790 2,102 1,264 839 425 4,627 2,951 DUARTE 6,646 2,359 1,041 708 333 413 265 148 629 444 EL MONTH 26,408 13,494 7,366 5,160 2,206 1,093 704 389 6,274 4,457 EL SEGUNDO 6,795 1,753 854 53B 316 100 50 50 754 487 GARDENA 18,200 6,625 3,208 2,058 1,151 468 286 182 2,742 1,772 GLENDALE 64,312 26.432 14,042 8,985 5,056 1,622 1,065 557 12,419 7,920 GLENDORA 15,789 4,010 2,156 1,380 777 786 5DO 286 1,370 880 HAWIIAN GARD 3,343 1,591 828 590 239 155 108 47 673 481 HAWTHORNE 26,713 10,632 5,652 3,496 2,156 453 283 169 5,198 3,213 HERMOSA BE 9,578 2,663 1,265 740 525 159 110 49 1,105 629 HIDDEN HILLS HUNTINGTON P 510 14,477 48 8,788 31 4,471 22 3,432 9 1,038 28 286 19 199 9 88 3 4,184 3 3,234 INDUSTRY INGLEWOOD 84 37,045 31 17,559 19 9,946 12 6,470 8 3,478 2 1,195 1 732 2 463 17 0,751 11 5,737 IRWINDALE FL 238 6,853 92 843 32 362 25 198 7 165 5 268 5 153 0 115 26 95 19 45 LA CANADA LA HABRA HTS 1,624 221 6,322 83 2,985 46 1,869 37 1,117 75 1,248 40 HIS 35 433 8 1,737 5 1,053 LAKEWOOD LA MIRADA 26,340 12,447 2,216 1,236 773 462 619 373 246 616 401 LANCASTER 28,036 9,448 3,807 2,517 1,292 515 1,189 544 760 314 429 230 2,620 1,077 1,757 792 LA PUENTE 8,740 9,890 3,243 2,937 1,620 1,042 1,105 641 400 245 140 105 796 500 LA VERNE LAVNDALE 9,020 3,599 2,023 1,311 712 268 193 75 74 1,754 1,281 19118 819 LOMITA 8,144 3,282 1,461 926 535 180 106 RENTERS LOW 113 1,813 885 173 87 715 715 598 1,601 703 940 0 2,233 509 128 356 106 924 675 481 792 1,676 185 1,817 267 970 4,499 490 192 1,985 476 0 951 6 3,014 7 50 2 684 215 863 285 296 637 461 TABLE 1: B&GIOMAL MOUSING NX= ASSRSSM Wr. EXISTING NERD L.OS ANGALAS COUNTY - CONTINUED 1988 LINO OVERPAYING FOR smTER JURISDICTION ROOSBROLDS LINKS TOTAL WART LAW LOU TANG &HACK 163,432 76,323 39.422 26,355 I3,067 LOS ANCRLIS 1,222,354 559,231 2%3,016 196,470 94,547 LYNWOOD 14,097 6,654 3,557 2,639 919 MNHATTAN ER 14,383 2,603 1.314 770 544 MAYVOOD 6.533 3,482 1,757 1,209 467 MONROVIA 12,822 5.660 2,716 1,323 393 MONTERELLO 18,268 7,2I6 3,729 2,474 1,255 NNONTERRY PK 19,227 6,479 3,239 2,030 1,209 NORWALK 25,827 4.375 4,271 2,620 1,650 PALHDALR 14,443 5,503 2,422 1.637 714 PALOS VERDIS 5,000 350 158 79 80 PARAI(Mf 12,351 5,842 2,810 1,979 932 PASADOY 45,115 21,755 11.221 7,428 3,792 PICO RIVARA 15,K1 5,678 2,694 1,763 920 POMONA 35,836 16,664 8,Ass S,M9 2,796 RANCHO TV 15,002 1,335 6" 348 336 ARDODOO 88 27,303 7,932 4,252 2,345 1,907 BOLLING KILL 6" 46 0 0 0 ROLLING X.E. 2,657 189 98 5a 41 ROSEMEAD 13,6" 6,158 2,940 2,009 931 SAN DAYS 10,230 2,322 912 562 350 SAN FBKMADO 5,671 2,427 1,155 204 351 SAL GAERIAL ll,%I 4,908 2,292 1,496 797 SAN MAKING 4,415 3" 161 93 68 SANTA FK SP 4,432 I,591 203 545 258 SAWA NONICA 45,741 19,531 11,197 7,035 4,152 SIERRA MAORR 4,679 1,450 673 449 223 SIGNAL HILL 3,376 1,K5 723 462 260 SO AL MONTB 4,676 2,301 1,033 7" 297 SOUM CATK 22.071 10,979 4.%7 3,485 1,462 50 PASAD&M► 10,259 3,632 1,901 I,079 721 TERPLI CITY 11,210 3,565 1,544 960 564 TORRAMM 52,023 13.058 6,873 4,150 2,723 VERNON 26 6 0 0 0 WALNUT 6,443 741 5" 254 263 WPST COVINA 29,711 6,566 3.799 2,235 1,564 V HOLLYWOOD MA NA NA NA MA 86 VISTLAKB VIL WHITTIER 2,476 27,118 3A9 9,4" 1" 4,861 61 3,125 1,732 ONINCORP 3K,576 120,608 56,995 39,832 --------- 19,154 ._ _ ___________ TOTAL COWRY ___________ 2,%2,9B3 ______________________ .1.201,442 ----------- 618,528 412.914 205,615 n Y LINK OVERPAYM&NT BY TEN RK AND I)=NNR OWNERS OWNERS OVKJ= BRNTERS RIMTERS BERMS TOTAL VERY LOU L.OV TOTAL VERY LOU LOW 4,2% 2,690 1,606 35,127 23,666 11,461 38,403 24,705 13,696 254,614 173,765 80,949 804 502 302 2,752 2,I37 615 381 250 131 933 520 413 216 119 97 1.540 I,I71 370 412 282 130 2,3G4 1,541 763 691 426 264 3,039 2,049 "1 682 406 274 2,5% 1,622 934 1,366 909 557 2,904 1,912 1,092 664 419 245 1,758 1,219 540 93 52 41 65 26 39 402 242 160 2,406 1,636 772 1,723 1,070 653 9,499 6,360 3,140 1,098 728 370 1,595 1,035 550 2,224 1,382 843 6,461 4,506 1,954 352 197 165 331 161 170 591 343 248 3,"0 2,002 1.658 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 47 29 23 11 11 698 "1 237 2,241 1,549 695 356 221 135 556 342 214 318 209 109 837 595 242 49R 339 15R 1,795 1,I56 638 147 81 65 13 11 2 251 150 101 552 395 158 492 333 149 10,705 6,703 4,002 124 25 39 549 364 185 67 42 25 657 420 237 230 136 94 803 610 193 %6 646 321 3.992 2,840 1,142 247 153 94 1,555 927 628 501 330 171 1,043 649 394 1,273 812 461 5,601 3,339 2,263 0 0 0 0 0 0 362 133 179 187 101 86 1,243 743 500 2,557 1,493 1,064 NA NA NA NA NA NA 93 44 49 54 17 37 1,004 648 357 3,857 2,481 1,375 15.900 10,129 5,770 43,004 ___________ 29.702 ___________ 13,382 _.......... 103,792 ... 66,012 _------- ___________ 37,779 514,740 346,90b 167,834 h TABLE 2: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT - EXISTING NERO ORANGE COUNTY - LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS PAYING MORE THAN 30% OF INCOME FOR SHELTER (OVUPAYNRNT) JURISDICTION ANAHEIM BREA BBRNA PARE COSTA MRSA CYPRESS FOUNTAIN VALLEY FULLERTON GARDW GROVE HUNTINGTOM We IRVINR LACUNA BEACH LA HARM LA PALMA LOS ALANtTO9 ��.--�NRVPORT�ICBI ORANGE '-' PLACENTIA SAN CLRJ=TE SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO SANTA AMA SEAL BRACE STANTON TUSTIN VILLA PARK YESTMINSTER YON" LIMOA ININCORP. AMU TOTAL COUNTY LIHHs OVERPAYMENT BY TWURR AND INCOME TOTAL LIHHs OVERPAYING FOR SHELTER OVNRRS OVNRRS OVNERS RENTERS RENTERS RENTERS HOUSKHOLDS LIBRA TOTAL VERY LOW LOW TOTAL VRRT LAY LOV TOTAL VERY LOV LOW 88,003 39,249 17,529 10,659 6,870 2,420 1,339 1,081 15,108 9,320 5,788 12.003 3,625 1,507 789 718 386 195 191 1,120 593 527 22,749 8,417 4,017 2,504 1,513 949 623 325 3,069 1,881 1,188 36,909 17,273 7,938 4,625 3,311 1.018 586 432 6,920 4,040 2,880 13,719 3,496 1,539 920 618 414 247 167 1,125 674 452 17,315 3,740 1,371 649 722 626 310 315 745 339 407 40,591 16,318 7.520 4,689 2,831 1,065 669 416 6,438 4,022 2,416 45,113 18,135 9,014 4,816 3,197 1,875 1,070 806 6,137 3,747 2,391 68,395 23,733 10,565 5.%0 ' 4,604 1,927 1,137 790 8,636 4,824 3,814 36.396 7,316 2,601 1,293 1,308 769 379 391 1,832 914 918 11,329 4,928 2,218 1,334 886 368 217 151 1,851 1,116 735 17,911 7,469 2,917 1,760 1,157 506 287 219 2,412 1,473 939 4,821 911 528 266 263 179 104 75 348 161 187 4,286 �31a415 1,680 ,10;747 646 {",43V 393 .2.625J 252 �1;80 108 �8 72 36 +`553� �OS? 538 Z90 321 „2 �07Y� 218 -I';SUI'� AE -� 36,197 14,262 6,016 3,493 2,524 1,313 817 495 4,704 2,676 2,029 12,976 3,672 1,402 805 595 "1 194 218 992 613 379 15,874 7,524 3,197 1,907 1,290 440 285 155 2,755 1,621 1,135 8,611 2,9BB 793 400 393 280 157 123 514 243 271 70,255 34,495 15,230 9,924 5,305 2,518 1,559 959 12,711 8,364 4,347 13,985 7,832 1.195 736 459 I 294 191 104 901 546 355 10,275 5,364 2,211 1,305 9D6 279 177 102 1,931 1,128 803 18,194 8,278 3,507 1,838 1,669 316 177 139 3,190 1,661 1,529 1,867 133 95 48 47 HE42 46 7 6 1 25,117 9,143 3,770 2,2% 1,474 880 534 346 2,890 1,762 1,129 14,436 2.728 1.062 522 540 448 225 223 615 297 318 123,246 38,946 12,640 7,033 5.607 i 4,243 2,415 1,828 8,398 4,619 3,780 801,989 301,804 124,460 73,591 50,867 24,997 14,559 10,438 99,465 59,030 40,434 � ii TAKS 3= ANIMAL RDOSIMC MYDS A<95Mr+h MSTLM6 MEND RIVERSIDE COURT - I.OMMM IMCM M OSIMID OS PATIN Mt TOM 30V OF IMCOiMI MR StLTt (OYYlAT MOli) 19" LIMN. OVERPATIMC MR StLTQ Lit OVWAYMMY NY 72MYM At IIICOM JURISDICTION MO0St01Di LIM TOTAL VERY law LOM TOT-OIM< VL-OM>S LOM-019Q TOT-RtYt VL-RRMAR Im-RRMTt OIMIMO 6,634 3.5% 1,554 1,003 551 492 269 223 1,063 734 326 tAVUowr 3.056 1,7R5 559 322 237 121 63 50 434 259 179 RLTM 2.540 1,14E 532 337 1% 161 92 69 371 2" 127 CATNEDRAL CITY 9,457 4,303 1,749 an 860 501 It 314 1,250 703 547 COACtL4 3,130 1,4" 639 417 223 221 143 77 414 272 146 cwmA 16,654 4.90 2,540 1,512 1,029 741 390 351 1,200 1,122 676 DlStT MOT SPRIM S 4,195 2,249 1,013 643 371 300 224 156 632 417 214 EE4fT 1S,N3 9,573 2,9D2 1.551 1,350 863 4" 457 2,036 I'm $92 imam WNLLS 1,056 22 67 26 41 u 26 36 7 2 5 IIMIO 10,365 4,416 2,035 1,364 671 4" 2" 221 I,s50 1, I00 451 LAKE USINOMt 4,705 3,190 1,301 ER2 419 "1 155 136 1,009 727 2E2 LA OOINTA 3,102 915 547 224 361 233 111 122 354 113 241 Nomm VALLEY 27,678 MORN 5,651 1.277 556 293 263 332 171 161 224 121 102 PALM ONSti 7,R43 2,51E 1,m 447 697 3E0 147 233 762 301 462 FALK SIEIMCS 14,365 6,033 2,534 1,233 1,300 524' 221 303 2,010 1,012 9" i rows 4,150 2,324 as 483 342 254 143 111 569 33E 231 Cn RAMCt MIRAGE 3,895 1,243 374 142 232 160 50 110 214 92 122 RIYEESIOE 71,920 26,179 13,409 7,292 6,197 3.199 1,636 1,563 10.291 5,656 4.635 SAM JACINTO 5,221 3,315 1,373 RN 502 370 1E7 193 1,001 692 319 UNLOCOI•. ANY 114,I9I 48,10 15,563 2,397 6,666 6,25E 3,544 2,714 9,304 5,353 3,951 TOTAL COMM 335,701 120,765 51,334 2R,R23 22.506 16,029 4,431 7,596 35.305 20.394 14,912 0 TABLE 4: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSBSSKW - EXISTING NEED SAN BnK'"IMO CDU"TT - LOVER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS PAYING MOHR THAN 3O% OF INCOME FOR SHELTER (OVERPAYMENT) JURISDICTION 1988 HOUSEHOLDS LINKS LIM OVERPAYING FOR SHELTER TOTAL VERY LOW LIRE OVERPAYMENT BY TENURE AND INCOME LOW TOT -OWNERS VL-OWNERS LOW -OWNERS TOT-RRHMS VL-RENTERS LOW -RENTERS ADRIANTO BARSTOW 1,978 7,530 1,359 2,831 735 1,164 433 742 302 422 124 41 83 611 392 219 BIG BEAR LAKE 2,370 1,168 553 343 208 337 176 185 102 151 75 827 375 556 271 CHINO COLTON 14,376 11,956 3,393 5,906 1,717 2,062 970 1,319 747 566 267 300 1,150 241 702 134 447 743 467 255 212 1,595 1,062 533 FONTANA GRAND TERRACE 23,183 3,545 8,972 796 4,014 257 2,549 129 1,465 1,406 851 634 2,528 1,697 831 LORA LINDA 5,061 2,444 1,102 641 128 460 91 128 47 62 45 66 164 974 81 83 MONTCLAIR 8,233 2,989 1,574 844 730 384 215 169 1,191 580 630 394 561 NERDLXS 1,989 879 259 ISO 79 55 45 10 203 134 69 ONTARIO 39,479 14,015 6,523 3,643 2,880 1,664 904 759 4,860 2,739 2,121 RANCHO CUCAMONGA RRDLANDS 29,844 20,870 5,879 7,513 3,069 3,218 1,380 1,960 1,689 1,258 1,723 804 736 986 1,346 643 703 RIALTO 19,665 6,411 2,774 1,517 1,259 1,126 493 585 311 541 2,414 1,648 1,467 930 947 718 SAN BERNARDINO 54,473 27,345 11,775 6,942 4,834 2,782 1,602 1,180 8,993 5,340 3,653 UPLAND 22,783 6,767 3,306 1,824 1,484 631 332 298 2,679 1,493 1,186 VICTORVILLE 10,118 4,735 2,064 1,O62 1,001 464 184 279 1,598 878 720 UNINCORP. AREA 150,348 68,559 24,573 13,847 10,726 10,229 5,625 4,604 14,344 8,222 6,122 COUNTY TOTAL 427,801 171,%3 70,741 40,324 30,416 23,236 12,532 10,704 47,501 27,789 19,712 0 TAELE 5: REGIONAL NOOSING MUDS ASSESSMENT: MSSINC MOD VRMTIRA COUQY - LOVER INWMM R0MS00tA6 PAYING MORE TRAM 302 Of INCOIR POR SULTNR (OVUPATMEMR) 19" LIM OVWAYMENY BY TWURK AND INCOME CAYACORY J RISDICHOM NOUSENDMDS LIRA !Sb OVOiAYLC TOTAL YOl VERY IAV SNEfl'ER !AV OUIYS TOTAL OS VERY 9I.OV OYI OV L01 NETO45 TOTAL ERNLIOS YEEi l.OV EENTOS LAW C4M6RILL0 FILLMORR 17,318 3,34I 5,524 1,721 1,007 500 1,100 336 701 164 5" 317 251 1,240 7E3 457 MOORPARK 6,6M 2,220 %0 600 360 125 360 75 1" 54 174 372 600 261 110 03AI 2,900 1,391 572 3" 206 16E 102 66 403 414 263 1" Onmo 35.134 15,266 7,"9 5,007 2,643 1,472 934 539 6,176 4,073 I40 2,103 PORT WEMEIR SAN WRI4VNR0NA 6,754 35,093 3,519 15,757 I,116 6,522 6" 4,193 430 2,330 169 I,136 111 693 56 947 575 372 SANTA PAIN 7,717 4.136 I,375 1,025 341 "1 207 443 90 5,397 1,076 3,500 IEEE SIMI VALLEY 29,209 6,711 3.246 1,701 1.5K 1,853 950 903 1,394 111 752 250 643 TNOOSA0 OAKS 34,40E %,111 4,021 2,075 1,945 1,319 726 663 2,632 I,350 1,2E2 IEMDKMRP. AREA 27,61E 11,072 3,05E 1,949 1,109 1,066 671 40E 1,972 1,272 701 TOTAL COIMTY 209,380 79,445 30,825 19,036 11,790 1,62E 4,940 3,6U 22, 1" 14,059 1,140 TABLE 6: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT: EXISTING NEED IMPERIAL COUNTY - LOVER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS PAYING MORE THAN 30% OF INCOME FOR SHELTER (OVERPAYMENT) 1988 LIBBs OVERPAYING FOR SHELTER LINN OVERPAYMENT BY TENDER AND INCOME HOUSEHOLDS LIBBs TOTAL VERY LOW LOW TOT -OWNER VL-OVNRR LOW-OVNRR TOT-RBWTER VL-RENTRR LOW RENTER BRAVLRY 5,482 2,226 981 606 375 453 213 239 142 120 71 119 768 809 464 475 305 334 CALEXICO 4,518 2,273 327 1,048 596 109 66 44 48 23 25 61 43 18 CALIPATRIA EL CRNTRO 719 9,139 3,253 1,588 932 655 309 190 119 1,279 742 537 HOLTVILLE 1,411, 419 176 71 105 81 59 65 8 48 51 17 116 138 62 75 54 64 IMPERIAL 1,281 528 427 235 203 123 62 45 17 17 14 3 45 31 14 WESTMORLAND UNINCORP. AREA 9,109 4,108 944 597 348 340 208 133 603 389 214 TOTAL COUNTY 32,190 13,267 5,112 3,036 2,078 1,292 754 537 3,819 2,279 1,540 IV. FUTURE NEEDS The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocates each jurisdiction's share of regional Future Needs by adding ,its growth to the year 1994. to the number of units that would have to be added in each locality in order to meet vacancy rate goals and compensate for anticipated demolitions. Next, the RHNA distributes the Future Housing Needs by dfouxrincom l (category s,: very low income (less than 50% of the county median income), low (50-80%), moderate (80-120%), and high (more than 120%). This Future Need includes an adjustment for avoidance of impaction --the undue concentration of very low and low income households in a jurisdiction. The intent of the Future Needs Allocations by income group is to relieve lower income impaction. Localities must fully address their existing housing needs in order for impaction avoidance goals to be achieved in the future period. The avoidance of impaction adjustment was performed in two steps. In the first step, every jurisdiction had its future growth by income category --based on 1980 Census information --adjusted 1125% of the way" towards the regional average distribution. For most jurisdictions, this is the future needs estimate. For those jurisdictions, however, that remained highly impacted, even after this adjustment, a second adjustment was made to further reduce their lower income proportion. This further adjustment has the effect of bringing all such highly impacted jurisdictions to within 10% of the regional average proportion of lower income households, unless such an adjustment would entail reducing the proportion of lower income units by more than one third. Appendix B contains a thorough explanation of these avoidance of impaction adjustments. Tables 7 through 13 show the allocation of Future Needs for each jurisdiction for the 5 year period from July 1, 1989 to June 30, 1994. It is this set of numbers that each jurisdiction must use --as the starting point in anticipating its share of regional growth --in the revised Housing Element of its General Plan, to be adopted by June 30, 1989. Only if it reduces these numbers with the assent of the State HCD for specific reasons or if it successfully appeals them to SCAG and receives an amended allocation, may it use other numbers. Tables 14 through 20 show Future Need for each jurisdiction broken down by major factor: growth, vacancy adjustment, and demolition adjustment. n Finally, the State HCD has pointed out to SCAG that localities must account ! / in their Housing Elements for the Future Needs that will have already \\o occurred during the 1 1/2 year "gap" period fromIJanuary 1, 1988 to June 30, 1989.1 In order to do this, each jurisdiction should make adjustments to its planning for the 1989-94 period by comparing what will have actually occurred in the 1/88-7/89 "gap" period to the estimated accrual of need displayed in Table 21. In most cases, this difference between the Future Need accrual and actual construction and other events in a community should be very small. IV-1 c t N c TABLE 7 - LOS ANGMLES WWT FUTURE ROUSING NODS BY INCOME CATAGORT (25% IMPACTION AVOIDANCE ADJUSTIRMT AND FRTHR ADJUSTMDT FOR RICHLY IMPACTED LOCALITIBS) JURISDICTIONS TOTAL VL INC LOU INC MOD INC HIGH INC IAYRR INC (XVL i L) RIGBBR LMC (XNOD i UP) AGOtRA RILLS 1,650 160 177 213 1,0" 20.5X 79.5% ALRANRRA 2,096 387 509 414 788 42.7Z 57.3Z ARCADIA 1,067 145 I81 164 577 30.5% 69.5% ARTESIA 256 41 54 52 106 37.3% 62.7Z AVALON 218 33 52 43 90 39.3% 60.7Z AZUSA 1,535 291 356 320 568 42.2Z 57_OX EAIDRIM PARE 1,22E 217 295 283 433 41.7Z 58.3X TELL 315 45 69 84 117 36.1% 63.9Z BEIJ,MDM 2,239 394 540 44T $59 41.7Z 56.3% HELL CAROM 129 21 30 37 4I 39.5Z 60.6% BEVERLT MILLS 1,157 160 225 167 604 33.3Z 66.7% BRADBURY 26 3 4 4 IS 23.9Z 76.11 BURBANK 3,795 6" 878 746 1,585 38.6% 61.4Z CARSON 1,9E1 260 307 351 1,063 28.6X 71.4% CERRITOS 1,541 116 143 206 1,067 I7.4Z 82.6% CLARDIOMT $02 104 123 Ili 456 28.4Z 71.61 COINBIRCE 319 56 69 79 115 39.3X 60.7Z COMPTOM 2,374 318 S10 574 972 34.91 65.1% COVIN► 1,774 272 34B 315 839 35.OZ 65.1Z CUDART 267 43 69 N 88 41.6X 58.3X CUUI4 Cm 1,313 105 227 245 657 31.3% 6B.7X DOIBRT 1,705 271 327 327 790 35.OX 65.OZ DUARTB 995 151 214 209 421 36.7X 63.3% EL MONTL 2,282 317 461 592 912 34.1% 65.9% RI. SBGEDO 1,1% 167 194 241 603 29.4% 70.6% GABON" 1,805 288 3" 371 759 37.4X 62.6% GLZWX1Z 7,103 1,246 1,660 1,343 2.854 40.9% 59.1% GLEIDONA 1,227 154 203 206 6" 29.1X 70.9% R►VAU M CAR0M 519 70 % 147 207 32.0% 69.3Z YHTIONNS 4,977 913 1,073 1,023 1,968 39.91 60.1% HOIDSL TRACE 947 141 152 176 478 30.9Z 69. I% BID= RILLS 46 3 5 4 34 17.1% 82.9Z DETIIM,ROM PARE 1,222 29I 304 314 413 40.5Z 59.5Z INDOSSRT 94 17 18 30 28 38.OZ 62.0% IMCLEDOOD 1,518 202 278 397 652 31.6% 68.4% IRVIIDi1.E 34 5 R 8 13 38.9% 61.lZ I.A CAMADA FLNTRG L RAW QIGNTS LAKEWOOD L MIRADA LA PUDIIE L Van LAHIDA7.E LOMITA LONG DRUB LOS ANNGULIS LTWAPD 323 27 36 1I9 11 13 1,173 148 181 1,059 I12 136 11,735 1,7" 2,379 433 78 86 930 137 163 1,027 178 233 "1 109 157 12,382 1,754 2,738 129.100 19,804 30,903 453 58 8S 41 11 223 189 2,244 90 181 204 121 2,629 24,982 116 7.20 19.3% 90.7Z 84 20.3% 79.7Z 621 28.0% 71.9Z 622 23.4% 76.6% 5,345 35.3% 64.7% 179 37.9Z 62. IX 449 32.3% 67.7Z 412 40.0% 60.0% 273 40.3X 59.7Z 5,262 36.3Z 63.7Z 53,611 39.2X 60.8Z 195 31.5% 69.6Z \1 H G w TABLR 7 - CONTINUED JURISDICTION TOTAL VL INC LOW INC MOD INC HIGH INC LOVER INC (XVL A L) HIGHER INC (XMOD A UP) MANHATTAN BEACH 1,435 158 181 221 875 23.6% 76.4X MAYWOOD 293 43 61 79 111 35.5X 64.5% MONROVIA 927 168 233 179 347 43.3% 56.7X MONTEBELLO 951 161 216 186 388 39.7% 60.3X MONTBREY PARK 1,422 223 280 268 651 35.4% 64.6X NORWALK 1,402 221 268 299 613 34.9X 65.1% PALMDALE 10,388 1,627 2,388 1,973 4,400 38.7% 61.3% PALOS VERDES EST 313 20 27 31 235 15.2X 84.8% PARAMOUNT 1,388 187 250 374 577 31.5% 68.5% PASADENA 3,392 586 880 602 1,323 43.2% 56.8X PICO RIVERA 1,266 216 256 268 526 37.3% 62.7X POMONA 2,738 450 656 599 1,033 40.4% 59.6% RANCHO P. VERDES 886 67 81 91 647 16.7X 83.3% REDONDO BEACH 3,806 567 631 722 1,886 31.5X 68.5X ROLLING BILLS 40 2 4 3 31 15.4X 84.6% ROLLING HILLS ES 208 14 18 18 158 15.4% 84.6% ROSEMEAD 773 138 182 160 293 41.4% 58.6X SAN DIMAS 1,302 161 192 217 733 27.1% 72.9% SAN FERNANDO 307 55 74 68 109 42.2X 57.8% SAN GABRIEL 881 155 205 174 346 40.9% 59.1% SAN MARINO 60 4 6 6 44 16.3% 83.7X SANTA FE SPRINGS 304 49 63 64 127 37.0% 63.0% SANTA MONICA 3,220 569 785 615 1,251 42.0% 58.0% SIERRA MADRE 173 26 32 30 86 33.3% 66.7X SIGNAL HILL 805 145 195 179 286 42.2% 57.8% SOUTH EL MONTE 452 66 88 111 187 34.3% 65.8% SOUTH GATE 898 120 167 222 389 32.0% 68.0% SOUTH PASADENA 392 63 81 71 178 36.6% 63.4X TEMPLE CITY 403 61 76 77 190 33.9X 66.1X TORRANCE 4,169 549 655 729 2,237 28.9% 71.1% VERNON 76 9 12 22 33 27.5% 72.5% WALNUT 1,402 122 140 189 951 18.7% 81.3% VEST COVINA 1,988 247 282 367 1,092 26.6% 73.4% VEST HOLLYWOOD 1,102 168 231 198 506 36.2% 63.8% WESTLAKE VILLAGR 467 48 49 64 307 20.6% 79.4% WHITTIER 1,589 243 333 291 723 36.2% 63.8% UNINCORPORATED 42,625 6,479 8,930 7,641 19,576 36.2% 63.8% COUNTY TOTAL 305,392 46,411 66,694 58,647 133,645 37.OX 63.0% 15.2% 21.8% 19.2% 43.8% TARLR 8 - ORANCH COUNTY FUrUU DOUSING HUM AT INCOUQ CATAGORY (25% IMPACTION AVOIUAMa ADIUSTNUT AND PU8TRZR ADIUSTMHMT FOR HIGHLY DKPACTHD LOCALITIHS) LOVER INC HIGHER INC JURISDICTION TOM VL DUC LOW INC MOO INC HIGH INC (ZVL A L) (MOD A UP) AMAR M 2,243 1,489 2,055 1.834 2,865 43.OZ 57.OX DANA 1,673 248 299 370 748 32.7Z 67.3X HURNA PARK 1,521 2" 329 376 568 37.8Z 62.2X COSTA MRSA 5,155 839 1,159 1,291 1,867 38.8X 61.3% CYPRRSS 792 104 127 178 383 29.2% 70.HZ FOUNTAIN VALLEY 708 89 97 I50 372 26.3X 73.8% FULIIIYON 1,756 293 413 370 680 40.2% 59.9% GARORM GRM 2,905 494 674 6" 1,038 40.2% 59.8Z BU LINGTON H 6,7K 1,072 1,376 1,491 2,847 36.IX 63.9X IRVINK 14,337 1,824 1,779 2,839 7,896 ~U 25.IZ 74.9X IA RABRA 1,092 192 ,_ 255 243 391 41.3% 58.7X IL PALMA 147 18 18 _ 30 'l 8i 24.2X 75.RL LAGUMA DRUZ LOS ALAMITOS 679 443 109 77 I81 96 122�� `� 'A )ti� 268 �, �� ' 171 �� �.' 42.7Z 39.5X 57.3Z 6O.SZ MrPa'Y 1 Z,Nf 413 , us 496 1,37Z � 34.39 65.7Z . GRAM 3,857 6w 877 824 I,505 39.6Z 60.4% PLACXNTIA 1,672 243 29D 357 792 31.3Z 68.7Z SAN C[JImRi 4.227 654 978 945 1,651 38.6Z 61.4Z SAN JWN CAP 1,823 "1 367 422 743 36-IZ 63.9Z t SANTA ANA 5,931 "1 1,296 1,641 2,133 36.4X 63.6Z SRAL YACR 391 49 97 87 ISB 37.3Z 62.6Z A STAMM 951 139 193 276 344 34.9% 65.2Z TUSTI2 2,%6 536 670 665 "5 42.IX 57.4X VILLA PAHH 23 2 2 2 17 15.4Z 84.6Z VBSTMDwM 1,524 240 330 352 603 37.3Z 62.7Z TOW LDpA 4,715 559 585 1,011 2,561 24.2Z 75.8Z UNIMCORPMTHD 21,325 3,129 4,068 4,430 9,696 33.8X 66.3Z COUNTY TOTAL 98,351 14,855 19,167 21,609 42,751 34.6% 65.4Z 15.1% 19.SZ 22.0X 43.5Z TABLE 9 - RIVERSIDE COUNTY FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS BY INCOME CATAGORY (25X IMPACTION AVOIDANCE ADJUSTMENT AND FURTHER ADJUSTMENT FOR HIGHLY IMPACTED LOCALITIES) JURISDICTION TOTAL VL INC LOW INC MOD INC HIGH INC LOVER INC (XVL A L) HIGHER INC (%MOD A UP) BANNING 949 135 224 202 387 37.9% 62.1% BEAUMONT 444 72 101 100 171 38.9X 61.0% BLYTHE 216 37 56 38 85 43.0% 57.0% CATHRDRRAL CITY 5,431 1,010 1,281 949 2,191 42:2% 57.8% COACHELLA 643 135 137 160 210 42.4X 57.6% CORONA 3,507 491 648 579 1,789 32.5% 67.5% DESERT HOT SPGS 1,622 256 363 412 589 38.2% 61.7X HE MET 3,319 595 756 868 1,100 40.7X 59.3X INDIAN WELLS 310 31 38 27 214 22.2X 77.8% INDIO 2,899 532 690 559 1,118 42.2X 57.8% LA OUINTA 1,262 206 200 231 625 32.2X 67.8% LAKE ELSINORE 1,629 257 479 366 526 45.2X 54.8% MORENO VALLEY 17,741 3,375 4,023 3,287 7,056 41.7X 58.3X NORCO 286 34 43 41 168 27.0% 73.0% PALM DESERT 1,964 303 367 340 954 34.1% 65.9% PALM SPRINGS 2,844 533 649 446 1,217 41.5% 58.5X PHRRIS 1,945 338 470 459 678 41.5% 58.4% RANCHO MIRAGE 678 112 118 93 355 34.0% 66.0% RIVERSIDE 8,219 1,347 1,721 1,448 3,704 37.3% 62.7X SAN JACINTO 2,398 350 664 523 862 42.3% 57.7% UNINCORPORATED 30,648 5,831 6,949 5,678 12,190 4P.7X 58.3% COUNTY TOTAL 88,954 15,981 19,977 16,806 36,189 40.4% 59.6X 18.0% 22.5X 18.9% 40.7X L TAKK 10 - SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FEMIS HOUSING MUM BY IMCOMB C►TACORY (25% IMPACTION AVOIDANCE ADJUSTNNNT AND FURTHER ADJUSTHM POR HICHLT XMPACTRO LOCALITIRS) JURISDICTIONS TOTAL VL INC LOU INC MOD INC HIGH INC LAVER INC (ZVI A L) BICHBR INC (XMOD A UP) AOELANIO 690 I09 202 176 192 45.8% 54.2Z BARSTOV 877 137 199 197 344 38.3Z 61.8X HIC HEAR FAR 734 116 205 131 332 41.OZ 59.0% CRINO 2,447 288 392 439 1,329 27.8Z 72.3X COLTON 3,326 505 693 803 1,326 36.OX 64.OZ FOWTAN& 6,640 1,004 1,590 1,295 2,76I 39. IZ 60.9X Cam TpRACE 575 71 83 100 321 26.9Z 73.1% Lak LINDA 892 136 194 193 358 37.5Z 62.5% MOMCLAIH 655 103 142 138 274 37.2% 62.8% MERDLIS 297 52 76 43 125 43.2Z 56.8Z ONTARIO 6,385 1,009 1,333 1,303 2,741 36.7Z 63.3% RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9,5U 1,127 1,258 1,729 5,463 24.9% 75.2Z REOLAIDS 3,981 593 8B2 726 1,781 37.0% 63.OX RIALTO 5,264 303 1,OII 1,026 2,424 34.5% 65.5Z SAN BERMARDIID 9,021 1,159 1,865 1,799 3,196 37.7Z 62.3X UPLAND 3,"1 504 673 6" 1,798 32.3Z 67.7Z VIfTOBVILLH 3,542 620 863 719 1,342 41.9Z 58.2X UNIIICORPOEATED 35,703 6,362 8,794 6,%6 13,581 42.5Z 57.5Z COUNTY TOTAL 93,269 14,689 20,454 18,436 39,690 37.7Z 62.3% I5.81 21.9X 19.8% 42.6X ,-. r rn ,. r e ., • w TABLE 11 - VENTURA COUNTY FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS BY INCOME CATAGORY (25X IMPACTION AVOIDANCE ADJUSTMENT AND FURTHER ADJUSTMENT FOR HIGHLY IMPACTED LOCALITIES) LOVER INC DIGUBR INC JURISDICTION TOTAL VL INC LOV INC MOD INC HIGH INC (XVL d L) (XMDD d UP) CAMARILLO 2,921 449 544 616 1,312 34.0% 66.0% FILLMORE 339 45 71 91 132 34.3% 65.7X MOORPARK 3,316 537 623 854 1,302 35.OX 65.OX OJAI 243 29 49 71 94 32.1% 67.9X OXNARD 4,354 745 974 1,101 1,534 39.5X 60.5X PORT HUENEME 644 102 122 I88 233 34.7X 65.3X SAN BUENAVENTURA 4,116 698 1,044 892 1,482 42.3% 57.7X SANTA PAULA 728 98 162 220 249 35.7X 64.3% SIMI VALLEY 4,781 612 693 1,069 2,407 27.3% 72.7% THOUSAND OAKS 5,591 791 882 1,086 2,832 29.9X 70.IX UNINCORPORATED 3,573 602 824 707 1,440 39.9X 60.1X COUNTY TOTAL 30,607 4,708 5,987 6,895 13,016 34.9X 65.1X 15.4X 19.6% 22.5% 42.5% 0 TAILS 12 - IMPERIAL COUNTY FUTURE NoOSIMs NERDS BY DWO CATACORY (25% IMPACTION AVOIDAMCR ADJUSTMENT AND PURTDER ADJUSTMENT FOR NICELY IMPACTRD LOCyL1TI85) LOVER INC NICEER 1MC JURISDICTION TOTAL VL INC LOW INC MOD INC NICE INC (X9L i L) (xIIOD i lip) NRAVLRT 337 54 82 61 139 40.5% 59.5% CALEXICO 7" 141 159 1" 297 39.3% 60.7Z CALIPATRIA 49 11 10 11 17 43.3Z 56.7Z RL CINTRO 1.025 161 216 191 457 36.8% 63.3% ROLTVILLR 84 I2 15 17 40 32.2Z 67.8% IMPERIAL 209 32 41 50 86 35.0% 65.0% VRSTMORRLYD 35 7 8 7 12 43.5Z 56.SZ UNDKX RPOtATRD 1.12E 206 272 203 447 42.4Z 57.6% COUNTY TOTAL 3.631 626 802 707 1.495 39.3Z 60.7Z 17.29 22.1Z 19.5Z 41.2Z I I TABLE 13 - COUNTY SUMMARY FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS BY INCOME CATEGORY - 7/89 TO 7/94 (ADJUSTED) (25% IMPACTION AVOIDANCE ADJUSTMENT AND FURTHER ADJUSTMENT FOR HIGHLY IMPACTED LOCALITIES) LOWER INCOME HIGHER INC COUNTY FUTURE NEED VL INC LOW INC MOD INC UP INC (XVL A L) (XM00 A UP) LOS ANGELES 305,392 46,411 66,694 58,647 133,645 37.0% 63.OX ORANGE 98,381 14,855 19,167 21,609 42,751 34.6X 65.4X VENTURA 30,607 4,708 5,987 6,895 13,016 34.9% 65.1X SAN BERNARDINO 93,269 14,689 20,454 18,436 39,690 37.7X 62.3% RIVERSIDE 88,954 15,981 19,977 16,806 36,189 40.4% 59.6% IMPERIAL- 3,631 626 802 707 1,495 39.3% 60.7X REGION 620,233 97,270 133,081 123,101 266,786 37.1% 62.9X 15.7X 21.5% 19.8% 43.OX N TABLE 14 AMA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIVE YEAR HOUSEHOLD TOTAL 7/89-7/94 GROWTH VACANCY DEMOLITION JURISDICTION FUTURE NEED 7/89-7/94 ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTMENT AGOURA HILLS 10650 11654 -16 12 ALHAMBRA 2,100 1o151 528 422 ARCADIA 19067 642 254 172 ARTESIA 256 98 96 62 AVALON* 218 189 7 22 AZUSA 1,535 11101 126 308 BALDWIN PARK 1,228 938 39 252 BELL 315 25 217 73 BELLFLOWER 2o241 1,668 332 242 BELL GARDENS 128 18 48 62 BEVERLY HILLS 1,157 470 407 280 BRADBURY 28 18 4 5 BURBANK 3,798 2,175 156 1,467 CARSON 1,982 10565 351 67 CERRITOS 10541 1,245 270 25 CLAREMONT 801 668 107 25 COMMERCE 319 169 76 73 COMPTON 21374 19328 397 648 COVINA 11774 1,403 279 92 CUDAHY 267 142 75 50 CULVER CITY 1,312 762 522 28 DOWNEY 11705 1,005 507 193 DUARTE 995 791 160 45 EL MONTH 2,282 1,527 592 163 EL SEGUNDO 10196 844 199 153 GARDENA 1,806 11294 248 263 GLENDALE 7,108 4,048 1,129 1,932 GLENDORA 11227 980 162 85 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 519 367 74 78 HAWTHORNS 49977 2,468 734 1,775 HERMOSA BEACH 947 485 213 248 HIDDEN HILLS 46 42 2 2 9UNTINGTON PARK 1,222 139 347 735 INDUSTRY 94 86 3 5 INGLEWOOD 10518 705 136 677 IRWINDALE 34 15 0 18 LA CANADA FLNTRG 323 198 116 8 LA HABRA HEIGHTS 119 93 21 5 LAKEWOOD 1,173 748 399 25 LA MIRADA 1,058 792 263 3 IV-10 a RHNA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS TABLE 14 LOS ANGELES COUNTY HOUSEHOLD TOTAL FIVE YEAR GROWTH VACANCY DEMOLITION 7/89-7/94 JURISDICTION FUTURE NEED 7'/89-7/94 ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTMENT57 10,980 699 43 LANCASTER 11,735 248 142 LA PUENTE 433 855 41 15 07 LA VERNE 027 778 41 285 LAWNDALE 1,027 418 158 85 LOMITA 661 1,646 1,257 12,382 2 501 12 895 LONG BEACH 129,100 82,501 33,104 �125 LOS ANGELES 453 225 103 LYNWOOD 423 1,435 981 30 58 MANHATTAN BEACH 293 42 193 258 05 MAYWOOD 928 715 8 112 MONROVIA 951 294 545 230 MONTEBELLO 1,423 824 370 70 MONTEREY PARK 1,401 988 343 NORWALK 22 10,396 10,058 317 5 312 178 , PALMDALE . 278 29 PALOS VERDES EST 1312 1,044 164 178 PARAMOUNT 1,979 866 543 102 PASADENA 3,389 914 251 PICO RIV ERA 1,266 -53 197 2,736 2,593 POMONA 3 886 748 134 923 RANCHO P. VERDES 2,365 514 13 REDONDO BEACH 3,803 25 2 ROLLING HILLS 40 13 3 ROLLING HILLS ES 208 192 117 257773 399 ROSEMEAD 0 1,301 1,152 149 23 SAN DIMAS 307 220 64 165 SAN FERNANDO 881 592 124 2 SAN GABRIEL 60 2 56 12 SAN MARINO 304 200 92 143 SANTA FE SPRINGS 3,304 1,200 1,737 33 SANTA MONICA 173 108 31 32 SIERRA MADRE 805 708 66 106 87 481 SIGNAL HILL 452 260 330 SOUTH EL MONTE 899 88 81 50 SOUTH GATE 392 186 156 SOUTH PASADENA 56 65 403 282 1 157 TEMPLE CITY 4,169 29659 1,3538 TORRANCE 76 36 1 10 VERNON 11403 19369 24 43 WALNUT 1,988 1,619 326 17 WEST COVINA 206 879 2 WEST HOLLYWOOD 1,102 448 17 67 WESTLAKE VILLAGE 780 612 197 WHITTIER 1,589 89 5,857 1,325 42 UNINC. & NEW C. 42,625 35,4 COUNTY TOTAL 305,402 2119677 62,167 31,558 IV-11 TABLE 15 RHNA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS ORANGE COUNTY FIVE YEAR HOUSEHOLD TOTAL 7/89-7/94 GROWTH VACANCY DEMOLITION JURISDICTION FUTURE NEED 7/89-7/94 ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTMENT ANAHEIM 8,243 6,129 1,655 458 BREA 19673 1,372 190 112 BUENA PARK 1,522 1,004 440 78 COSTA MESA 51155 4,332 748 75 CYPRESS 792 562 210 20 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 708 655 48 5 FULLERTON 1,756 1,011 612 73 GARDEN GROVE 2,905 1,786 853 267 HUNTINGTON BEACH 6,786 5,360 1,288 138 IRVINE 14,337 13,642 693 2 LA HABRA 1,082 768 244 70 LA PALMA 147 66 81 0 LAGUNA BEACH 679 525 _- 191 SS LOS ALAMITOS .,,..Gk3 26� Yl l a ib" ORANGE 3,055 647 155 PLACENTIA 1,672 1,501 153 18 SAN CLEMENTE 41227 3,712 480 35 SAN JUAN CAP 1,823 1,663 157 3 SANTA ANA 5,931 41211. 746 975 SEAL BEACH 391 270 58 63 STANTON 951 685 227 40 TUSTIN 2,866 2,314 485 67 VILLA PARK 23 8 14 2 WESTMINSTER 19524 975 467 82 YORBA LINDA 4,715 4,615 62 38 UNINC. 8 NEV C. 21,325 19,726 11364 235 0 COUNTY TOTAL 98,382 82,745 12,126 3,512 IV-12 F a 9 RHNA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS 16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIVE YEAR HOUSEHOLD TOTAL 7/89-7/94 :GROWTH VACANCY DEMOLITION JURISDICTION FUTURE NEED 7/89-7/94 ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTMENT BANNING 948 888 25 35 BEAUMONT 444 416 12 15 BLYTHE 216 127 9 80 CATHEDERAL CITY 5,431 5,259 172 0 COACHELLA 643 528 102 12 CORONA 3,507 3,250 181 77 DESERT HOT SPGS 1,622 1,564 52 7 HEMET 3,319 3,175 ill 33 INDIAN WELLS 310 300 9 2 INDIO 2,899 2,776 103 20 LA OUINTA 1,263 1,235 29 0 LAKE ELSINORE 1,629 1,565 52 12 MORENO VALLEY 17,741 17,410 316 15 NORCO 286 495 -210 0 PALM DESERT 1,964 1,891 54 18 PALM SPRINGS 2,844 2,742 96 7 PERRIS 1,945 1,839 74 32 RANCHO MIRAGE 678 622 • 16 40 RIVERSIDE 8,213 8,730 -857 340 SAN JACINTO 2,398 2,253 122 23 UNINC. & NEW C. 30,648 29,473 925 250 TOTAL COUNTY 88.950 86.538 1.395 1.017 TABLE 17 RBNA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FIVE YEAR HOUSEHOLD TOTAL 7/89-7/94 GROWTH VACANCY DEMOLITION JURISDICTION FUTURE NEED 7/89-7/94 ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTMENT ADELANTO 680 653 26 2 BARSTOW 877 772 96 8 BIG BEAR LAKE 785 722 18 45 CHINO 2,447 2,462 -126 112 COLTON 3,326 3,421 -125 30 FONTANA 6,640 6,509 33 98 GRAND TERRACE 575 658 -83 0 LOMA LINDA 882 853 27 2 MONTCLAIR 655 581 68 7 NEEDLES 297 268 21 8 ONTARIO 6,385 6,647 -359 97 RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9,568 9,057 496 15 REDLANDS 39981 4,027 -109 63 RIALTO 5j260 51377 -151 33 SAN BERNARDINO 8,021 8,838 -1,210 393 UPLAND 3,641 3,467 154 20 VICTORVILLE 3,542 3,602 -85 25 UNINC. 6 NEW C. 35,703 34,778 926 0 COUNTY TOTAL 93,267 92,691 -382 958 IV-14 RHNA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS FIVE YEAR 7/89-7/94 JURISDICTION FUTURE NEED TABLE 18 VENTURA COUNTY HOUSEHOLD TOTAL GROWTH VACANCY DEMOLITION 7/89-7/94 ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTMENT CAMARILLO 2,923 2,598 293 32 _ FILLMORE 339 269 44 25 MOORPARK 3,318 3,311 2 5 OJAI 243 193 41 8 OXNARD 4,354 3,341 965 48 PORT HUENEME 644 540 99 5 SAN BUENAVENTURA 4,116 3,507 566 43 SANTA PAULA 729 516 177 37 SIMI VALLEY 4,781 4,132 610 38 THOUSAND OAKS 5,591 5,038 512 42 UNINCORPORATED 3,573 3,109 376 88 COUNTY TOTAL 30,612 26,555 3,686 372 IV-15 TABLE 19 RBNA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS IMPERIAL COUNTY FIVE YEAR HOUSEHOLD TOTAL 7/99-7/94 GROWTH VACANCY DEMOLITION JURISDICTION FUTURE NEED 7/89-7/94 ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTMENT BRAVLEY 337 385 -61 14 CALEXICO 763 655 97 12 CALIPATRIA 49 46 1 2 EL CENTRO 1,025 1,172 -170 24 BOLTVILLE 84 92 -12 4 IMPERIAL 209 209 -3 3 WESTMORELAND 35 33 1 1 UNINCORPORATED 1,128 1,032 72 24 COUNTY TOTAL 3,632 3,624 -75 83 IV-16 r TABLE 20 RHNA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS COUNTY SUMMARY FIVE YEAR HOUSEHOLD TOTAL 7/89-7/94 GROWTH VACANCY DEMOLITION COUNTY FUTURE NEED 7/89-7/94 ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTMENT LOS ANGELES 305,402 211,677 62,167 31,558 ORANGE 98,382 82,745 12,126 3,512 " RIVERSIDE 88,950 86,538 1,395 1,017 SAN BERNARDINO 93,267 92,691 -382 958 VENTURA 30,612 26,555 3,686 372 IMPERIAL 3,632 3,624 -75 83 REGION 620,245 504,348 79,016 37,500 IV-17 RHNA FUTURE JAN. 1988 - LOS TABLE 21 NEEDS TOTALS FOR JUNE 1989 "GAP" PERIOD ANGELES COUNTY JURISDICTION 1/88-7/89 NEEDI AGOURA HILLS 512 ALHAMBRA 484 ARCADIA 250 ARTESIA 49 AVALON 65 AZUSA 435 BALDWIN PARK 364 BELL 30 BELLFLOWER 590 BELL GARDENS 24 BEVERLY HILLS 230 BRADBURY 7 BURBANK 1,115 CARSON 502 CERRITOS 390 CLAREMONT 213 COMMERCE 74 COMPTON 605 COVINA 461 CUDAHY 59 CULVER CITY 245 DOWNEY 369 DUARTE 258 EL MONTE 522 EL SEGUNDO 308 GARDENA 481 GLENDALE 1,839 GLENDORA 327 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 137 HAWTHORNS 1,302 HERMOSA BEACH 225 HIDDEN HILLS 13 HUNTINGTON PARK 264 INDUSTRY 28 INGLEWOOD 423 IRWINDALE 10 LA CANADA FLNTRC 63 LA HABRA HEIGHTS 30 LAKEWOOD 238 LA MIRADA 245 LANCASTER 3,415 LA PUENTE 90 LA VERNE 268 LAWMDALE 303 LOMITA 155 LONG BEACH 3,325 LOS ANGELES 29,515 LYNWOOD 107 MANHATTAN BEACH 429 MAYWOOD 30 IV-18 RHNA FUTURE NEEDS TOTALS FOR JAN. 1988 - JUNE 1989 "GAP" PERIOD LOS ANGELES COUNTY JURISDICTION 1/88-7/89 NEED MONROVIA 283 MONTEBELLO 125 MONTEREY PARK 323 NORWALK 326 PALMDALE 3,119 PALOS VERDES EST 87 PARAMOUNT 377 PASADENA 777 PICO RIVERA 312 POMONA 861 RANCHO P. VERDES 231 REDONDO BEACH 1,013 ROLLING HILLS 12 ROLLING HILLS IS 60 ROSEMEAD 200 SAN DIMS 355 SAN FERNANDO 75 SAN GABRIEL 233 SAN MARINO 1 SANTA PE SPRINGS 65 SANTA MONICA 462 SIERRA NADRE 43 SIGNAL HILL 230 SOUTH IL MONTE 106 SOUTH GATE 126 SOUTH PASADENA 73 TEMPLE CITY 106 TORRANCE 971 VERNON 23 WALNUT 422 WEST COVINA 512 WEST HOLLYWOOD 70 WESTLAKE VILLAGE 139 WHITTIER 300 UNINC, 6 NEW C. 11,331 COUNTY TOTAL 75,072 RHNA FUTURE NEEDS TOTALS FOR JAN. 1988 - JIM 1989 "GAP" PERIOD RHNA FUTURE NEEDS TOTALS FOR ORANGE COUNTY JAN. 1988 - JUNE 1989 "GAP" PERIOD RIVERSIDE COUNTY JURISDICTION 1/88-7/89 NEED b ' ANAHEIM 2,041 BREA 458 ^ BUENA PARK 334 COSTA MESA 1,369 BANNING 284 CYPRESS 179 BEAUMONT 133 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 203 BLYTHE 63 FULLERTON 335 CATHEDERAL CITY 1,629 GARDEN GROVE 633 COACHELLA 167 CORONA 1,027 HUNTINGTON BEACH 1,701 DESERT HOT SPGS 487 IRVINE 4,209 HEMET 996 LA HABRA 259 INDIAN WELLS 93 LA PALMA 20 INDIO 870 LAGUNA BEACH 179 LA QUINTA 379 LOS ALAMITOS 107 LAKE ELSINORE 489 NEWPORT BEACH 895 � - MORENO VALLEY 5,355 ORANGE 990 NORCO 152 PLACENTIA 469 PALM DESERT 589 SAN CLEMENTE 1,160 PALM SPRINGS 853 PERRIS 580 SAN JUAN CAP 514 RANCHO MIRAGE 203 SANTA ANA 1,599 RIVERSIDE 2,800 SEAL BEACH 103 SAN JACINTO 707 STANTON 225 UNINC. & NEW C. 9,195 TUSTIN 742 VILLA PARK 3 TOTAL COUNTY 27,050 WESTMINSTER 326 ^ YORBA LINDA 1,427 UNINCORP& NEW CITIES 6,166 COUNTY TOTAL 26,644 M IV-19 RHNA FUTURE NEEDS TOTALS FOR JAN. 1988 - JUNENARD 1989 "GAP" PERIOD RNA FUTURE NEEDS TOTALS FOR SAN EERNARDINO COUNTY i JAN. 1988 - JUNE 1989 "GAP" PERIOD i IMPERIAL COUNTY JURISDICTION V S 1/88-7/89 NEED JURISDICTION 1/88-7/89 NEED ADELANTO 204 BRAVLEY 119 BARSTOW 241 CALEXICO 202 BIG BEAR LAKE 236 CALIPATRIA 14 CHINO COLTON 793 11069 EL CENTRO 363 FONTANA 2,039 HOLTVILLE 29 GRAND TERRACE 203 IMPERIAL WESTMORELAND 65 10 LOMA LINDA 265 UNINCORPORATED 320 MONTCLAIR 182 COUNTY TOTAL 1,122 NEEDLES 85 ONTARIO 2,085 RANCHO CUCAMONGA 2,797 REDLANDS 19263 RIALTO 10666 SAN BERNARDINO 21853 UPLAND 1,078 VICTORVILLE 1,123 UNINCORPORATED 30,711 COUNTY TOTAL 28,892 RENA FUTURE NEEDS TOTALS FOR JAN. 1988 - JUNE 1989 "GAP" PERIOD VENTURA COUNTY JURISDICTION 1/88-7/89 NEED CAMARILLO 810 FILLMORE 91 MOORPARK LOW OJAI 62 OXNARD 1,049 PORT HUENEME 169 SAN BUENAVENTURA 1,098 SANTA PAULA 171 SIMI VALLEY 11283 THOUSAND OAKS 1,564 UNINCORPORATED 983 0 COUNTY TOTAL 8,299 IV-20 RONA FUTURE NEEDS TOTALS FOR JAN. 1988 - JUNE 198 "GAP" PERIOD COUNTY SUMMARY COUNTY LOS ANGELES ORANGE RIVERSIDE SAN BERNARDINO VENTURA IMPERIAL REGION 1/88-7/89 NEED 75,072 26,644 27,050 28,892 8,299 1,122 167,078 APPENDIX A APPEALS PROCEDURES FOR JURISDICTIONS AND GROUNDS FOR APPEAL PART I PURPOSE State law requires that local General Plans contain a Housing Element that reasonably complies with Article 10.6 (Housing Elements) of the Government Code (Section 65580, et seg.). The Element shall contain "an assessment of housing needs"; "existing and projected needs shall include the locality's share of the regional housing need in accordance with (Government Code) Section 65584." (Govt. Code Section 65583 (a).) Government Code Section 65584 provides that: "Based upon data provided by the Department of Housing and Community Development relative to the statewide need for housing, each council of governments shall determine the existing and projected housing need for its region." SCAG, the council of governments for this region, has prepared a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a comprehensive document analyzing housing needs in every jurisdiction in the region. It responds to state criteria for such assessments to be used in the local housing planning process. A jurisdic- tion that differs with its share of regional housing needs set forth in the RHNA may submit a revised share and/or alternative data to SCAG for its review. Procedures and Criteria Guidelines have been adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65584. The State Housing Law is set out in Appendix C of the RHNA. PART II PROCEDURES 1. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is approved by the Executive Committee, and distributed to cities and counties in the region on July 11 1988. 2. A jurisdiction wishing to substitute a revised definition of its share and/or alternative data must do so within the 90-day period from July 1, 1988 to September 29, 1988. Upon receipt of a request to substitute alternative data, SCAG has 60 days in which to respond. The statute allows no extensions beyond the 90-day period. All requests from jurisdictions for revisions must be signed by a city manager, county chief administrative officer, or the chief elected official. A-1 3. Requests received will be reviewed by staff and policy committees to identify and establish the nature of conflicts. Comments received will serve as the formal notification of a discrepancy which a jurisdiction wishes to resolve. 4. SCAG staff will enter into discussions with appropriate local jurisdic- tion staff and attempt to resolve the discrepancy. All proposed changes will be referred to the CEHD Committee for review and recommendation to the Executive Committee, which must act to either accept the revision or state why it is inconsistent with the regional housing needs. PART III GROUNDS FOR APPEAL Introduction and Background Government Code Section 65584 (a) providest "(a) Por purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, a locality's share of the regional housing needs includes that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by a jurisdiction's general plan. The distribution of regional housing needs shall, based upon available data, take into consideration market demand for housing, employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need, and the housing needs of farmvorkers. The distribution shall seek to avoid further impaction of localities with relatively high proportions of lower income households. Used upon data provided by the Department of Finance, in consultation with each council of government, the Department of Housing and Community Development shall determine the regional share of the statewide housing need at least two years prior to the second revision, and all subsequent revisions as required pursuant to Section 65588. lased upon data provided by the Department of Housing and Community Development relative to the statewide need for housing, each council of governments shall determine the existing and projected housing need for its region. Within 30 days following notification of this determination, the Department of Housing and Community Development shall ensure that this deter- mination is consistent with the statewide housing need and may revise the determination of the council of governments if necessary to obtain this consistency. Each locality's share shall be determined by the appropriate council of governments consistent with the A-2 criteria above with the advice of the department subject to the procedure established pursuant to subdivision (c) at least one year prior to the second revision, and at five-year intervals following the second revision pursuant to Section 65588." Government Code Section 65584 (c) provides: "(c) Within 90 days following a determination of a council of governments pursuant to subdivision (a), or the department's determination pursuant to subdivision (b), a local government may revise the determination of its share of the regional housing need in accordance with the considerations set forth in subdivision (a). The revised share shall be based upon available data and accepted planning methodology, and supported by adequate documentation. Within 60 days after the time period for the local government's revision, the council of governments or the department, as the case may be, shall accept the revision or shall indicate, based upon available data and accepted planning methodology, why the revision is inconsistent with the regional housing need. The housing element shall contain an analysis of the factors and circumstances, with all supporting data, justifying the revision. All materials and data used to justify any revision shall be made available upon request by an interested party within seven days upon payment of reasonable costs of reproduction unless the costs are waived due to economic haHship." A. Definitions These definitions apply to all requests for revision of the RHNA data and constitute the basis of the test for acceptability of alternative data. In all cases, the data must, at minimum, apply to or be consistent with one of the seven criteria listed in Section 65584 (a) of the legislation. It should be noted that the statutes do not adequately define such important terms as housing need, housing demand, and the relationship between the two. 1. "Accepted Planning Methodology": Logical organization and analysis of data that is consistent, accurate and current in a manner that allows replication. 2. "Accurate": Data which are reasonably free from defect. "Available Data": Data which is generally accessible to the public and are not constrained by proprietary conditions, or other circumstances rendering them difficult to obtain or process. 4. "Consistent": Data which are consistent with the seven criteria listed in Section 65584 (a). These seven criteria are: (a) market demand for housing; A-3 (b) employment opportunities; (c) availability of suitable sites and public facilities; (d) commuting patterns; (e) type and tenure of housing need; (f) the housing needs of farmworkera, and (g) avoidance of further impaction of localities with relatively high proportions of lower income households. 5. "Current": Data less than two years old, with the exception of vacancy data (one year old or less). 6. "Existing Need": Those lower income households paying an inordinate share of their incomes for rent and/or housing payments. This "inordinate share" is defined as more than 30 percent of gross household income. 7. "Housing Need"t Households currently residing in the region which are inadequately housed are called "Existing Need." Those households which will reside in the region in the future plus additional units needed to achieve ideal vacancy rates and compensate for demolitions are called "Future Need." 8. "Lover Ime"041 Households hawing incomme lover than WX of the Median 9ouaehold income for the mmtitepoliton ores,. 9. "Replicable"t Can be exactly reproduced using the same methodology and data. 10. "Supported by adequate documentation": Methods used for acquiring and/or computing alternative data must be fully explained, and Incorporated into the request directly, or by reference. B. Revised Share A local jurisdiction may submit a revised definition of its share of the regional housing need. The revised share shall be based upon available data and accepted planning methodology and shall be supported by adequate documentation. The data and planning methodology must be consistent with the seven criteria listed in the statute. C. Alternative Data The basic adequacy of alternative data shall be determined by the extent to which they are current, accurate, and consistent with other known data, and result from the application of sound and replicable methodology. Further, they must address one or more of the seven criteria listed in the statute: 1. Market Demand for Housing: A-4 i (a) Considered only in the context of additional Future Need demand'. (b) Future Need. The number of additional units needed in each jurisdiction based on households who are expected to reside within the various jurisdictions (future demand), plus an adequate supply of vacant housing -- (both for rent and for sale) -- to assure mobility, and units to replace losses. Data elements needed to compute "Future Need" based on this definition are (per jurisdiction): (1) Future Population: SCAG Data Source: Future housing unit growth at the regional and jurisdictional levels, is used to generate household growth. Such data is developed in the 1988 Growth Management Plan (GMP). The data is further interpolated to determine July, 1994 levels. A more complete explanation of this process is contained in AppendIx A, Alternative Local Data: Methodologically sound population forecasts based on regional demographic factors (fertility rates, birth and death Kates, net migration, etc.) which determine regional growth and influence its distribution among the various housing market areas (subregions). Further deviations from SCAG's distribution of household growth (or population) within RSAs must be agreed to by all affected jurisdictions. (2) Future Household Size SCAG Data Source: 1980 Census provides the base data for current household size. Future average household size, for the region is based on an extensive analysis of demographic trends in the Baseline Study, by which GMP regional totals were determined. In each jurisdiction, it is based on demographic trends observed at the subregional level. Alternative Local Data: Trend line analysis and/or demographically based projections of future household sizes based on local survey data. A-5 (3) Future Households This is a mathematical task which divides future household population by future household size to produce the number of future households. (4) Household Income Distribution 1980 Census Data (Third Count) has been used. It was assumed that the 1980 distribution within jurisdictions did not change during t a intervening period, thus the 1987 distribution 1s the same as for 1980, ALTERNATIVE LOCAL DATA: .A current, statistically significant survey, or an analysis of comprehansive data sets such as IRS or State Franchise Tax Board information which yields a comparable and methodologically sound set of estimates. (5) Desired Vacancy Rate SCAG Data Sources An ideal standard of 2X for ownership units and 5% for rental units within each jurisdiction. Each jurisdic- tion's number of single-family and multiple -family units were used as surrogates for ownership and rental units, respectively. Alternative Local Data: Historical data based on field records, covering several building cycles, or ten years prior, indicating why another vacancy standard is more appropriate to allow for resident mobility and turnover. Reliable data on actual tenure within the jurisdiction. (6) Current Vacanciest SCAG Date Sources The most recent Federal Some Loan Bank Postal Vacancy Surveys, State Department of Finance "other vacant" housing statistics. Alternative Local Data: Other scientifically sound and verifiable sample surveys with documentation and capability of being replicated. Evidence that the second home community adjustment does not apply to the jurisdiction from a generally available source of information. A-6 2. 3. 4. (7) Housing Unit Losses: SCAG Data Source: Average unit losses per year in same quantities as .average actual demolitions in 1984-86 period. Alternative Local Data: Local data on housing unit losses covering at least the last ten years. Documentation of reasons for future estimates if other than an extrapolation of past trends. Alternative data must include: recorded demolitions, conversions to and from residential uses, accidental losses. Employment Opportunities and Commuting Patterns Both considered by SCAG in the "Job/Housing Balance" adjustments made to the 1987 Baseline forecast to arrive at the 1988 GMP. The commuting patterns of the Baseline forecast, which was based on trend, were studied as part of the Regional Mobility Plan effort. It was found that adjustments to Baseline, in the form of changing some future housing and job patterns would avoid the necessity of attempting to provide many massive transportation improvements in a short time. As a result, employment is located closer to residences and commuting patterns are more rational and less congested than they would otherwise have been. Alternative Local Data: Methodologically sound analysis of local conditions that lead to a conclusion that forecast levels of jobs or housing will not occur due to objective conditions. Availability of Suitable Sites and Public Facilities The GMP effort evaluated the capacity of each jurisdiction to accommodate forecasted levels of housing in the year 2010. Alternative Local Data: Objective factors (e.g. geologic conditions, toxic waste sites) that would preclude use of certain sites in a way that would reduce the capacity of a jurisdiction below forecasted levels. Type and Tenure of Housing Need SCAG Data Source: 1980 Census Data. Percentage breakdown housing levels. applied to Existing reh Alternative Local Data Scientifically sound and verifiable sample surveys with documen- tation and capability of being replicated. 5. Avoidance of further impaction of lower income households is defined as avoi &nee of any action leading to a higher concentration of lower income households than the regional percentage in a jurisdiction. (The definition of impaction is a SLAG Policy determination.) In practical terms, this implies a shift in the income distribution between the various jurisdictions over time. For example, this may be done by reducing an impacted community's concentration of lower income households and the opposite for a higher income jurisdiction. (Assuming no loss in the regional total of households.) The data elements needed to measure levels of impaction are: w o current household income distribution by jurisdiction; o current household income distribution for the region; and o apolicy objective for reducing impaction. Recommendations on this policy objective have been determined by local elected officials on SCAG's Policy committee and are incorporated in the RBNA Future Need identification. Alternative Local Data: "Locally derived alternatives for the revised income distribution will be considered under the following condition: Local policies and methods can be submitted which affect future income distributions, specifically to avoid further local impaction, in situations where the RHM distribution does not 6, Faraworker Needs. SCAG has used data from State BCD on the special needs of farmworkers, as required by the housing element law. Local data on this factor is encouraged as a subset of "current needs." A4 APPENDIX B METHODOLOGY USED IN NEEDS IDENTIFICATION I. EXISTING NEED Methodology: The projection of households in need (lower income households paying over 30% of income for housing) was based on the percentage increase or decrease of total households in a locality between 1980 and 1988. If the percentage change in households was a plus 10%, then the proportion of households in the lower income categories was increased exactly 10%. This "scaling up" was accomplished in the following manner: The first step was to take the RHAM 83 local jurisdiction percentage split between income groups (based on 1980 census data) and apply it to the figure for households for 1988. In this way, an estimate of households for each income category was derived. The second step was to assume that households in need would be in the same ratio to non -overpaying -lower income households as in 1980. The ratio for each jurisdiction's low and moderate income categories was used to get a gross estimate of households in need for each category. The percentage breakdowns between income groups and the breakdown by owner -renter categories were based on 1980 census information on income and tenure type. No more recent data on household incomes was available at the jurisdiction level which satisfied the needs of our analysis or state law (i.e. generally available data, replicable methodology for all jurisdictions, etc.). Further Adjustments The number of low and moderate income households in need could be adjusted downward by the number of households assisted by government subsidy programs which reduce shelter payments to no more than 30% of household income (e.g. lower income households assisted by Section 8 housing assistance payments or Public Housing subsidies). This adjustment would be made by local governments, outside the RHNA adoption process, when the local housing element is developed. On the other- hand, the number of lower income households in need could be adjusted upward to account for the impact of homeless persons on the jurisdiction (households in need that are not living in an occupied unit). This adjustment would also be made outside of the RHNA adoption process. As provided in the new state law (AB .1996), the homeless needs assessment could be performed as part of the required "identification of adequate- sites for emergency shelters," required in local housing elements. B-1 11. FUTURE NEED Total Future Need: The total future need for jurisdiction was determine d each into the for 1n April, 1988, three Draft Growth Management Alternatives (GMA's) were issued by SCAG for consideration by the Executive Committee. An RHNA Draft Alternative Future Need was done to correspond to each GMA. All three of these RHNA Alternative Future Need Drafts were included in the April, 1988 RENA Draft. This made it possible for the Executive Committee to evaluate the housing implications of each GMA as well as other aspects of the GMA's. The following Tables 22 through 2$, 29 through 35, and 36 through 42, show the Methodological Steps in arriving at the "RHNA FUTURE NEEDS 8 FACTORS" in Tables 14 through 20. They are based on the total GNP number of households forecasted for each jurisdiction for July 1994. The following steps were taken in constructing the table; TABLES 22 through 28 (HOUSEHOLD GROWTH): Step 1: "Total January, 1988 Households" (column 2): were obtained from the California Department of Finance (DOF). They correspond to DOF's estimate of occupied housing units in each jurisdiction for that data. Step 2: "Total July, 1994 Households" (column 3): were obtained from GMP forecasts for that year. Stop 3: "Household Growth 7/89-7/94" (column 4)1 This is total estimated household growth for the 5 years from July, 1989 to July 14 1994 (the RENA Future Need horizon). it was derived for each jurisdiction by multiplying its 1988-94 household growth (column 3 minus column 2) by 10/13, which is the proportion of the number of months on the shorter period compared to the longer period. TABLES 29 through 35 (VACANCY ADJUSTMENT): Step 4: "Total Housing Units January 1988" (column 1): Vere obtained from DOP. Step 5: "Single Family Proportion January 1988 (Column 2): Were obtained from DOF. B-2 k r t' Step 6: "Ideal Vacancy Rate January�1988" (Column 3): Calculated by multiplying single family unit proportion by 2 and remaining proportion by 5, to equal a 2% vacancy rate for single family units, and a 5% vacancy rate for other units. Step 7: 111987 Actual Vacancy Rate" (column 4): This is from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board's most recently available survey by zip codes. SCAG staff constructed a jurisdiction rate by adding and/or splitting zip code rates. Latest rates available for Imperial County jurisdictions were for 1983, and are from the 1983 RHAM. Step 8: "Existing Vacancy Need" (column 5): This is the number of additional or fewer units that would be needed in each jurisdiction to bring its vacancy rate to the ideal rate. It is derived by subtracting the quotient of 1987 Vacancy Rate (column 4) and Total January 1988 Housing Units (column 1) from the quotient of Ideal Vacancy Rate (Column 3) and Total January 1988 Housing Units (Column 1). For jurisdictions marked "V", this need is set at zero, rather than a negative value. These jurisdictions have DOF unoccupied unit rates exceeding 10% and are considered to be "vacation" areas with a significant number of "second" homes. Non -vacation home localities should seek a readjustment of their vacant unit need so that the appropriate negative value can be applied and future housing unit needs lowered. Step 9: "Additional Vacancy Need" (column 6): This is the additional number of units that would have to be provided to maintain ideal vacancy rates as a jurisdiction grew. It is determined by multiplying the Growth 7/89-7/94 by the jurisdiction's ideal vacancy rate. Step 10: "Total Vacancy Adjustment" (column 7): This is the total number of units that would have to be added (or credited against other demand) to attain (now) and maintain (in 1994) ideal vacancy rates. It is the sum of Existing Vacancy Need (column 5) and Additional Vacancy Need (column 6). TABLES 36 through 42 (DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT Step 11: 111984-86 Actual Demolitions": Were obtained from Construction Industry Research Board - Census Data. Step 12: "Demolition Adjustment": This is 1 2/3 times the Actual Demolition. The results of the foregoing three sets of tables.compose the RHNA Future Needs Factors in Table 14 through 20. B-3 TABLI 22 MA HOUSEHOLD GROWTH LOS ANGELES COUNTY TOTAL HOUS29OLDS HOUSEHOLD JAN 1988 JULY 1994 GROWTH JURISDICTION (DOF) (GMA-4M) 7/89-7/94 AGOURA HILLS ALHAMBRA 6,039 27,841 8,189 29,337 19654 1,151 ARCADIA 18,556 19t390 642 ARTESIA AVALON 4,417 1,082 4,544 1,328 98 189 AZUSA 12,374 139805 1,101 BALDWIN PARK 16,236 11,455 938 25 BELL BELLFLOWER 8,755 23,151 8,787 25,319 1,668 BILL GARDENS BEVERLY HILLS 9,210 15,360 9,234 15,971 18 470 BRADBURY BURBANK 296 38,558 320 41,385 18 29175 CARSON 230831 25,865 1,565 CERRITOS 15,233 16,852 1,245 CLAREMONT 10,775 3,172 11,644 3,392 668 169 COMMIRCI COMPTON 23,195 24,922 11328 COVINA 15,710 17,534 1,403 CUDAHY 59357 51542 142 CULVIR CITY 16,556 17,546 762 DOWNEY 33,472 34,778 11005 791 DUARTE IL MONTE 61646 269408 7,674 28,393 1,527 AL SEGUNDO GARDINA 6,795 18,200 7,892 19,882 844 1,294 GLINDALS 64,312 69,574 49048 GLENDORA 159789 179063 980 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 3,343 26,713 3,820 29,921 367 2,468 HAWTHORNE HERMOSA BEACH 9,578 10,209 485 HIDDEN HILLS HUNTINGTON PARR 510 149477 565 14,658 42 139 INDUSTRY INGLIWOOD 84 379045 196 37,962 86 705 IRVINDALB 238 258 15 LA CANADA FLNTRG 6,853 71111 198 LA HABRA HEIGHTS LAKEWOOD 19624 26,340 11745 27,313 93 748 LA MIRADA 12,447 13,477 791 8-4 TABLE 22 RHNA HOUSEHOLD GROWTH LOS ANGELES COUNTY TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLD JAN 1988 JULY 1994 GROWTH JURISDICTION (DOF) (GMA-4M) 7/89-7/94 • LANCASTER 289036 42,310 10,980 LA PUENTE 8,740 9,063 248 LA VERNE 9,890 11,001 855 LAWNDALE 9,020 10,032 778 LOMITA 8,144 8,687 418 LONG BEACH 163,432 175,755 9,479 LOS ANGELES 19222,354 11329,605 829501 LYNWOOD 14,097 14,390 225 MANHATTAN BEACH 14,383 15,658 981 MAYWOOD 61533 6,587 42 MONROVIA 12,822 13,751 715 MONTEBELLO 189268 18,650 294 MONTEEREY PARK 19,227 20,298 824 NORWALK 25,827 27,112 988 PALMDALE 149443 27,518 10,058 PALOS VERDES EST 5,000 5,362 278 PARAMOUNT 12,351 13,708 1,044 PASADENA 49,115 519688 11979 PICO RIVERA 15,641 169829 914 POMONA 35,836 39,207 21593 RANCHO P. VERDES 15,002 15,975 748 ' REDONDO BEACH 27,383 30,458 2,365 ROLLING HILLS 646 678 25 ROLLING HILLS ES 2,657 2,906 192 ' ROSEMEAD 13,684 149203 399 SAN DIMAS 10,230 11,728 1,152 SAN FERNANDO 5,671 5,957 220 SAN GABRIEL 11,941 12,710 592 SAN MARINO 4,415 4,418 2 SANTA FE SPRINGS 4,432 49692 200 SANTA MONICA ' 459741 47,480 1,338 SIERRA MADRE 49679 4,820 108 SIGNAL HILL 3,376 41296 708 SOUTH EL MONTE 49676 5,014 260 SOUTH GATE 22,871 22,986 88 SOUTH PASADENA 109259 102501 186 TEMPLE CITY 11,210 119576 282 TORRANCE 529023 55,480 2,659 VERNON 26 73 36 WALNUT 6,443 8,223 19369 WEST COVINA 29,711 31,816 10619 WEST HOLLYWOOD 22,561 229829 206 WESTLAKE VILLAGE 2,476 3,059 448 WHITTIER 27,118 28,132 780 UNINC. & NEW C. 324,015 3709090 35,442 COUNTY TOTAL 29962,983 3,238,163 211,677 8-5 TABLE 3 RONA HOUSEHOLD GROWTH LsiaoLD ORANGE COUNT TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS JAN 1988 JULY 1994 GROWTH JURISDICTION (DOF) (GMA-4M) 7/89-7/94 ANAHEIM 88,003 95,971 6,129 BREA 12,003 13,786 1,372 BUENA PARK 22,749 24,054 1,004 ' COSTA MESA 36,909 42,540 4,332 CYPRESS 13,718 149448 562 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 17,315 18,166 655 FULLERTON 401591 41,905 11011 GARDEN GROVE 45,113 47,435 1,786 HUNTINGTON BEACH 68,395 759363 5,360 IRVINE 36,398 54,133 139642 LA HABRA 17,911 18,909 768 LA PALMA 4,821 4,907 66 LAGUNA BEACH 11,329 12,011 525 LOS ALAMITOS 41286 4,632 266 )%V "AC4 'UH415 340711 at= ORANGE 36,197 40,168 31055 PLACENTIA 12,976 14,927 1,501 SAN CLEMENTE 15,874 20,699 3,712 SAN JUAN CAP 8,611 10,773 1,663 SANTA ANA 70,255 75,729 4,211 SEAL BEACH 13,985 14,336 270 STANTON 10,275 11,165 685 TUSTIN 18,194 21,202 2,314 ` VILLA PARK 1,867 1,877 8 WESTMINSTER 25,117 26,384 975 YORBA LINDA 14,436 20,436 4,615 UNINC. 6 NEW C. 123,246 148,890 19,726 COUNTY TOTAL 801,989 909,557 82,745 B-6 RHNA HOUSEHOLD GROWTH TOTAL JAN 1988 (DOF) TABLE 24 RIVERSIDE COUNTY HOUSEHOLDS HOUSE Od JULY 1994 G fiTH (GMA-4M) 7/89-7/94 BANNING 61634 71788 888 BEAUMONT 3,056 3,597 416 BLYTHE 2,540 21705 127 CATHEDERAL CITY 99457 16,294 5,259 COACHELLA 31130 3,817 528 CORONA 161654 20,879 39250 DESERT HOT SPGS 4,195 6,228 1,564 HEMET 15,693 19,820 3,175 INDIAN WELLS 1,056 1,446 300 INDIO 10,365 13,974 2,776 LA QUINTA 3,102 41707 1,235 LAKE ELSINORE 4,705 61740 1,565 MORENO VALLEY 27,878 50,511 17,410 NORCO 5,651 6,295 495 PALM DESERT 7,843 10,301 1,891 PALM SPRINGS' 14,365 17,929 29742 PERRIS 4,150 61541 1,839 RANCHO MIRAGE 3,895 4,703 622 RIVERSIDE 71,920 83,269 8,730 SAN JACINTO 5,221 8,150 2,253 UNINC. & NEW C. 114,191 152,506 29,473 TOTAL COUNTY 335,701 448,200 86,538 B-7 TABLE 25 RHNA HOUSEHOLD GROWTH SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLD JAN 1988 JULY 1994 GROWTH JURISDICTION (DOB) (GMA-4M) 7/89.7/94 ADELANTO 19978 2,827 653 BARSTOW 79530 S,534 772 BIG SEAR LAKE 2,370 3,309 722 CHINO 14,376 17,576 2,462 COLTON 11,956 169403 3,421 BONTANA 23,183 31,645 62509 GRAND TERRACE 3,545 49401 658 LOMA LINDA 5,061 61170 853 MONTCLAIR 8,233 8,988 581 NEEDLES 10989 2,337 268 ONTARIO 390479 48,120 6,647 RANCHO CUCAMONGA 29,844 41,618 91057 REDLANDS 20,870 26,105 4,027 RIALTO 19,665 26,655 5,377 SAN BERNARDINO 54,473 65,962 8,838 UPLAND 22,783 27,290 3,467 VECTORVILLE 10118 14,8OO 39602 UNINC. & NEW C. 150:348 1959559 34,778 COUNTY TOTAL 427,801 548,299 92,691 M-i TABLE 26 RHNA HOUSEHOLD GROWTH VENTURA COUNTY TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLD JAN 1988 JULY 1994 GROWTH JURISDICTION (DOF) (GMA-4M) 7/89-7/94 CAMARILLO 17,318 20,696 2,598 FILLMORE 3,341 3,691 269 MOORPARK 6,688 10,992 3,311 OJAI 22900 31151 193 OXNARD 38,134 42,477 3,341 PORT HUENEME 6,754 71456 540 SAN BUENAVENTURA 35,093 39,652 3,507 SANTA PAULA- 7,717 81388 516 SIMI VALLEY 29,209 34,581 49132 THOUSAND OAKS 34,408 40,957 52038 UNINCORPORATED 27,818 31,860 3,109 COUNTY TOTAL 209,380 243,901 262555 im TABLE 27 RHNA HOUSEHOLD GROWTH IMPERIAL COUNTY TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLD JAN 1988 JULY 1994 GROWTH JURISDICTION (DOTS) (GM-4M) 7/89-7/94 BRAWLER 5,482 5,982 385 CALEXICO 4,518 5,369 655 CALIPATRIA 719 779 46 EL CENTRO 9,139 10,662 1,172 HOLTVILLE 1,414 11534 92 IMPERIAL 1,281 11553 209 WESTMORELAND 528 571 33 UNINCORPORATED 99109 10,451 1,032 COUNTY TOTAL 32,190 36,901 3,624 B-10 TABLE 28 RHNA HOUSEHOLD GROWTH COUNTY SUMMARY TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLD JAN 1988 JULY 1994 GROWTH COUNTY (DOF) (GMA-4M) 7/89-7/94 LOS ANGELES 2,962,983 3,238,163 211,677 ORANGE 801,989 909,557 82,745 RIVERSIDE 335,701 448,200 86,538 SAN BERNARDINO 427,801 548,299 92,691 VENTURA 209,380 243,901 26,555 IMPERIAL 32,190 36,901 3,624 REGION 4,770,044 5,425,021 503,828 B-11 TABLE 29 RBNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT LOS ANGELES COUNTY TOTAL 1/88 UNITS 1988 1987 EXISTING ADDTL TOTAL HOUSING SNG1.. PAM. IDEAL ACTUAL VACANCY VACANCY VACANCY JURISDICTION UNITS 1/98 PROPORTION VAC. R VAC. R. NEED 1988 NEED 89-94 ADJUSTMENT AGOURA HILLS 6,301 0.834 2.50 3.40 -57 41 -16 ALHAMBRA 29,195 0.478 3.57 1.90 487 41 528 ARCADIA 190160 0.627 3.12 1.90 234 20 254 ARTESIA 4,604 0.756 2.73 0.70 94 3 96 AVALON-V 1,624 0.403 3.79 9.50 0 7 7 AZUSA 12,691 0.473 3.50 2.90 86 39 126 BALDWIN PARK 16,636 0.772 2.68 2.60 14 25 39 BELL 9,332 0.428 3.71 1.40 216 1 217 BELLPLOWER 23,724 0.546 3.36 2.20 276 56 332 BELL GARDENS 9,512 ' 0,702 2.89 2.40 47 1 48 BEVERLY HILLS 16,252 0.370 3.89 1.50 389 18 407 BRADBURY 320 0.947 2.16 0.90 4 0 4 BURBANK 40,13E 0.532 3.41 3.20 82 74 156 CARSON 24,098 0.772 2.68 1.40 309 42 351 CEREXTOS 159521 0.913 2.26 0.70 242 28 270 CLAREMONT 11,219 0.831 2.51 1.70 91 17 107 COMMERCE 3,255 0.764 2.71 0.50 72 5 76 COMPTON 24,005 0.702 2.89 1.40 359 38 397 COVINA 16,030 0.642 3.07 1.60 236 43 279 CUDAHY 5,611 0.454 3.64 2.40 69 5 75 CULVER CITY 17,115 0.469 3.59 0.70 495 27 522 DOWNEY 34,081 0.602 3.19 1.80 475 32 507 DUARTE 6,826 0.699 2.90 0.90 137 23 160 EL MONTI 279085 0.567 3.30 1.30 541 50 592 EL SEGUNDO 7,080 0.473 3.58 1.20 169 30 199 GARDENA 18,712 0.442 3.67 2.60 201 48 248 GLENDALE 67,123 0.415 3.75 2.30 977 152 11129 GLBNDORA 16,240 0.767 2.64 1.90 136 26 162 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 3,521 0.583 3.25 1.50 62 12 74 HAWTHORNE 27,763 0.337 3.99 1.70 636 98 734 HERMOSA BEACH 10,075 0.484 3.55 1.60 196 17 213 BIDDEN HILLS 526 0.958 2.13 2.00 1 1 2 HUNTINGTON PARK 15,384 0.359 3.92 1.70 342 5 347 INDUSTRY 88 0.807 2.58 1.60 1 2 3 INGLEWOOD 38,501 0.405 3.78 3.50 109 27 136 IRWINDALE-V 272 0.971 2.09 2.60 0 0 0 LA CANADA PLNTRG 6,971 0.931 2.21 0.60 112 4 116 LA HABRA HEIGHTS 19690 0.956 2.13 1.00 19 2 21 LAKEWOOD 26,586 0.855 2.43 1.00 381 18 399 LA MIRADA 12,866 0.837 2.49 0.60 243 20 263 V = "Second Home Community" Adjustment of Existing Vacancy Need. B-12 TABLE 29 RHNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT LOS ANGELES COUNTY TOTAL 1/88 UNITS 1988 1987 EXISTING ADDTL TOTAL HOUSING SNGL. FAM. IDEAL ACTUAL VACANCY VACANCY VACANCY JURISDICTION UNITS 1/88 PROPORTION VAC. R VAC. R. NEED 1988 NEED 89-94 ADJUSTMENT LANCASTER 30,3O6 0.613 3.16 2.00 352 347 699 LA PUENTE 8,966 0.700 2.90 1.40 134 7 142 LA VERNE 10,394 0.687 2.94 2.60 35 25 60 LAWNDALE 9,425 0.638 3.08 2.90 17 24 41 LOMITA 81544 0.537 3.39 1.70 144 14 158 LONG BEACH 172,915' 0.449 3.65 2.90 1,300 346 1,646 LOS ANGELES 1,267,726 0.459 3.62 1.20 30,715 2,989 33,704 LYNWOOD 14,578 0.614 3.16 2.50 96 7 103 MANHATTAN BEACH 15,309 0.759 2.72 2.70 4 27 30 MAYWOOD 6,852 0.469 3.59 0.80 191 1 193 MONROVIA 13,387 0.603 3.19 3.30 -14 23 8 •MONTEBELLO 18,782 0.582 3.25 0.40 536 10 545 MONTEREY PARR 19,936 0.689 2.93 1.20 345 24 370 NORWALK 26,580 0.770 2.69 1.50 316 27 343 PALMDALE-V 16,935 0.617 3.15 6.90 0 317 317 PALOS VERDES EST 5,071 0.917 2.25 1.80 23 6 29 PARAMOUNT 12,907 0.565 3.31 2.30 130 35 164 PASADENA 51,135 0.545 3.36 1.80 800 67 866 PICO RIVERA 15,948 0.824 2.53 1.10 228 23 251 POMONA 37,009 0.652 3.04 3.40 -132 79 -53 RANCHO P. VERDES 15,303 0.817 2.55 1.80 115 19 134 REDONDO BEACH 28,404 0.433 3.70 2.20 427 88 514 ROLLING HILLS 676 0.988 2.04 1.80 2 1 2 ROLLING HILLS ES 2,726 0.953 2.14 1.80' 9 4 13 ROSEMEAD 14,187 0.783 2.65 1.90 107 11 117 SAN DIMAS 10,481 0.760 2.72 1.60 117 31 149 SAN FERNANDO 51748 0.731 2.81 1.80 58 6 64 SAN GABRIEL 12,415 0.584 3.25 2.40 105 19 124 SAN MARINO 4,475 0.987 2.04 0.80 56 0 56 SANTA FE SPRINGS 4,520 0.730 2.81 0.90 86 6 92 SANTA MONICA 47,946 0.232 4.30 0.80 1,679 58 1,737 SIERRA MADRE 4,968 0.743 2.77 2.20 28 3 31 SIGNAL HILL 31586 0.377 3.87 2.80 38 27 66 SOUTH EL MONTE 4,821 0.721 2.84 0.80 98 7 106 SOUTH GATE 23,636 0.593 3.22 1.20 478 3 481 SOUTH PASADENA 10,714 0.502 3.49 2.10 149 7 156 TEMPLE CITY 11,524 0.857 2.43 2.00 50 7 56 TORRANCE 52,898 0.569 3.29 0.90 1,266 88 1,353 VERNON 37 0.784 2.65 1.20 1 1 1 WALNUT 69604 0.959 2.12 2.20 -5 29 24 WEST COVINA 31,063 0.732 2.80 1.90 280 45 326 WEST HOLLYWOOD 24,614 0.122 4.63 1.10 870 10 879 WESTLAKE VILLAGE 2,584 0.767 2.70 2.50 5 12 17 WHITTIER 28,023 0.699 2.90 0.80 589 23 612 UNINC. 8 NEW C. 340,211 0.724 2.83 1.40 4,855 1,002 5,857 COUNTY TOTAL 3,082,622 0.543 3.37 1.80 55,164 7,003 62,167 B-13 TABLE!30 RHNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT ORANGE TOTAL COUNTY 1/48 Ul�ITS 1988 1987 EXISTING ADDTL TOTAL HOUSING SNGL. 1AM. IDEAL ACTUAL VACANCY VACANCY VACANCY ADJUSTMENT JURISDICTION UNITS 1/88 PROPORTION VAC. R VAC. R. NEED 1988 NEED 89-94 ANAHEIM 89,873 0.499 3.50 1.90 11441 215 1,655 190 BREA 13,051 0.625 3.13 2.00 147 43 440 BUENA PARK 23,177 0.645 3.07 1.30 409 31 156 748 COSTA MESA 379282 0.470 3.59 2.00 593 15 210 CYPRESS 13,928 0.766 2.70 1.30 195 17 48 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 17,548 0.807 1.50 2.40 31 33 672 FULLERTON 42,108 0.594 3.22 1.70 639 797 56 853 853 GARDEN GROVE 45,860 0.621 3.14 1.40 9UNTINGTON BEACH 70,179 0.603 3.19 1.60 10117 171 10288 693 IRVINE 36,953 0.723 2.83 2.00 307 366 25 244 LA HABRA 18,419 0.570 3.29 2.10 219 79 2 81 LA PALMA LAGUNA BEACH 4,888 12,811 0.794 0.649 2.62 3.05 1.00 2,40 84 16 181 00 LOS ALAMITOS 4,365 3iv206 0.550 046 3.33 6!1 1.30 340 88 4W •1 97 97 � ORANGE 37,125 0.668 3.00 1.50 555 92 44 647 153 153 PLACENTIA 13,480 169916 0.697 0.590 2.91 3.23 2.10 1.10 109, 360 120 480 SAN CLEMENTE SAN JUAN CAP 99534 0.717 2.85 1.70 110 47 157 746 SANTA ANA 72,629 0.524 3.43 2,60 601 48 144 10 58 SEAL BEACH 14,486 10,437 0,424 0.424 3.73 3.73 3.40 1.80 201 26 227 STANTON TUSTIN 18,992 0,343 3.97 1.90 393 92 485 14 VILLA PARK 1,$89 0.988 2.04 1.30 14 0 30 467 WISTMINSTER 25,836 0.636 3.09 1.40 437 103 62 YORBA LINDA 15,170 0.924 2.23 2.50 -41 771 592 11364 UNINC. A NIV C. 128,134 0.666 3.00 2.40 0 COUNTY TOTAL 829,406 0.604 5.00 3.19 2.10 91569 2,557 12,126 8-14 TABLE 31 RHNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TOTAL 1/88 UNITS 198 1987 EXISTING ADDTL TOTAL HOUSING SNGL. FAM. IDEAL ACTUAL VACANCY VACANCY VACANCY JURISDICTION UNITS 1/88 PROPORTION VAC. R VAC. R. NEED 1988 NEED 89-94 ADJUSTMENT t BANNING-V 7,420 0.710 2.87 5.00 0 25 25 BEAUMONT-V 3,398 0.675 2.97 3.20 0 12 12 BLYTHE 2,710 0.733 2.80 2.60 5 4 9 CATHDRL CITY-V 11,954 0.576 3.27 7.30 0 '86 172 17 172 102 COACHELLA 31226 0.614 3.16 0.50 96 181 CORONA 18,229 0.679 2.96 2.50 84 DESERT HOT SP-V 5,136 0.565 3.30 8.60 0 52 52 HEMET-V 17,573 0.503 3.49 6.20 0 111 111 INDIAN WELLS-V 3,061 0.696 2.91 5.60 0 9 103 9' 103 INDIO-V 12,792 0.427 3.72 5.80 0 29 29 LA OUINTA-V 4,486 0.888 2.34 10.60 0 52 52 LAKE ELSINORE-V 5,928 29,345 0.562 0.855 3.31 2.43 4.00 2.80 0 -107 424 316 MORENO VALLEY NORCO 5,831 0.958 2.13 5.90 -220 11 -210 PALM DESERT-V 15,320 0.708 2.88 5.60 0 54 54 PALM SPRINGS-V 28,663 0.500 3.50 9.60 0 96 96 PERRIS 4,740 0.547 3.36 3.10 12 62 74 RANCHO MIRAGE-V 9,014 0.783 2.65 5.50 0 16 16 RIVERSIDE 75,176 0.663 3.01 4.50 -1,120 263 -857 SAN JACINTO 59758 0.488 3.54 2.80 42 80 122 UNINC S NEW C.-V 140,410 0.620 3.14 4.70 0 925 925 TOTAL COUNTY 410,170 0.640 3.08 5.30 -1,217 2,612 1,395 V = "Second Home Community" Adjustment of Existing Vacancy Need. 8-15 TABLE 32 RHNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TOTAL 1/88 UNITS 1988 1987 EXISTING ADDTL TOTAL HOUSING SNGL. FAM. IDEAL ACTUAL VACANCY VACANCY VACANCY JURISDICTION UNITS 1/88 PROPORTION VAC. R VAC. R. NEED 1988 NEED 89-94 ADJUSTMENT ADELA14TO-V 2,391 0.356 3.93 9.40 0 26 26 BARSTOW 8,020 0.633 3.10 2.20 72 24 96 BIG BEAR LAKE-V 8,062 0.837 2.49 3.00 0 18 18 CHINO 15,213 0.728 2.82 4.10 -195 69 -126 COLTON 13,127 0.570 3.29 5.10 -238 113 -125 FONTANA 25,132 0.706 2.88 3.50 -155 188 33 GRAND TERRACE 3,779 0.786 2.64 5.31 -101 17 -83 LOMA LINDA-V 5,883 0.593 3.22 4.40 0 27 27 MONTCLAIR 8,841 0.645 3.07 2.50 50 18 68 NEEDLES 2,175 0.634 3.10 2.50 13 8 21 ONTARIO 40,315 0.633 3.10 4.50 -565 206 -359 RANCHO CUCAMONGA 31,665 0.742 2.77 2.00 245 251 496 REDLANDS 22,347 0.674 2.98 4.00 -229 120 -109 RIALTO 20,959 0.770 2.69 4.10 -295 145 -151 SAN BERNARDINO 58,571 0.614 3.16 5.70 -1,489 279 -1,210 UPLAND 24,455 0.636 3.09 2.90 47 107 154 VICTORVILLE 1Or661 0.594 3.22 5.10 -201 116 -85 UNINC 8 NEW C.-V 2029387 0.780 2.66 4.40 0 926 926 COUNTY TOTAL 503,983 0.711 2.87 4.30 -3,040 29658 -382 V = "Second Home Community" Adjustment of Existing Vacancy Need. 8-16 TABLE 33 RHNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT VENTURA COUNTY TOTAL -1/88 UNITS 1988 1987 EXISTING ADDTL TOTAL HOUSING SNGL. FAM. IDEAL ACTUAL VACANCY VACANCY VACANCY JURISDICTION UNITS 1/88 PROPORTION VAC. R VAC. R. NEED 1988 NEED 89-94 ADJUSTMENT CAMARILLO 17,758 0.780 2.66 1.40 224 69 293 FILLMORE 3,445 0.742 2.77 1.70 37 7 44 MOORPARK' 6,835 0.806 2.58 3.80 -83 85 2 OJAI 2,998 0.766 2.70 1.50 36 5 41 OXNARD 39,929 0.585 3.24 1.10 856 108 965 PORT HUENEME 7,520 0.571 3.29 2.20 82 18 99 SAN BUENAVENTURA 36,240 0.614 3.16 1.90 456 ill 566 SANTA PAULA 7,994 0.630 3.11 1.10 161 16 177 SIMI VALLEY 30,815 0.820 2.54 0.90 505 105 610 THOUSAND OAKS 35,826 0.781 2.66 1.60 378 134 512 UNINCORPORATED 28,661 0.822 2.54 1.50 297 79 376 COUNTY TOTAL 218,021 0.715 2.85 1.50 2,948 738 3,686 TABLE 34 RBNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT IMPERIAL COUNTY TOTAL 1/88 UNITS 1988 1987 EXISTING ADDTL TOTAL HOUSING SNGL. PAN. IDEAL ACTUAL VACANCY VACANCY VACANCY JURISDICTION UNITS 1/88 PROPORTION VAC. R VAC. R. NEED 1988 NEED 89-94 ADJUSTMENT BRAVLEY 5,810 0.653 3.04 4.30 43 12 -61 CALEXICO 4,579 0.640 3.08 1.40 77 20 97 CALIPATRIA-V 801 0.770 2.69 3.20 0 1 1 EL CEM0 90620 0.617 3.15 5.30 -207 37 -170 HOLTVILLE 1,497 0.662 3.01 4.00 .15 3 -12 IMPERIAL 1,301 0.736 2.79 3.50 -9 6 -3 VESTMORELAND-V 604 0.748 2.75 3.90 0 1 1 UNINCORPORATED 11,518 0.526 3.42 3.10 37 35 72 COUNTY TOTAL 35,730 0.608 3.17 3.80 -190 115 -75 V = "Second Home Community" Adjustment of Existing Vacancy Need. Y MU Y TABLE 35 RHNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT COUNTY SUMMARY TOTAL 1/88 UNITS 1988 1987 EXISTING ADDTL TOTAL HOUSING SNGL. FAM. IDEAL ACTUAL VACANCY VACANCY VACANCY COUNTY UNITS 1/88 PROPORTION VAC. R VAC. R. NEED 1988 NEED 89-94 ADJUSTMENT LOS ANGELES 3,082622 0.543 3.37 1.80 2.10 55,164 9,569 7,003 2,557 62,167 12,126 ORANGE 829:406 410,170 0.604 0.640 3.19 3.08 5.30 -1,217 2,612 1,395 RIVERSIDE SAN BERNARDINO 503,983 0.711 2.87 4.30 -3,040 21658 738 -382 3,686 VENTURA218,021 0.715 2.85 3.17 1.50 3.80 2,948 -190 115 -75 IMPERIAL, 35,730 0.608 5,079,932 2.•31 63,234 15,683 78,916 REGION B-19 TABLE 36 RENA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1984-86 ACTUAL DEMOLITION JURISDICTION DEMOLITIONS ADJUSTMENT AGOURA HILLS 7 12 ALHAMBRA 253 422 ARCADIA 103 172 ARTESIA 37 62 AVALON 13 22 AZUSA 185 308 BALDWIN PARK 151 252 BELL 44 73 BELLFLOWER 145 242 BELL GARDENS 37 62 BEVERLY HILLS 168 280 BRADBURY 3 5 BURBANK 880 1, 467 CARSON 40 67 CERRITOS 15 25 CLAREMONT 15 25 COMMERCE 44 73 COMPTON 389 648 COVINA 55 92 CUDAHY 30 50 CULVER CITY 17 28 DOWNEY 116 193 DUARTE 27 45 BL MONTE 98 163 EL SEGUNDO 92 153 GARDENA 158 263 GLENDALE 1,159 1>932 GLENDORA 51 85 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 47 78 HAWTHORNS 11065 1,775 HERMOSA BEACH 149 248 HIDDEN HILLS 1 2 HUNTINGTON PARK 441 735 INDUSTRY 3 5 INGLEWOOD 406 677 IRWINDALE 11 18 LA CANADA FLNTRG 5 8 LA HABRA HEIGHTS 3 5 LAKEWOOD 15 25 LA MIRADA 2 3 LANCASTER 34 57 LA PUBNTE 26 43 LA VERNE 9 15 LAWNDALE 124 207 LOMITA 51 85 LONG BEACH 754 1,257 LOS AMBLES 79737 12,895 LYNWOOD 75 125 B-20 TABLE 36 RHNA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1984-86 ACTUAL DEMOLITION JURISDICTION DEMOLITIONS ADJUSTMENT MANHATTAN BEACH 254 423 MAYWOOD 35 58 MONROVIA 123 205 MONTEBELLO 67 112 MONTEREY PARK 138 230 NORWALK 42 70 PALMDALE 13 22 PALOS VERDES EST 3 5 PARAMOUNT 107 178 PASADENA 326 543 PICO RIVERA 61 102 POMONA 118• 197 RANCHO P. VERDES 2 3 REDONDO BEACH 554 923 ROLLING HILLS 8 13 ROLLING HILLS ES 2 3 ROSEMEAD 154 257 SAN DIMAS 0 0 SAN FERNANDO 14 23 SAN GABRIEL 99 165 SAN MARINO 1 2 SANTA FE SPRINGS 7 12 SANTA MONICA 86 143 SIERRA MADRE 20 33 SIGNAL HILL 19 32 SOUTH EL MONTE 52 87 SOUTH GATE 198 330 SOUTH PASADENA 30 50 TEMPLE CITY 39 65 TORRANCE 94 157 VERNON 23 38 WALNUT 6 10 WEST COVINA 26 43 WEST HOLLYWOOD 10 17 WESTLAKE VILLAGE 1 2 WHITTIER 118 197 UNINC. & NEW C. 795 1,325 COUNTY TOTAL 18,935 31,558 B-21 TABLE 37 RHNA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT ORANGE COUNTY 1964-86 ACTUAL DEMOLITION JURISDICTION DEMOLITIONS ADJUSTMENT ANAHEIM 275 458 BREA 67 112 BUENA PARK 47 78 COSTA MESA 45 75 CYPRESS 12 20 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 3 5 FULLERTON 44 73 GARDEN GROVE 160 267 HUNTINGTON BEACH 83 138 IRVINE 1 2 LA HABRA 42 70 LA PALMA 0 0 LAGUNA BEACH 33 55 LOS ALAMITOS 48 8800 x I I im-•81110" ue ORANGE 93 155 PLACENTIA 11 18 SAN CLEMENTE 21 35 SAN JUAN CAP 2 3 SANTA ANA 585 975 SEAL BEACH 38 63 STANTON 24 40 TUSTIN 40 67 VILLA PARK 1 2 WESTMINSTER 49 82 YORBA LINDA 23 38 UNINC. 6 NEW C. 141 235 COUNTY TOTAL 2,107 39512 8-22 TABLE 38 RHNA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1984-86 ACTUAL DEMOLITION JURISDICTION DEMOLITIONS ADJUSTMENT BANNING BEAUMONT BLYTHE CATHEDERAL COACHELLA CORONA DESERT HOT HEMET ,TNDIAN WEI INDIO LA QUINTA LAKE ELSID MORENO VAI NORCO PALM DESEI PALM SPRII PERRIS RANCHO MI3 RIVERSIDE SAN JACIN' UNINC. & I TOTAL COUI 21 35 9 15 48 80 CITY 0 0 7 12 46 77 SPGS 4 7 20 33 n TABLE 39 RHNA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT SAM BERNARDINO COUNTY 1984-86 ACTUAL DEMOLITION JURISDICTION DEMOLITIONS ADJUSTMENT ADELANTO 1 2 BARSTOW 5 8 BIG BEAR LAKE 27 45 CBINO 67 112 COLTON 18 30 FONTANA 59 98 GRAND TERRACE 0 0 LOMA LINDA 1 2 MONTCLAIR 4 7 NEEDLES 5 8 ONTARIO 58 97 RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9 15 REDLANDS 38 63 RIALTO 20 33 SAN BERNAVII40 236 393 UPLAND 12 20 VICTORVILLE 15 25 UNINC. 6 NEW C. 0 0 COUNTY TOTAL 575 958 B-24 TABLE 40 RHNA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT VENTURA COUNTY 1984-86 ACTUAL DEMOLITION JURISDICTION DEMOLITIONS ADJUSTMENT CAMARILLO 19 32 FILLMORE 15 25 MOORPARK 3 5 OJAI 5 29 8 48 OXNARD 3 5 PORT HUENEME 43 SAN BUENAVENTURA 26 SANTA PAULA 22 37 SIMI VALLEY 23 38 THOUSAND OAKS 25 42 UNINCORPORATED 53 88 COUNTY TOTAL 223 372 B-25 TABLE 41 RENA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT IMPERIAL COUNTY DEMOLITION JURISDICTION ADJUSTMENT BRAWLEY 14 CALEXICO 12 CALIPATRIA 2 EL CEMTRO 24 HOLTVILLE 4 IMPERIAL 3 WESTMORELAND 1 UNINCORPORATED 24 COUNTY TOTAL 83 B-26 TABLE 42 RBNA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT COUNTY SUMMARY 1984-86 ACTUAL DEMOLITION COUNTY DEMOLITIONS ADJUSTMENT LOS ANGELES 18,935 310558 ORANGE 2,107 3,512 RIVERSIDE 610 12017 SAN'BERNARDINO 575 958 VENTURA 223 372 IMPERIAL 83 REGION 22,450 37,500 B-27 Avoidance of Impaction The income levels for which Future Need additional units are provided are distributed in each jurisdiction on the basis of that jurisdiction's current household income distribution and then adjusted for "avoidance of impaction". The "avoidance of impaction" adjustment is done in response to the intent of the State Housing Law to avoid further concentration of lower income households in jurisdictions that already have more than the regional average proportion of lower income households. How this is accomplished is a matter of policy choice for SCAG. The Subcommittee held extensive discussions on this topic over several months. Many approaches were tested by staff and considered by the Subcommittee. The aim was to be fair to all jurisdictions and provide for uniform application of whatever adjustments were decided on. It was finally decided that all jurisdictions would be adjusted as follows: That the percentage of lower income households in the Future Need would be "25% of the way" from their current percentage in a jurisdiction to the regional average of 40.2%. In other words, a jurisdiction with 30% lower income households would have a Future Need that was 32-1/2% lower income, or "25% of the way" from 30% to 40.2%, while one with 50% would have a Future Need that was 47-1/2% lower income, or "25% of the way" from 50% to 40.2X. After doing this adjustment, a second adjustment would be done for those jurisdictions that were "highly impacted" and would remain so even after 20 years of reduced impaction ("25% of the way") future development. This second adjustment was as follows: The percentage of lower income Future Need units would be further reduced to a level that would result in the highly impacted jurisdiction no longer being highly impacted in 20 years, unless such a further adjustment would mean that as Future Need lower Income proportion would be less than two-thirds of its current proportion. M "Highly Impacted" is defined as exceeding the regional average proportion of lower income households by more than 10%. Therefore, this second adjustment would result in such jurisdictions attaining an overall (existing and additional) proportion within 10% of 40.2% lower income, or about 44% lower income, within 20 years. Only if such an adjustment required a reduction in Future Need proportions to less than 2/3rds of its current lower income proportions, would ; the goal be unattainable. An example of this would be a jurisdic- tion with 57% current lower income households that required a Future Need lower income proportion of less than 38% to attain an overall 5-28 proportion of 44% in 20 years. breaker" would come into play and be reduced to 38% and no further. In such a case, the "'circuit its Future Need proportion would Appendix C LEGAL ISSUES DEALT WITH IN DEVISING METHODOLOGY The RHNA Subcommittee was confronted with several legal issues in the course of its review of the methodology being used to determine regional housing needs. (The State Housing Law appears at the end of this Appendix for the convenience of the reader). The first four issues dealt with by the Subcommittee were as follows: 1. What does the Housing Element law provide and require regarding the use of RHNA allocation numbers by the local jurisdictions? What types of "growth management control" ordinances and measures may be taken into account by SCAG in determining a jurisdiction's RENA allocation? 3. How are moratoriums on residential construction other than growth management control ordinances dealt with in the RHNA review process? 4. What issues are appropriate to be considered in the RHNA allocation review process between SCAG and the local jurisdictions? The following legal opinion on these four issues was presented to the Subcommittee for their review (references to RHAM are to the RHNA): 1. Use of RHAM Allocations by Local Jurisdictions: Government Code sec. 65583 describes the contents required in a local Housing Element. The Housing Element is required to include an assessment and inventory of housing needs and resources. (G.C. 65583(a).) This assessment and inventory is required to include a quantification of the local agencies' existing and projected housing needs, which must include the RHAM allocation figure (65583(a)(1)). In addition, the assessment and inventory must include a statement of quantified objectives relative to the maintenance, improvement and development of housing. What is significant, however, is that the legislature has recognized that the total housing needs identified by the assessment and inventory "may exceed available resources and the communities" ability to satisfy this need ... " (65583(1)(b)). Therefore, if a local agency can appropriately show that the housing needs exceed available resources and the communitys' plan requirements, the quantified objectives need not be identical with total housing needs identified, which would include the RHAM allocation figures. However, the local jurisdictions will be required to develop a 5-year time frame for establishing the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed or rehabilitated. C-1 Notwithstanding the above remarks, under the provisions of sec. 65583(a)(1), the RMAM allocation numbers must be included by the locality in its assessment of housing needs. At the same time, the agencies' assessment and inventory of resources and constraints in meeting those needs will condition to what degree the quantified objectives of the locality will agree with or vary from the "starting point" of the RMAM numbers. 2. "Growth Management Control" Ordinances and RMAM Allocations SCAG is prohibited from considering a certain type of "growth management control" ordinance, policy, or standard as a justification for reducing a locality's share of regional housing need. This type of ordinance, policy, or standard is one which directly limits by number the issuance of residential permits or which limits for a set period of time the number of buildable lots which may be developed for residential purposes. The most sensible reading of this subsection is that the REAM numbers may not reflect the effect of ordinances, policies, or standards which place a numerical limit (e.g., 10, loop 1000) on the number of housing construction permits which may be issued. Likewise, they may not reflect similar numerical limits on the development of lots for housing. The above prohibition does not apply to traditional zoning and subdivision regulations which do not "limit by number." Simply, SCAG is compelled to ignore express numerical limitations on residential development in arriving at our RMAM allocation numbers. 3. Other Residential Construction Moratoriums and RUM Allocations The prohibition on the RMAM taking into account numerical limitations on housing permits or development does not extend to other ordinances which place a moratorium on residential construction for a set period of time in order to protect the public health and safety. (Gov. Code sec. 65584(d)(2).) When an agency has adopted such an ordinance, it may be a justification for determining or reducing a local government's share of the regional housing need. If, however, a local government relies on its moratorium to revise SCAG's determination of local need during the 90-day RMAM review period, the local government must have adopted required findings to support the revision. 4. Issues Involved in the RMAM Review Process After SCAG determines the RUM Allocations 65584(a))p a locality may petition SCAG for based upon the criteria and within the 65584(c). for each jurisdiction (sec. a change in this allocation time limits outlined in sec. C-2 The issues to be considered in this process differ from those outlined in the first issue we discussed above. (See 1. above.) Whether or not a locality's quantified objectives under section 65583(b) are identical to its RHAM Allocation has nothing to do with what those RHAM Allocations are, but rather with what justifications there are for the discrepancy between its needs and objectives in accordance with sec. 65583(a) and (b). The Review Process contemplated by sec. 65584(c) should therefore not deal with issues relating to the local agencies' determination that it does not have the available resources and ability to satisfy the housing needs identified by its assessment and inventory including the RHAM allocation numbers. That determination is not part of the SCAG review process. The review process is therefore concerned with issues involving the allocation of need in accordance with the criteria in sec. 65584(a), not with the local capabilities of a jurisdiction to satisfy such need. The Subcommittee agreed with narrow interpretation of the State Housing Law requirements on Issue No.29 above and agreed that staff should follow it in its work. There was little controversy on the other three issues, and staff followed the legal opinion on each. Alter these issues had been dealt with, the State Attorney General issued an Opinion in response to the following three questions concerning the determination of a locality's share of regional housing allocation needs: 1. Must the determination include both the existing and projected housing needs of the locality? 2. Must the availability of suitable housing sites be considered based upon the existing zoning ordinances and land use restrictions of the locality or based upon the potential for increased residential development under alternative zoning ordinances and land use restrictions? 3. Must the income categories of sections 6910-6932 of title 25 of the California Administrative Code be used? The Opinion, in its entirety, is included below in this Appendix. The first and third questions presented no real source of controversy for the RHNA effort, since SCAG had already included both existing and projected needs and used the prescribed income categories. The second question presented a more complex set of factors. Although the Opinion may not seem straightforward in its reasoning or conclusion, it seemed to say that any "circularity" in the RHNA--Housing Element/General Plan --Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance --Next RHNA chain had to be avoided by the RHNA looking beyond just existing land use restrictions and zoning ordinances to other factors. C-3 The issue was resolved by a policy decision to base the Draft RHMA upon the Draft Growth Management Plan "adjusted for impermissible growth control and zoning considerations not consistent with state law." At the time, December, 1987, work on the GNP was proceeding on the basis of a forecast which may have taken some of these impermissible or inconsistent factors into account. As of March, 19881 the GMA-1 alternative distribution had been done on a different basis, obviating the apparent need for staff to adjust for any such considerations. MI STATE HOUSING ELEMENT LAW Article 10.6. Housing Elements Policy 65580. The Legislature finds and declares as follows: (a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of • decent housing and a suitable living environment C-5 for every colifornia family is a priority of the highest order. (b) The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accamndate the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels. (c) The provision of housing affordable to low - and moderate -income households requires the cooperation of all levels of government. (d) Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the inproveent and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the camunitye (e) The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, enviro mental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs. (Added by State. 19800 Ch. 1143.) Intant 6S581. It is the intent of the Legislature in O enacting this articles (a) To assure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal. (b) To assure that counties and cities will prepare and implement housing elements which, along with federal and state programa, will move toward attainment of the state housing goal. (c) To recognize that each locality is best capable of determining what efforts are required by it to contribute to the attainment of the state housing goal, provided such a determination is compatible with the state housing goal and regional hawing needs. (d) To ensure that each local government cooperates with other local governments in order to address regional homing needs. (Added by State. 1980, Ch. 1143.) Definition 65562. As used in this article: (a) "community," "locality," "local government," or "jurisdiction," means a city, city and county, or county. (b) "Department" means the Department of Housing and Camunity Development. (c) "Hawing element" or "element" means the housing element of the conmunity's general plan, as required pursuant to this article and je subdivision (c) of section 65302. (Added by State. 1980, Ch. 1143.) C-6 for every California family is a priority of the highest order. (b) The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accanmodate the housing needs of Californians of all econanic levels. (c) The provision of housing affordable to low - and moderate -income households requires the cooperation of all levels of government. (d) Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the comminity. (e) The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth ,in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs. (Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.) Intent 65581. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this article: (a) To assure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal. (b) To assure that counties and cities will prepare and implement housing elements which, along with federal and state programs, will move toward attainment of the state housing goal. (c) To recognize that each locality is best capable of determining what efforts are required by it to contribute to the attainment of the state housing goal, provided such a determination is compatible with the state housing goal and regional housing needs. (d) To ensure -that each local government cooperates with other local governments in order to address regional housing needs. (Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.) Definitions 655824 As used in this article: (a) "Community," "locality," "local government," or "jurisdiction," means a city, city and county, or county. (b) "Department" means the Department of Housing and Community Development. (c) "Housing element" or "element" means the housing element of the community's unity's general plan, as required pursuant to this article and subdivision (c) of Section 65302. (Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.) C-7 Homing element 65583. The housing element shall consist of an �( content identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory -built housing, and mobilehomes, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of *U eeoaogae sepmsnts of kho oosssw4ty. The element shall contain all of the following: (a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include the following., (1) Analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. These existing and projected needs shall include the locality's share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584. (2) Analysis and documentation of household characteristics# including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (3) An inventory of land suitable for _ residential developments including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (4) Analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. (5) Analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, iitprovenent, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing# the price of land, and the cost of construction. (6) Analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the handicapped# elderly, large families# farmworkere, families with female heads of householder and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. C-8 • (7) Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. (b) A statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. It is recognized that the total housing needs identified pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and the community's ability -to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the identified existing housing needs, but should establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (c) A program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the.housing element through the administration of land use and development controls, provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of a11.=econ6`mic`segments of the' �commirnity, the program shall do all of the following: (1) Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including rental housing, factory -built housing, mobilehomes, emergency shelters and transitional housing in order to meet the community's housing goals as identified in subdivision (b). (2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate - income households. (3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. (4) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock. (5) Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, or color. C-9 (7) Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. (b) A statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. It is recognized that the total housing needs identified pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed available resources And the community's ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the identified existing housing needs, but should establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (c) A program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development oontrols, provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall do all of the followings (1) Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including rental housing, factory -built housing, mobilehomes, emergency shelters and transitional housing in order to meet the community's housing goals as identified in subdivision (b). (2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate- inoome households. (3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, sieve governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. (4) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock. A* (5) Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, or color. C-10 The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and camtunity goals. The local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort. (Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1691. Urgency; effective October 1, 1984; Amended by Stats. 1986, Ch. 1383.) Note: Stats. 1984, Ch. 1691, also reads: Uncodified policy SEC. 1. The Legislature finds and declares that because of economic, physical, and mental conditions that are beyond their control, thousands of individuals and families in California are homeless. Churches, local governments, and nonprofit organizations providing assistance to the homeless have been overwhelmed by a new class of homeless: families with children, individuals with employable skills, and formerly middle-class families and individuals with long work histories. The programs provided by the state, local, and federal governments, and by private institutions, 0) have been unable to meet existing needs and further action is necessary. The Legislature finds and declares that two levels of housing assistance are needed: an emergency fund to supplement temporary shelter programs, and a fund to facilitate the preservation of existing housing and the creation of new housing units affordable to very low income households. It is in the public interest for the State of California to provide this assistance. The Legislature further finds and declares that there is a need for more information on the numbers of homeless and the causes of homelessness, and for systematic exploration of more comprehensive solutions to the problem. Both local and state government have a role to play in identifying, understanding, and devising solutions to the problem of homelessness. Uncodified Policy Note: Stats. 1986, Ch. 1383, also reads: Sec. 3. The amendments to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 of the Government Code made by the act adding this section during the 1986 Regular Session of the Legislature shall require an identification of sites for emergency shelters and transitional housing by January 1, 1988, or by the next • periodic review of a housing element pursuant to C-11 Section 635ee of the Govarnment Code► whichever is later► in order to give local goverments adequate time to plan for* and to &saint in the development aft housing for homeless persona► if it is determined that there is a need for emergency shelter pursuant to paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 of the Government Code. Regional housing needs 65564. (a) For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, a locality's share of the regional housing needs includes that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by a jurisdiction's general plan. The distribution of regional housing needs shall, based upon available data, take into consideration market demand for housing, employment opportunities► the availability of suitable sites and public !• facilities► nounisting patterns, type And tenure of housing need, and the housing needs of farm orkers. The distribution shall seek to 1 avoid further impaction of localities with _ relatively high proportions of lower income households, eased upon data provided by the Department of rinence► in consultation with each council of government, the Department of dousing and Community Development shall determine the regional share of the statewide housing need at t least two years prior to the second revision, and all subsequent revisions as required pursuant to Section 69588. Based upon data provided by the g and ithousing Development of wi relative to the statartment need orf ch council of governments shall determine the existing and projected housing need for its region. Within 30 days following notification of this determination► the Department of Housing and Community Development shall ensure that this determination is consistent with the statewide housing need and may revise the determination of J the council of governments if necessary to obtain f this aonsistancy. Each locality's share shall be determined by the appropriate council of governments consistent with the criteria above with the advice of the department subject to the procedure established pursuant to subdivision (0) at least one year prior to the second revision, and at five-year intervals following the second revision pursuant to Section 65588. (b) !or areas with no council of governments, the Department of Housing and Community Development shall dotarminws housing market areas . and define the regional housing need for localities within there areas. Where the C-12 Section 65588 of the Government Code, whichever is later, in order to give local goverments adequate time to plan for, and to assist in the development of, housing for homeless persons, if it is determined that there is a need for emergency shelter pursuant to paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 of the Govern m+ent Code. Regional housing needs 65584. (a) For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, a locality's share of the regional housing needs includes that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by a jurisdiction's general plan. The distribution of regional housing needs shall, based upon available data, take into consideration market demand for housing, employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need, and the housing needs of farmworkers. The distribution shall seek to avoid further impaction of localities with relatively high proportions of lower income households. Based upon data provided by the Department of Finance, in consultation with each council of government, the Department of Housing ® and Community Development shall determine the regional share of the statewide housing need at least two years prior to the second revision, and all subsequent revisions as required pursuant to Section 65588. Based upon data provided by the Department of Housing and Community Development relative to the statewide need for housing, each council of governments shall determine the existing and projected housing need for its region. Within 30 days following notification of this determination, the Department of Housing and Community Development shall ensure that this determination is consistent with the statewide housing need and may revise the determination of the council of governments if necessary to obtain this consistency. Each locality's share shall be determined by the appropriate council of governments consistent with the criteria above with the advice of the department subject to the procedure established pursuant to subdivision (c) at least one year prior to the second revision, and at five-year intervals following the second revision pursuant to Section 65588. (b) For areas with no council of governments, the Department of Housing and Community . Development shall determine housing market areas and define the regional housing need for localities within these areas. Where the C-13 department determines that a local government possesses the capability and resources and has . agreed to accept the responsibility, with respect to its jurisdiction, for the identification and determination of housing market areas and regional housing needs, the department shall delegate this responsibility to the local ' governments within these areas. (c) within 90 days following a determination of a council of governments pursuant to subdivision (a), or the department's determination pursuant to subdivision (b), a local government may revise the determination of its share of the regional housing need in accordance with the considerations set forth in subdivision (a). The revised share shall be based upon available data and accepted planning methodology, and supported by adequate documentation. within 60 days after the time period for the local government's revision, the council of governments or the department, as the case may be, shall accept the revision or shall indicate, based upon available data and accepted planning methodology, why the revision is inconsistent with the regional housing need. The housing element shall contain an analysis of the factors and circumstances, with all supporting data, justifying the revision. All materials and data used to justify any revision shall be made available upon request by any interested party within seven days upon payment of reasonable costs of reproduction unless the costs are waived due to economic hardship. (d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any ordinance, policy, or standard of a city, county, or city and county which directly limits, by number, the building permits which may be issued for residential construction, or which limits for a set period of time the number of buildable lots which may be developed for residential purposes, shall not be a justification for a determination or a reduction in a local government's share of the regional housing need. (2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any city, county, or city and county which imposes a moratorium on residential construction for a set period of time in order to preserve and protect the public health and safety. If a moratorium is in effect, the city, county, or city and county shall, prior to a revision pursuant to subdivision (c)r adopt findings which specifically describe the impacted public facilities and the reasons why construction of C-14 the number of units specified as its share of the • regional housing need would prevent the mitigation of that impact. (e) Any authority to review and revise a local government's share of the regional housing need granted under this section shall not constitute authority to revise, approve, or disapprove the manner in which the local government's share of the regional housing need is implemented through its housing program. (f) A fee may be charged interested parties for any additional costs caused by the amendments to subdivision (c) at the 1983-84 Regular Session of the Legislature reducing from 45 to seven days the time within which materials and data shall be made available to interested parties. (g) Determinations made by the department, a council of governments, or a local government pursuant to this section are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, which is provided for in Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1684.) Housing element 65585. (a) Each local government shall guidelines and consider the guidelines adopted by the department state review pursuant to Section 50459 of the Health and A Safety Code in the preparation and amendment of its housing element pursuant to this article. Those guidelines shall be advisory to each local government in order to assist it in the preparation of its housing element. (b) At least 90 days prior to adoption of the housing element, or at least 45 days prior to the adoption of an amendment to this element, the planning agency of a local government shall submit a draft of the element or amendment to the department. The department shall review drafts submitted to it and report its findings to the planning agency within 90 days of receipt of the draft in the case of adoption of the housing element pursuant to this article, or within 45 days of receipt of the draft in the case of an amendment. The legislative body shall consider the department's findings prior to final adoption of the housing element or amendment unless the department's findings are not available within the above prescribed time limits. If the department's findings are not available within those prescribed time limits, the legislative body may take the department's findings into consideration at the time it considers future •) amendments to the housing element. C-15 the number of units specified as its share of the regional housing need would prevent the mitigation of that impact. (a) Any authority to review and revise a local government's share of the regional housing need granted under this section shall not constitute authority to revise, approve, or disapprove the manner in which the local government's share of the regional housing need is implemented through its housing program. (f) A fee may be charged interested parties for any additional costs mused by the amendments to subdivision (c) at the 1963-84 Regular Session of the Legislature reducing from 45 to seven days the time within which materials and data shall be made available to interested parties# (g) Determinations made by the department, a council of governments, or a local government pursuant to this section are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental 4uality Act, which is provided for in Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (Amended by State. 1994s Ch. 1684.) Housing element 65585. (a) Each local government shall guidelines and consider the guidelines adopted by the department state review pursuant to Section 50459 of the Health and Safety Code in the preparation and amerxtmnt of its housing element pursuant to this article. Those guidelines shall be advisory to each local government in order to assist it in the preparation of its housing element. (b) At least 90 days prior to adoption of the housing element, or at least 45 days prior to the adoption of an amendment to this element, the planning agency of a local government shall submit a draft of the element or amendment to the department. The department shall review drafts submitted to it and report its findings to the planning agency within 90 days of receipt of the draft in the case of adoption of the housing element pursuant to this article, or within 45 days of receipt of the draft in the case of an amendment. The legislative body shall consider the departments findings prior to final adoption of the housing element or amendment unless the department's findings are not available within the above prescribed time limits. if the department's findings are not available within those prescribed time limits, the legislative body may take the department's findings into at the time it considers future •consideration 1 amendments to the housing element. C-16 (c) Each local government shall provide the department with a copy of its adopted housing ®' element or amendments. The department may review adopted housing elements or amendments and report its findings. (d) Except as provided in Section 65586, any and all findings made by the department pursuant to subdivisions (b) and (c) shall be advisory to the local government. (Amended by Stats. 1983, Ch. 1250 [effective January 1, 19841; Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009.) Deadline for adoption 65586. Local governments shall conform their housing elements to the provisions of this article on or before October 1, 1981. Jurisdictions with housing elements adopted before October 1, 1981, in conformity with the housing element guidelines adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development on December 7, 1977, and located in Subchapter 3 (commencing with Section 6300) of Chapter 6 of Part 1 of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code [repealed in 1982), shall be deemed in compliance with this article as of its effective date. A locality with a housing element found to be adequate by the department before October 1, 1981, shall be deemed in conformity with these guidelines. (Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.) Extension of adoption 65587. (a) Each city, county, or city and deadline county shall bring its housing element, as required by subdivision (c) of Section 65302, into conformity with the requirements of this article on or before October 1, 1981. No extension of time for such purpose may be granted pursuant to Section 65361, notwithstanding its provisions to the contrary. Judicial standard (b) Any action brought by any interested party of review to review the conformity with the provisions of this article of any housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 0£ the Code of Civil Procedure; the court's review of ompliance with the provisions of this article shall extend to whether the housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto substantially complies with the requirements of this article. Enforcement of (c) If a court finds that an action of a city, compliance with county, or city and county, which is required to judicial action be consistent with its general plan, does not comply with its housing element, the city, county, or city and county shall bring its action into compliance within 60 days. However, the court shall retain jurisdiction throughout the • period for compliance to enforce its decision. C-17 Upon the court's determination that the 60-day • period for compliance would place an undue hardship on the city, county, or city and county, the court may extend the time period for compliance by an additional 60 days. (Amended by State. 1964, Ch. 1009.) Notes State. 1984, Ch. 1009, also reads: Unoodified policy SEC. 44. It is the intent of the Legislature that the term "substantially ocmpliess" as used in subdivision (b) of Section 65587, be given the .same interpretation as was given that term by the court in Carp v, Heard of Supervisors, 123 Cal. App. 3d 334, 348. Fmolicy¢ 65567.1. (a) The Legislature finds and Increasing housim declares that local policies and programs which opportunities increase housing opportunities through a tax- exempt revenue bond program or through a requirement that the approval of a housing related project be tied to the provision of assistance for housing are consistent with the intent of this article. The Legislature further finds and declares that actions which have the effect of impeding or halting such policies and program or the direct production of housing run contrary to the goals of increased housing opportunities and balanced commercial and • residential dmlopment eebodied in this article. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither a mortgage revenue bond program subject to subdivision (b) of Section 52053.5 of the Health and Safety Code nor a local approval, made prior to May 1, 1983, of a housing related ect shall be �and dccountyy to alleged or failure of a City COPfailure Y with this article, subdivision (c) of Section 65302 of the Govermwt Code, or sny regulations or guidelines adopted pursuant thereto, or any ion of law requiring or claimed to istency with the housing element of a 504eikirps"gFiegral plan. For purposes of this section, a "housing related project' owns (a) a residential project or (b) a nonresidential project, the local approval of which was conditioned upon the nonresidential developer (1) developing or rehabilitating or causing to be developed or rehabilitated housing units, or (2) providing funds for the development or rehabilitation of housing units, or (3) investing in a mortgage revenue bond program subject to subdivision (b) of Section 52053.5 of the Health and Safety Code, under a formula or guidelines adopted by the planning commission or local governing body of the city and county. 8or purposes of this section, "housing related C-18 Upon the court's determination that the 60-day • period for compliance would place an undue hardship on the city, county, or city and county, the court may extend the time period for compliance by an additional 60 days. (Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009.) Note: Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009, also reads: Uncodified policy SEC. 44. It is the intent of the Legislature that the term "substantially complies," as used. in subdivision (b) of Section 65587, be given the same interpretation as was given that term by the court in Camp v. Board of Supervisors, 123 Cal. App. 3d 334, 348. Policy: 65587.1. (a) The Legislature finds and Increasing housing declares that local policies and programs which opportunities increase housing opportunities through a tax- exempt revenue bond program or through a requirement that the approval of a housing related project be tied to the provision of assistance for housing are consistent with the intent of this article. The Legislature further finds and declares that actions which have the effect of impeding or halting such policies and programs -or the direct production of housing run contrary to the goals of increased housing opportunities and balanced commercial and residential development embodied in this article. ® (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither a mortgage revenue bond program subject to subdivision (b) of Section 52053.5 of the Health and Safety Code nor a local approval, made prior to May 1, 1983, of a housing related project shall be invalidated due to the failure or alleged failure of a city and county to comply with this article, subdivision (c) of Section 65302 of the Government Code, or any regulations or guidelines adopted pursuant thereto, or any other provision of law requiring or claimed to require consistency with the housing element of a local general plan. For purposes of this section, a "housing related project" means (a) a residential project or (b) a nonresidential project, the local approval of which was conditioned upon the nonresidential developer (1) developing or rehabilitating or causing to be developed or rehabilitated housing units, or (2) providing funds for the development or rehabilitation of housing units, or (3) investing in a mortgage revenue bond program subject to subdivision (b) of Section 52053.5 of the Health and Safety Code, under a formula or guidelines 1 adopted by the planning commission or local governing body of the city and county. For /J purposes of this section, "housing related C-19 project" shall not include a project, the construction or development of which requires either the demolition or conversion of low- or moderate -rental residential units and the local approval of which does not provide for the replacement of such units and for the maintenance in such units of rents affordable to low- and moderate -inane persons for a period of not less than 20 years, (Added by Stats. 1982s Ch. 312. Effective June 28, 1982.) Periodic review and MS. (a) Each local government shall review revision its housing element as frequently as appropriate to evaluate all of the following: (1) The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal. (2) The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community's housing goals and objectives. (3) The progress of the city, county, or city and county in implementation of the housing element. Deadlines for (b) The housing element shall be revised as oompleting housing appropriate, but not less than every five years# elemmt revisions to reflect the results of this periodic review. In order to facilitate effective review by the department of housing elements, local governments following shall prepare and adopt the first two revisions of their housing elements no later than the dates specified in the following schedule, notwithstanding the date of adoption of the housing elements in existence on the effective date of the act which amended this section during the 1983-84 session of the Legislature. (1) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments: July 1, 1984, for the first revision and July 1, 1989, for the second revision. (2) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the Association of Bay Area Governments., January 1, 1985, for the first revision, and July 1, 1990, for the second revision. (3) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the San biego Association of Governments, the Council of Fresno County Governments, the Kern County Council of Governments, the Sacramento Council of Governmenta, and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments: July 10 1985, for the first revision, and July 1, 1991, for the second revision. C-20 (4) All other local governments: January 1, 1986, for the first revision, and July 1,. 19921 for the second revision. (5) Subsequent revisions shall be completed not less often than at five-year intervals following the second revision. (c) The review and revision of housing elements required by this section shall take into account any low- or moderate -income housing which has been provided or required pursuant to Section 65590. (d) The review pursuant to subdivision (c) shall include, but need not be limited tot the following: (1) The number of new housing units approved for construction within the coastal zone after January 11 1982. (2) The number of housing units for persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, required to be provided in new housing developments either within the coastal zone or within three miles of the coastal zone pursuant to Section 65590. (3) The number of existing ressideiti lowior odwelling units occupied by persons moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of ® the Health and Safety Code, that have been authorized to be demolished or converted since January 1, 1982, in the coastal zone. (4) The number of residential dwelling units for persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, that have been required for replacement or authorized to be converted or demolished as identified in paragraph (3). The location of the replacement units, either onsite, elsewhere within the locality's jurisdiction within the coastal zone# or within three miles of the coastal zone within the locality's jurisdiction, shall be designated in the review. (Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 208. Effective Wal effect June 20, 1984.) 65589. (a) Nothing in this article shall require a city, county, or city and county to do any of the following: (1) Expend local revenues for the construction of housing, housing subsidies, or land acquisition. (2) Disapprove any residential development which is consistent with the general plan. (b) Nothing in this article shall be construed • to be a grant of authority or a repeal of any authority which may exist of a local government C-21 (4) All other local governments: January 1, 40 1986, for the first revision, and July 1, 1992, for the second revision. (5) Subsequent revisions shall be completed not less often than at fivejear intervals following the second revision. (c) The review and revision of housing elements required by this section shall take into account any low- or moderate -income housing which has been provided or required pursuant to Section 65590. (d) The review pursuant to subdivision CO shall include, but need not be limited to, the following: (1) The number of new housing units approved for construction within the coastal zone after January 1, 1982. (2) The number of housing units for persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, required to be provided in hew housing develapmmts either within the coastal zone or within three miles of the coastal zone pursuant to Section 65540. (3) The number of existing residential dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, that have been authorized to be demolished or converted since January 1, 1982, in the coastal zone. (4) The number of residential dwelling units for persons and families of low or moderate inooms, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, that have been required for replacement or authorized to be converted or demolished as identified in paragraph (3). The location of the replacement units, either onsite, elsewhere within the locality's jurisdiction within the coastal zonej, or within three miles of the coastal zone within the locality's jurisdiction, shall be designated in the review. (amended by State. 1984, Ch. 208. Effective June 20, 1984.) Lagal effect 65589. (a) Nothing in this article shall require a city, oounty, or city and county to do any of the following: (1) Expend local revenues for the construction of housing, housing subsidies, or land acquisition. (2) Disapprove any residential development which is consistent with the general plan. . (b) Nothing in this article shall be construed to be a grant of authority or a repeal of any authority which may exist of a local government C-22 to impose rent controls or restrictions on the sale of real property. (c) Nothing in this article shall be construed to be a grant of authority or a repeal of any authority which may exist of a local government with respect to.measures that may be undertaken or required by a local government to be undertaken to implement the housing element of the local general plan. (d) The provisions of this article shall be construed consistent with, and in promotion of, the statewide goal of a sufficient supply of decent housing to meet the needs of all Californians. (Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.) Findings to reject 65589.5. When a proposed housing development housing development project complies with the applicable general approvals plan, zoning, and development policies in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (a) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. (b) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to subdivision (a), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Added by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1438.) Action to challenge 65589.6. In any action taken to challenge the validity of project validity of a decision by a city, county, or city approval/disapproval and county to disapprove a project or approve a project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density pursuant to Section 65589.51 the city, county, or city and county shall bear the burden of proof that its decision has conformed to all of the conditions specified in Section 65589.5. (Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1104.) Affordable housing 6*589.8. A local government which adopts a requirement in its housing element that a housing development contain a fixed percentage of C-23 r-7 LJ Ll W affordable housing units, shall permit a developer to satisfy all or a portion of that requirement by constructing rental housing at affordable monthly rents, as determined by the local government. Nothing in this section shall be construed to expand or contract the authority of a local government to adopt an ordinance, charter amendment, or policy requiring that any housing development contain a fixed percentage of affordable housing units. (Added by State. 1983r Ch. 7870 Article 10.7. Low- and Moderate -Income Housing Within the Coastal Zone Requirements nts for 65590. (a) in addition to the requirements of Article 10.6 (ommoncing with Section 65560)r the provisions and requirammts of this section shall apply within the coastal zone as defined and delineated in Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code. Cach respective local government shall comply • with the requirements of this section in that portion of its jurisdiction which is located within the coastal zone. Replacement -housing (b) TM conversion or demolition of existing residential dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section W003 of the Health and Safety Coder shall not be authorized unless provision has been made for the replacement of those dwelling units with units for persons and families of law or moderate insane. Rsplaceannt dwelling units shall be located within the same city or county as the dolling units proposed to be converted or demolished. The replacement dwelling units shall be located an the site of the converted or demolished structure or elsewhere within the coastal zone if feasibler ore if location an the site or elsewhere within the coastal sore is not feasibler they shall be located within three miles of the coastal zone. The replan emnnt dwelling units shall be provided and available for use within three years from the date upon which work mr, -eI on the conversion or demolition of the residential dwelling unit. In the event that an existing residential dwelling unit is ooanpied by mrs^s than one person • or familyr the provisions of this subdivision shall apply if at least one such person or C-24 affordable housing units, shall permit a developer to satisfy all or a portion of that requirement by constructing rental housing at affordable monthly rents, as determined by the local government. Nothing in this section shall be construed to expand or contract the authority of a local government to adopt an ordinance, charter amendment, or policy requiring that any housing development contain a fixed percentage of affordable housing units. (Added by Stats. 1983, Ch. 787.) Article 10.7. Low- and Moderate -Income Housing Within the Coastal Zone Requirements for 65590. (a) In addition to the requirements of wing Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580)-, the provisions and requirements of this section shall apply within the coastal zone as defined and delineated in Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code. Each respective local government shall comply with the requirements of this section in that portion of its jurisdiction which is located within the coastal zone. Replacement housing (b) The conversion or demolition of existing residential dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, shall not be authorized unless provision has been made for the replacement of those dwelling units with units for persons and families of low or moderate income. Replacement dwelling units shall be located within the same city or county as the dwelling units proposed to be converted or demolished. The replacement dwelling units shall be located on the site of the converted or demolished structure or elsewhere within the coastal zone if feasible, or; if location on the site or elsewhere within the coastal zone is not feasible, they shall be located within three miles of the coastal zone. The replacement dwelling units shall be provided and available for use within three years from the date upon which work commenced on the conversion or demolition of the residential dwelling unit. In the event that an existing residential dwelling unit is occupied by more than one person • or family, the provisions of this subdivision shall apply if at least one such person or C-25 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California a0IIN K . VAN DE MW Attorney General ------------------------------ OPINION s ' s of s JOHN K. VAN DE IU12•iP No. 87-206 Attorney General = RODISEPTEMBER 29, i987IEY 0. LILYQUTST s ..---.-._...�.. ........ Deputy Attorney General : -----------------------------------.----.-------------------------- THE II01IOP.ADLE DAVID R013rRTT, 9EMBER, CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE, has requested an opinion on the following questions concerning the determination of a locality's share of the regional housing needs by a council of governments: 1. Must the determination include both the existing and projected housing needs of the locality? 2. Xust the availability of suitable housing sites be considered based upon the existing zoning ordinances and land use restrictions of the locality or based upon the potential for increased residential development under alternative zoning ordinances and land use restrictions? 3. Must the income categories of sections $910-6932 of title 25 of the California Administrative Code be used? CONCLUSIONS 1. The determination of a locality's share of the regional housing needs by a council of governments must include both the existing and projected housing needs of the locality. 2. The availability of suitable housing sites must be considered based not only upon the existing zoning ordinances and land use restrictions of the locality but also based upon the potential for increased residential development under alternative x zoning ordinances and land use restrictions. 3. The income categories' of sections 6910-6932 of title 25 of the California Administrative Code must be used. C-26 07 -206 ANALYSIS The three questions presented for analysis concern a ci.ty's or county's share of regional housing needs as determined by a council of governments and set forth in its general plan. In analyzing these questions we preliminarily note that every city and county operates under a comprehensive and long-term general plan to guide its future physical development. (Gov. Code, 6 65300; Buena Vista Carden Apartments Assn. v. Cit_ Diego Planning Dept._ (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 289, 294_) "The general plan is atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use." (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 .Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183.) Section 65300 states: "Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislativo body of each county and city shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which'in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning. Chartered cities shall adopt general plans which contain the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302." Section 653.02 provides: "The general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. The plan shall include the following elements: U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "(c) A housing element as provided in Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580). 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'/ "The "housing element as provided in Article 10.6" (55 65580-65589.8) must meet detailed requirements. Section 65583 provides: "The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for I, All 'section references hereafter to the Government Code are by section number only. C-27 87-206 ANALYSIS The three questions presented for analysis concern a ci.ty's or county's share of regional housing needs as determined by a council of governments and set forth in its general plan. in analyzing these questions we preliminarily note that every city and county operates under a comprehensive and long-term general plan to guide its future physical development. (Gov. Code, 5 65300; ouenn vista Carden -A artrents Assn. v. 't of San Di�ago PlannincZ_Deot. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 289, 294.) "The general plan is atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use." (Neighborhood Action. Group v, county a£ Calaveras (1984) 156 .Ca1.App.3d 1176, 1183.) Section 65300 states: "Each planning agency shall prepare and the l-sgislativo body of each county and city shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outsi.de -its boundaries which'in the planning agency's judgmont bears relation to its planning. Chartered citios shall adopt general plans which contain the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302.0 Section 65302 provides: "The general plan shall consist of a statement Of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. The plan shall include the following elements: N . • • . • • , • • . • • • • • • . • . . . . . . "(c) A housing element As provided in Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580). Y . . . • . • • • . . • . . • • • . . • . a • . . . " The "housing element as provided in Article 10.6" (55 65580-65589.8) must meet detailed requirements, Section 65583 providess "The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a atatoment of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for 1.. All 'section references hereafter to the Government Code are by section numbor only. „ C-28 87-209 housing, including rental housing, factory -built housing, and mobilehomes, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. The element shall contain all of the following: "(a) An assessment- of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include the following: "(1) Analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. These existing and projected needs shall include the locality's share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584. „ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 65584 states: "(a) For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, a locality's share of the regional housing needs -includes that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by a jurisdiction's general plan. The distribution of regional housing needs shall, based upon available data, take into consideration market demand for housing, employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need, and the housing needs of farmworkers. The distribution shall seek to avoid further impaction of localities with relatively high proportions of lower income households. Based upon data provided by the Department of Finance, in consultation with each council of government, the Department of Housing and Community Development shall determine the regional share of the statewide housing need .at least two years prior to the second revision, and all subsequent revisions as required pursuant to Section 65588. Based upon data provided by the Department of Housing and Community Development relative to the statewide need for housing, each council of governments shall determine the existing and projected housing need for its region. Within 30 days following notification of this determination, the Department of Housing and. Community Development shall ensure that this determination is consistent with the statewide housing need and may revise the determination of the council of governments if necessary to obtain' this consistency. Each locality's share shall be determined by the appropriate C-29 87-206 council of governments consistent with 'the criteria above with Cho advice of the department subject to the procedure established pursuant to subdivision (c) at least one year prior to the second revision, and at five-year intervals following the second revision pursuant to Section 65588. "(b) For areas with no council of governments, the Department of Housing and Community Development shall determine housing market areas and define the regional housing need for localities within these areas. where the department determines that a local government possesses the capability and resources and has agreed to accept the responsibility, with respect to its jurisdiction, for the identification and determination of housing market areas and regional housing needs, the department shall delegate -this responsibility to the local governments within these areas. n n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 65584 gives the Department of Housing and Community Development ("Departmont") various responsibilities including bhe duty to define the regional housing need for localities^ in areas not covered by a council of governments, unless it has delegated such authority to a local government. For cities and counties located in areas served by a council of governments, the council performs this function. Section 65584 requires the Department or a council to act when a housing element of a city or county is revised "pursuant to Section 65588." The latter statute designates various dates for housing element revisions, including for areils covered by specified councils of governments: "(1) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments: July 1, 1984, for the first revision and July 1, 1989, for the second revision. 0(2) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the Association of Say Area Governments: January 1, 1905? for the first revision, and July 1; 1990, for the second revision. 4(3) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the San Diego Association of 2. Throughout the statutory scheme "locality" is used interchangeably with "community,9 "local government," and "jurisdiction" and means either the city or the county (or San Francisco which is a city and county). (5 65502, subd. (a).) C-30 07-206 council of governments consistent with the criteria above with the advice of the department subject to the procedure established pursuant to subdivision (c) at least one year prior to the second revision, and at five-year intervals following the second revision pursuant to Section 65588. "(b) For areas with no, council of governments,.the Department of Housing and Community Development shall determine housing market areas and define the regional housing need for localities within these areas. Where the department determines that a local government possesses the capability and resources and has agreed to accept the responsibility, with respect to its jurisdiction, for the identification and determination of housing market areas and regional housing needs, the department shall delegate- this responsibility to the local governments within these areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 65584 gives the Department of Housing and Community Development ("Department") various responsibilities including the duty to define the regional housing need for localities-2/ in areas not covered by 'a council of governments, unless it has delegated such authority to a local government. For cities and counties located in areas served by a council of governments, the council performs this function. Section 65584 requires the Department or a council to act when a housing element of a city or county is revised "pursuant to Section 65588." The latter statute designates various dates for housing element revisions, including for areas covered by specified councils of governments: "(1) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments: July 1, 1984, for the first revision and July 1, 1989, for the second revision. "(2) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the Association of Bay Area Governments: January 1, 1985, for the first revision, and July 1, 1990, for the second revision. "(3) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the San Diego Association of 2. Throughout the statutory interchangeably with "commiunity,-' "jurisdiction" and means either the Francisco which is a city and county) scheme "locality" is used "local government," and city or the county (or San (S 65582, subd. (a).) . C-31 87-206 Governments, the Council of Fresno County Governments, the Kern County Council of Governments, the Sacramento Council of Governments, and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments: July 1, 1985, for the first revision, and July 1, 1991, for the second revision." R Thereafter a housing element revision is required "not less than every five years." (5 65580, subd. (b).) The focus of the three inquiries is directed at both sections 65583 and 65584. Several wall -recognized principles of statutory construction aid our analysis of these legislative enactments. In construing statutory language, we are to "ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law." (Select ease Materials v. Board of Ecual. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645, accord 'PFoole v. Davis (1981) 29 Cal.3d 814, 028.) "In determining such intent, the court 'turns first to the words themselves for the answer' [citations]." (Peoop1g v. Craft (1986) 41 Cal.3d 554, 560.) The words are to be given "their ordinary and generally accepted meaning." (Peonlry v. Qa4tro (1905) 38 Cal.3d 301, 310.) Moreover, "legislation should be construed so as to harmonize its various elements without doing violence to its language or spirit." (Wells V. Marina CitL Prn1,,7rei.4s, Inc. (1981) .29 Cal.3d 781, 788.) "Whorever roanonab.le, interpretations which produce internal harmony, avoid redundancy and accord significance to every word and phrase are preferred." (Pacific Legal Foundation v. RMP IEL rnu+nt , Ins AnCgn 7 s P.d , (1981) 29 Cal.3d 101, 114.) "Interpretive constructions which render some words surplusage, defy common sense, or lead to mischief or absurdity, are to be avoided." (California Mfrs. Assn. v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 836, 844.) *. Existincr and Proipcted Housina Needs The first question posed is whether the council's determination of a lb �lity's sham is to include both the existing and project= housing needs of the locality. We conclude that it does. Section 65584 directs a council to "determine the existing and projected housing need for its region." The purpose of such determination is to calculate and apportion shares of this need to all cities and counties in the region. "Each locality's share shall be determined by the appropriate council of governments." (565584, subd. (a).) Two components thus comprise the regional housing need: the existing housing need and the projected housing need. When 3. A locality's "projected" housing needs would be those for the next five-year period. (SAP 5 65583, subds. (b), (c).) C-32 87-206 shares of the regional housing need are apportioned to the communities in the area, each share contains both components. Ila provision of the statute -remotely suggests that one of the necessary components is to be omitted when apportioning shares. -Such construction of section 65584 is supported by the language of section G5583. -As previously quoted, the latter " statute requires that the housing element of a city or county contain "a.quantification of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels." It then provides: "These existing and projected needs shall include the. locality's share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584." Itence the reference in section 65583 to "existing and projected housing needs" in conjunction with "the locality's share of the regional housing need" clearly indicates that the latter incorporates both components. One of the purposes of the legislation governing housing elements is "[t)o ensure that each local government cooperates with other local governments in order to address regional housing needs." (5 65581, subd. (d).) Regional housing needs include bath existing and projected needs. (S 65584, subd. (a).) Both components are "addressed" by apportioning shares thereof to each community in the region. By so construing section 65584, we give each of its provisions meaning and carry out the apparent intent of the Legislature. In answer to the first question, therefore, we conclude that the determination of a locality's share of the regional • housing needs by a council of governments must include both the existing and projected housing needs of the locality. �2: current Zoninv Ordinances The second question concerns whether in making its determination of a locality's share of the ;;dg dn:1 housing) (ieeds., I a _council of govexnxnents is. to consider the -availability of suitable housing sites based npoa,the existi'nq=zo`nng ordinances- arid: Tand..use restrictions of the locality or upon " alternative zoning -ordinances --and- landwuse=es rtrictions that would allow the potential for increased residential development. We conclude that both existing and alternative zoning ordinance's and land use restrictions must be considered. The council of governments is directed to determine a locality's share of the regional housing needs based upon the following criteria: "The market demand for housing, employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and public.facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need, and the housing needs of farmworkers (and the avoidance of] further impaction of localities C-33 87-206 shares of the regional housing need are apportioned to the communities in the aroa, each share contains both components. No provision of the statute remotely suggests that one of the necessary components is to be omitted when apportioning shares. •Such construction of section 65584 is supported by the langudge of section 65583. As previously quoted, the latter statute requires that the housing element of a city or county contain "a -quantification of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels," It then provides: "These existing and projected abeds shall include the locality's share of the regional housintj need in accordance with Section 65584." ifenco the reference in section 65583 to "existing and projected housing needs" in conjunction with "the locality's share of the regional housing need" clearly indicates that the latter incorporates both components. One of the purposes of the leti.slation governing housing elements is "(t)o ensure that each local government cooperates with other local governments in order to address regional housing needs." (§ 65581, subd. (d).) Regional housing needs include both existing and projected needs. (5 655840 subd. (a).) Both components are "addrabsed" by apportioning shares thereof to each community in the region. By so construing section 65583, we gave each of its provisions moaning and carry out the apparent intent of the Legislature. In answer to the first question, therefore, we conclude= that the determination of a locality's share of the regional housing needs by a council of governments must include both the existing and projected housing needs of the locality. 2. CurrentZonino Ordinances The second question concerns whether in making its determination of a locality's share of the regional housing needs, a council of governments is to consider the availability of suitable housing sites based upon the existing zoning ordinances and land use restrictions of the locality or upon alternative zoning ordinances and land use restrictions that would allow the potential for increased residential development. We conclude that both existing and alternative zoning ordinances and lend use restrictions must be considered. The council of governments is directed to determine a locality's share of the regional housing needs based upon the following criteria: "The market demand for housing, employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need, and the housing needs of farmworkers [and the avoidance of] further impaction of localities C-34 87-206 with relatively high proportions of .lower income housuliolds." (§ 65584, subd. (a).) We find no indication in section 65584 that current zoning ordinances and land use restrictions are to limit the factor of "the availability of suitable sites." A hoti'sing site wou.l, he unsuitable---based-upon--its physical character_iatics�--no-'t because of some- governmental controa; of�an�artAi=fsii'at1= =ands external nature. The planning process of sections 65583 and 65584 contemplates an identification of adequate sites that could be made available through different policies and development standards. Existing zoning policies would be only one aspect of the "available data" upon which the factor of "the availability bf suitable sites" is to be considered under section 65584. To argue that this part of the general plan is required to conform to existing zoning practices would be anomalous and circuitous, since section 65860 requires the zoning ordinances of a locality to be consistent with its general plan. Subdivision (d) of section 65584 emphasizes this fact by expressly providing that a local government's sharo of the regional housing need is not subject to reduction, except in one narrow circumstance, by: any ordinance., policy, or standard of a city, county, or city and county which directly, limits, by number, the building permits which may be issued for residential construction, or which limits for a set period of time the number of buildable lots which may be developed for residential purposes. Our construction of section 65584 is consistent with the goals of the statutory scheme as a whole (§§ 65580-65589.8) and the particular requirements specified for housing elements (§ 65583). The legislation has as its primary purpose "to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels." (§ 65580, subd. (b).) Cities and counties are directed to "recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal:" (5 65580, subd. (a).) Each local government is "to cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs." (5 65580, subd. (e).) Allowing a city or county to prevent being allocated a share of the regional housing needs through restricted zoning ordinances would be contrary to the manifest intent of the Legislature.`= The housing element of a local government must specifically include: 4. The only authorized exception is a locality's "moratorium on residential construction for a set period -of time in order* to preserve and protect the public. health and safety." (§ 65584, subd. (d)(2).) C-35 87-206 "An invontory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and 'sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites." (S 65583, subd. (a)(3).) it is the "relationship" of current zoning ordinances that mus be considorod with rospect to suitable housing sites-. No hint b JjLni pr' may be found in the use of the term "relationship." Section 65583 also requires that a housing element include five-year program thAt wills "Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public, services and facilities neadc-.d to f..7cilitato and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels . ." (6 65583, subd. (c)(1).) Such -language unmistakably contemplates that zoning, ordinance and land use restrictions may require modification duriA9 th five+yoar period to accommodate a locality's projected housin -needs. Consistent with this interpretation is the requiremen that the five-year programs "AddrosD and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing." (S 65583, subd. (c)(3).) These "governmental constraints" must be analyzed in detail in the housing element; the element must contains "Analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, sit* improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures." (S 65583, subd. (4)(4).) In sum, a local government must provide in its housing element for the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. (S 65583.) In doing so, it is required to identify suitable housing sites. (S 65583, subd. (a)(3).) The city or county must identify those sites "which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards" during the ensuing five-year period. (S65583, subd, (c)(1).) It must "undertake to implement the policies and achiove the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls." (S 65583, subd. (c).) The required consideration and evaluation of zoning changes necessary to meet the identified needs of the C-36 87-206 "An inventory of land suitable for residential: development, including vacant sites and 'sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the rrel`a'tionship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (5 65583, subd. (a)(3).), r It.,•is•the "relationship" of current zoning ordinances that must be�,ons•idercd with respect to suitable housing sites. No hint of lim,ittation may be found in the use of the term "relationship." Section 65583 also requires that a housing element include a five-year\Program that will: ",Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development storidari,L- and with public services and facilities neauc--d tof,acilitate and encourage the development of a variety of',types of housing for, /all income levels " (5 65583, subd. (c)(1).) e Such -language unmistakably contemplates that zoning ordinances and land use restrictions may require modification during the five-year period to accommodate -a. locality's projected housing needs. Consistent with this interpretation is the requirement that the five-year program: "Address and,\\ where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement,, and development of housing. (5 65583, subd. (c) (3')',. )\\ These "governmental constraints"\ must be analyzed in detail in the housing element; the element must contain: "Analysis 'of potential aid -,.,actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance;, improvement, or development of- housing for all income levels, including land use ,/controls, building codes and their enforcement; site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures." (5 65583, subd. (a)(4).) In sumf' a local government must provide\ in its housing element for.' the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. (5 65583.) \In doing so, it is required to identify suitable housing sites. (S 65583, subd. (a)(3).)-'.' The city or county must identify those\sites "which will be''made available through appropriate zoning and\development standards" during the ensuing five-year period. (56M�,83, subd. (c)(1).) It must "undertake to implement the policies and achieve the.goals and objectives of the housing element\�through the. administration 'of land use and development controls." iA (5%,65583, subd. (c).) The required consideration and evaluion of zoning changes necessary to meet the identified needs of`;the C-37 87-206 r. bEommuni.ty would be precluded by allowing existing zoning 1•,,,� limitations to define what housing sites are "suitable." A council of governments thus would not be able to perform the task mandated for it without consideration of land uses that are possible despite existing zoning restrictions. The "suitable sites" factor to be considered by a council pursuant to section 65504 must be read in conjunction with the phrase "land suir._ble for residential development" of section 65583 that, roqu.ires consideration of zoning limitations but is not limited to lands presently zoned for such development. In answer to the second question, therefore, we conclude that a council of governments must consider the availability of suitable housing sites based not only upon the existing zoning ordinances and land use restrictions of the locality but also based upon the potential for increased residential development under alternative zoning ordinances and land use restrictions when determining a locality's share of the regional housing needs. 3. Calc»lation of Tncome revels The third question presented is whether A Council t:f` goVerm,ionts is r.lquired to follow the regulation* (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 25, 94 6910-6932) a the, pep3MMent defining incomi# Gcategofies when determining a locality's share of the regional housing needs. We conclude that it must. IJ rRegulation 6926 states in part: "Very low income households' means persons and families whose gross incomes do not exceed the _ qualifying limits for very low income families established and amended from time to time pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. The qualifying limits are set forth in Section 6932. These limits are equivalent to 50 percent of the area median income, adjusted for family site by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development." (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 25, S 6926, subd.(a).) Regulation 6928 provides in part: "'Lower income households' means persons and families whose gross incomes do not exceed the qualifying limits for lower income families as established and amended from time to time pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. The qualifying limits are set forth in Section 6932. These limits are equivalent to 80 percent of the area median income, adjusted for family size and other adjustment factors by the United States Department of C-38 87-206 Housing and Urban Development." (Cal -Admin. Code, tit. 25, 5 6928; subd. (a):) Regulation 6930 states in part: ,"Moderate income households' means persons and families who are not ''lower income households' and whose gross incomes do not exceed 120 percent of -the area median income adjusted for family size in accordance with adjustment factors adopted by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in establishing income limits for lower income families. For purposes of this subchapter, the income limits are set forth in Section 6932." (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 25, S 6930, subd. (a).) These regulations are authorized by and are consistent' with Health and Safety Code sections 50079.5 (lower income households), 50093 (moderate income households), and 50105 (very low income households). A council of governments must determine a locality's share of the regional housing needs "of persons at all income levels within the area." (S 65584, subd.(a).) This determination is to be "[b]ased upon data provided by the Department." (Ibid.) It is the Department that assesses the state housing needs upon which the regional housing needs are calculated. The Department is also .required to revise any determination of regional housing needs made by a council that is inconsistent with the state housing needs. (ibid.) The Department follows state law (health & Saf. Code, SS 50079.5, 50093, 50105; Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 25, SS 6910-6932) in categorizing income levels for its calculations and the data provided to the councils. For a council to "base" its determinations upon the Department's data, we believe that it is directed to use the income categories selected by the Department. No other definitions of moderate income, lower income, or very low income may be found in state law governing this issue. We note also that the Legislature has specifically referred to "persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code" when mandating the review and revision of housing elements. (S 65588, subd.(d).) Requiring a council of governments to follow the income classifications established by the Legislature and Department provides consistency between sections 65584 and 65588. Such interpretation of the terms of section 65584 facilitates the administration of the state housing laws. Allowing each council of governments, on the other hand, to create its own income classifications would be impractical 4nd would defeat the purpose of meeting the state housing needs in a consistent and effective C-39 . 87-206 Housing and Urban Development." (Cal.-Admin. Code, tit. 25, 5 6928; subd. (a):) Regulation 6930 states in part: "'Moderate income households' means persons and families who are not ''lower income households' and whose gross incomes do not exceed 120 percent of -the area median income adjusted for family size in accordance with adjustment factors adopted by tho United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in establishing income limits for lower income families. For purposes of this subchapter, the income limits are set forth in Section 6932." (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 25, S 6930, subd. (a).) These regulations are authorized by and are consistent with Health and Safety Code sections 50079.5 (lower income households), '50093 (moderate income households), and 50105 (very low income households). A council of governments must determine a locality's share of the regional housing needs "of persons at all income levels within the area." (S 65584, aubd.(a).) This determination is to be "[b]ased upon data provided by the Department." (Thiel.) It is the Department that assesses the state housing needs upon which the regional housing needs are calculated. The Department is also required to revise any determination of regional housing needs made by a council that is: inconsistent with the state housing needs. (ibid.) The Department follows state law (Health & Saf. Code, SS 50079.51 50093, 50105; Cal. Admin. Cade, tit. 25, SS 6910-6932) in' categorizing income levels for its calculations and the data provided to the councils. For a council to "base" its determinationd upon the Department's data, we believe that it is directed to use the income categories selected by the Department. No other definitions of moderate income, lower income, or very low income may be found in state law governing this issue. We note also that the Legislature has specifically referred to "persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code" when mandating the review and revision of housing elements. (S 65588, subd.(d).) Requiring a council of governments to follow the income classifications established by the Legislature and Department provides consistency between sections 65584 and 65588. Such interpretation of the terms of section 65584 facilitates the administration of the state housing laws. Allowing each council of governments, on the other hand, to create its own income,, classifications would be impractical and would defeat the purpose of meeting the state housing needs in a consistent and eLfeccive C-40 87-206 manner. Uniformity of classification allows the .local governments "to cooperate with. other local governments and the state in addressing regional• housing needs." (§ 65580, subd. (e) ) In answer to the third question, therefore, that the income categories of sections 6910-6932 of the California Administrative Code must be used by governments when determining a locality's share of housing needs. we conclude title 25 of a council of the regional HOMELESSNESS IN THE SCAG REGION Addressing the Problem in the Housing Element INTRODUCTION The most recent housing element legislation requires municipalities to address the issue of the "homeless" currently within its jurisdiction. In an effort to assist cities and counties with this mandate SCAG provides this resource document on the homeless to accompany the Regional Housing Allocation Model. The information within includes the following: Purpose and use of the "Homeless Component" Nature and extent of the homeless problem Causes contributing to homelessness Potential funding sources SCAG will continue to monitor the problems of the homeless and provide jurisdictions with technical assistance and updated demographic profiles. SCAG will provide advocacy efforts on behalf of the homeless as well as supporting legislation at all levels of government which assists in addressing this growing crisis. SCAG is available to assist in coordinating efforts throughout the region to maximize the resources available to the homeless. Most importantly, SCAG will continue to seek funding from both the public and private sectors to assist local cities and counties in meeting the needs of the homeless within their respective jurisdictions. PURPOSE AND USE OF THE "HOMELESS COMPONENT" SCAG has undertaken the task of providing this "Homeless Component" as a part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The purpose is to provide cities and counties with a suggested basic format to address the homeless issue within updates of the housing element of the general plan as mandated by recent _. legislation. The sub —groups of the homeless population have been defined and an effort made to quantify the population within the SCAG region through the survey. The services appropriate to the sub —groups as well as potential funding sources are also identified. The homeless component is strictly advisory however the information and approach can easily be adapted to the needs of individual jurisdictions.. The information included herein is most useful if the definitions and causes of homelessness are reviewed for accuracy and applicability to the individual city or county. It is unlikely that in smaller cities and outlying areas that all sub— groups of the homeless population will be present. However, defining the population will assist in. determining the services to be provided. D-1 The results of the homeless survey are useful in comparing the city or county with other jurisdictions within the region. It is also the first step in monitoring the homeless population within communities. Each municipality is encouraged to regularly update these numbers as new indicators become available. A check with the beat officers and/or agencies that typically work with the homeless such as missions or churches may be sufficient to track the growth or reduction of the homeless within the community. once the estimated population is established and the sub- groups identified, it then becomes necessary to determine the appropriate services to most the needs of the homeless. The Homeless Population Sub —Group and Service Matrix has been developed to provide communities with a basic index of the services needed by each sub -group. The matrix is not intended to be exclusive but only a guide to the most basic needs of each group. The final segment of this report addresses the potential funding sources to be considered in establishing a program. The programs proposed for the homeless within a community s housing element are a critical component in that it expressly indicates the commitment of the city or county and also serves as the measurement for the adequacy of the housing element. Jurisdictions are cautioned to give particular attention to developing a realistic program section on the homeless. 1ATUll AND,RZTRNT OF TNI NOMILISS PROGRAM In order to determine the services to be offered, it is also critical to define the homeless population. The following is suggested: 1. Those persons actually "sleeping out"s i..e,s makeshift shelter in cardboard boxes; under freeway overpasses and embankments; in cars or transportation areas such as bus or train depots. 2. Those in emergency sheltera, missions etc. 3. Those seriously "at risk" doubled up in marginal circumstances, e,g.s sro housing motel population with limited stay AFDC or general relief recipient whose stipend has been cancelled twice within one year because there was no forwarding address QUANTIFICATION OF TIE IOMILISS Responses to Questionnaire Quantifying the homeless problem is necessary to define the services offered. Since there is no way to obtain abiolute D-2 to numbers, a.survey was developed by SCAG and sent ctionsl jurisdictions within the region. Eighty-four (84) j responded to the one page questionnaire. This represents 47% of the 180 jurisdictions within the SCAG region. Responses were received from four of the six county jurisdictions -in the region and the remaining 80 responses were from municipalities Findings Estimates of Homeless Persons* Jurisdictions provided estimates- of homelessness in one of three ways. Some local governments reliednpublished studies of homelessness in their area. Nine (9) jurisdictions ed such studies to provide their estimates. A second method used was to rely upon the estimates of service providers and other experts iln the field having special but reliable knowledge or experience with homelessness. Thirty-eight (38) responses were based on such expert estimation. The third method used reported homelessness based upon direct observation. A number of jurisdictions relied upon a field survey (in most cases conducted by the local police or sheriff's department) toprorelice ed an estimate of homeless persons. Thirty (30) jurisdictions on this type of estimation technique. Seven (7) other jurisdictions failed to report on the method used to obtain their figures. The 79 municipalities report a total of 45,154 homeless persons. The vast majority, approximately 75%, of this total is accounted for by the City of Los Angeles. The four county jurisdictions report estimates for the entire county area, thus these estimates should be considered separately from city estimates. The counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Ventura and Imperial estimated a total of 47,575 homeless persons. Again, the majority is accounted for by the County of Los Angeles which estimates 42,000 homeless individuals. Listed below is a breakdown of estimate -ranges• for the cities responding to the questionnaire. No. of No. of Homeless Cities 0 10 1 - 25 31 26 - 100 15 101 - 250 14 251 - 500 3 501 - 1000 0 1001+ 6 ----------------------------- *Given the lack of a comprehensive response by jurisdictions in the five -county SCAG region, these estimates cannot provide any conclusive, up-to-date revision of homeless persons in the area. D-3 •Areakdown By Population Respondents were asked to break down their homeless population by subgroup where possible. In more than half the cases, the respondents did not ,provide estimates of subpopulations. The following is the average percentage reported by jurisdiction* for each of the sub —groups named. Avg. No. Pct. 190ponses Veterans 16.2% 19 Elderly 10.1% 23 Single Persons 63.3% 37 Persons in Families 21.8% 38 Mentally Ill 29.1% 29 Alcohol Abusers 40,8% 33 Substance Abusers 26.9% 28 Children 16.4% 30 Services to the Homeless Respondents were asked to report if there was an agency responsible for the coordination of services to the homeless in their area. Thirty (30) jurisdictions or 38% of the respondents reported that there ware such agencies in their area. Of these agencies, thirteen (13) were public sector agencies and the balance were private, generally private non-profit organizations. The following is a breakdown of the existence of these agencies by the reported number of homeless in the cities which responded. As might be expected, jurisdictions reporting greater numbers of homeless ware more likely to have an agency in existence coordinating services to that population. No. of No. of Coordinating Public Homeless Cities Agency A enc 0 10 1 1 1 — 25 29 6 1 26 — 100 12 4 1 101 — 250 13 8 1 251 - 500 3 2 2 501 — 1000 0 0 0 1000+ _ 6 5 4 All four counties reported having an agency which coordinated services to the homeless in their area. Three of the four reported were public agencies. Homeless Sub—Populstions The homeless are further defined by the nature of the contributing factors which likely created the individuals homeless condition. The homeless population is no longer dominated by the stereotypical white, alcoholic male found D-4 HOMELESS POPULATION SUE -GROUP AND SERVICE MATRIX Paula Chronically Mentally Working1XIderlyVeterans�z� El bu�ea�° Xlauth UnNorkecsted Neadaa Families Single Moblds Persons I11 PoorIx0a1 I35%1 .......t1.............. ...�.0...1... ......:.................. ....) ...........Veteran° ....:.................s ............................................. GCounseling/eenefits _Day _________ _______—__ ______-_____ _____-_____ Center° Y Z ----------- ----------- ---------- ----- ---------------- ---------------------- Mental Health ------------ ----------- x Treatment/Cara ______Y ___ _-__------- ' ___________ ___________ % Y Y % SmPloymaut y Training __�-___•___ -____�_____ .____-____- ___.___�__ _____ _____ ---------------------- -----------' --------'-' % X Alcohol/Drug Treatment --'--X Money/Case ---------- ----------- Z Management ..... .... . ........ .. . . ........ .. ......... .>m... ........ --------- ... ......... Z ........... X ...................... X Z Y Y Y Z X % Food Programs ----------- -----'---__ -___--______ _____-_ X X ----- x ----------- x ----------- Income Supplements s ___________ ___________ ___________ ____________ ---- ------------------ ------------- _____________ , X X % ____ X x x x ' Y x % % Medical Aid x X X x Y Y X X Y % % Emergency Shelters j ___________ _ _________ _____----- —_______-_ ------------ ____________ Short-term, ___________ x ___________ y ____________ x _______ _-__ x ____—_____ Y % X Transitional Shelter --- --- - _ __--- ____ _____________ Low-cost Permanent x x X Y X D X t Mousing sleeping in the streets and alleyways of skid row. Today, the homeless population is as diverse as the population in general and crosses all ethnic and age boundaries. The homeless population of today is much younger than in the past and there is an alarming increase in the number of families. Very often the homeless population is now composed of a significant number of unemployed, low —skilled workers who are unable to find employment for which they are qualified; chronically mentally ill persons who may not be a danger to themselves within the legal requirements which would demand institutionalization, but who still are not able to adequately care for themselves; and, the substance abusers who now are typically poly substance abusers. Local government now finds itself in the position of having to provide varying levels and kinds of services depending the type of population within its jurisdictional boundaries. A matrix identifying homeless populations with services is included for reference. CAUSRS CONTRIBUTING TO HOKBLRSSNRSS The contributing factors to homelessness are many and complex. However, the major substantiated causes appear to be unemployment, largely due to A imited skillet and a breakdown in the family as a social and economic unit.These fundamental factors are further aggravated by the critical absence of affordable housing and cutbacks in social service programs. Those social programs often were the difference whether or not a homeless person or family could be reintroduced into traditional living arnangemonts or prevented the homeless condition from occuring in marginal situations. The release of those previously institutionalized as chronically mentally ill or those who now are recognized as unstable but not sufficiently so for purposes of institutionalization also contribute significantly to the homeless numbers. POTRNTIAb FUNDING SOURCRS Major Private Resources Gannett Foundation, Rochester, N.S. Has provided sore grants for the hoasloss, nationwide, than any other private foundation. The foundation has awarded over 40 grants over the past three years covering building acquisition and rehabilitation, projects for children and youth, crisis intervention programs and health care projects, among others. Public Welfare Foundation, Washiaotoa, D.C. Funded over 30 honeloss projects in the last three years. The focus of the project# has boon on direct serviced including health and education programs. Shelter operations are also funded. HE Arco Foundation, Los Angeles, CA The largest local giver, Arco has funded homeless projects which include a women's shelter, rehabilitation of shelter buildings, and children's programs. Volume of funds granted has decreased in recent years. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, N.J. Funded over 20 homeless projects, nationally, since 1985. Homeless grants must have a health -service focus. Food Banks Usually private, non-profit agencies which solicit donations from the private sector and distribute it to the needy. Food banks exists in every county. MAJOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROGRAMS AVAILABLE FOR HOMELESS ASSISTANCE State Emergency Shelter Program Department of Housing and Community Development. Funds available for shelter facility rehabilitation and expansion; site and/or facility acquisition; equipment; program costs (including staff); and one-time rent assistance for residents facing eviction. Priority in awards to programs assisting families with children. Special User Housing Rehabilitation Program Department of Housing and Community Development. Funds for the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of a) substandard housing to be occupied by the elderly after rehabilitation, b) group residences or apartments to be occupied by physically, developmentally, or mentally disabled after rehabilitation, or c) _• residential hotels to be occupied by low or very -low income persons after rehabilitation. Borrowers can be individuals, private owners, non-profit agencies or public agencies. Deferied Payment Rehabilitation Loan Program Department of Housing and Community Development. Funds for the rehabilitation of housing for low-income house- holds. Low interest deferred payment loans made to local agencies or non -profits operating rehabilitation or code -enforce- ment programs using federal funds or California Housing Finance Agency funds. D-7 California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs This department provides funds directly to counties in California to support alcohol and drug treatment and prevention programs. Within state and federal guidelines, counties have complete dis- cretion over the use of these funds. Federal/State Surplus Property Progress Department of General Services, Office of Procurement. Under this program the state is responsible for the distribution of both federal and state donated surplus property. California Department of Yoteraus Affairs This department offers low interest hone loans to qualified veterans. Counseling and representation for obtaining U.S. Veterans Administration benefits also provided. Rmergeacy Youth Shelter Project Office of Criminal Justice Planning. Funds available for projects providing emergency counseling, group sessions counseling, job skills and independent living skills training, assessment and educational services. Pilot projects have been funded with future funding not assured. Homeless Mentally Ill Department of Mental Health. Funding for programs providing outreach, outpatient services, shelter bed facilities, and residential facilities for chronical- ly mentally ill. General Relief A State -mandated program administered at the county level. It is an intone maintenance program, involving a cash grant to indigent individuals at levels set by the county board of supervisors. MAJOR nDRRAL PROGRAMS A►AILABLR 70i HOMILRSS ASSISTAHCR Cosmeaity Developmeat Block Grant Federal grant program administered by entitlement cities and counties. The acquisition and/or rehabilitation of property for use as a homeless shelter is eligible. New construction of homeless sholtors using CDBG funds is allowed if construction is don* by a neighborhood -based nonprofit organization. The operat- ing cost of a shelter is also eligible. This includes equipment, food, supplies, utilities and staff. D-S Federal Emergency Management Agency Facility Rehabilitation: A grant for the rehabilitation of shel- ter and food program facilities. Emergency Food and Shelter Program: A grant for shelter operat- ing expenses. Funds available for food purchasing, equipment for food preparation, and transportation of emergency food. Funds also available to shelter bed facility operations. Community Services Block Grant (4Y1 1ej O A federal grant to the state, but administered locally by cities and counties. Emergency food and housing assistance, shelter services, operations, equipment and supplies are approved uses. Assistance in obtaining social and maintenance services and in- come support services for homeless individuals are also eligible. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Cash grants provided on a bi-weekly basis to children and their parents if the family's income is insufficient to meet basic needs. Eligibility is limited to those needy families in which children are deprived of one or both parents due to incapacity, death or continuing absence. Temporary shelter assistance is provided for families qualifying for AFDC who lack a fixed residence, live in a homeless shelter, or in.a public or private place not designed for regular sleeping accomodations. •Assistance for temporary shelter is made on a daily or weekly basis. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Cash grant assistance for aged, blind, or disabled persons who meet the program's income and resources requirements. Food Stamps This program provides eligible individuals with coupons which may be used to purchase food. The program is administered by counties. Health Care'for the Homeless Department of Health and Human Services. A grant program for health services to provide outpatient health services to the homeless in the community. Available to public and -nonprofit agencies to provide primary health care and substance abuse services and, optionally, mental health services for homeless individuals. D-9 National Health Services Corps Department of Health and Human Services. Population groups (including the homeless) which have a shortage of health professionals serving it may receive the services of a National Health Service Corps provider. Supportive Housing Demonstration Program Department of Housing and Urban Development. A demonstration program to provide housing and supportive ser- vices for homeless individuals and families with special needs. Funds will be targeted for deinstitutionalized homeless indivi- duals, homeless families with children and homeless individuals with mental disabilities and other handicaps. Supplemental Assistance for Facilities to Assist the Homeless Department of Housing and Urban Development. Authorizes funds for emergency shelters and supportive housing projects DHUD will supplement funds received under the Emer- gency Shelter Grant* Program or the Supportive Housing Demonstra- tion Program to meet the needs of special population groups and to provide comprehensive assistance for innovative programs. Non -interest beraing advances to cover costs in excess of the assistance provided under the other two programs for acquisition. lease, renovation or conversion of facilities. Rmergeaey Shelter Grant Program Department of Housing and Urban Development. Grants to state and local governments, for renovation, rehabilita- tion or conversion of facilities to be used for emergency shelters, for the provision of essential services, and for maintenance and operating costs. Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Funding for the HUD Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Assistance program to be used to rehabilitate Single Roan Occupancy dwellings for occupancy by homslass individuals. Allocation will be on the basis of a national competition between applicants. Public housing authorities will receive these certificates which will be allocated on a project basis. Homaliss •eteraaa Reintegration Projects Department of Labor, Funds made available to state and local programs which provide outreach staffed by homeless. Programs should be linked with benefitting veterans. D-10 public agencies for veterans who hive been other service programs Adult Education i Department of Education. Makes homeless individuals eligible for adult education services. Authorizes the Department of Education to make grants to state educational agencies to develop and implement a program of literacy training and basic skills remediation for adult homeless individuals. Education for Homeless Children and Youth Department of Education. The Department of Education makes grants to state and local educational agencies to assure a free and appropriate public education for homeless children, to establish or designate an Office of Coordinator of Education of Homeless Children and Youth, and to carry out a state plan which provides for the education of homeless children. Job Services Program. Department of Labor. Federal program administered by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) which provides assistance to the unemployed to find jobs, and provides assistance to employers to locate and hire qualified workers. Jobs Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Department of Labor. ` Federal program administered by EDD. Provides funds for job training and transitional living expenses during counseling and training period. Mental Health Block Grants Department of Health and Human Services. Federal grant program to the state. Funds are available for support of outreach services, community mental health services, referrals to health services, and substance abuse treatment. Diagnostic, crisis intervention and rehabilitation services are also funded. Job Training for the Homeless Department of Labor. Funds to support job training demonstration projects for the homeless. Grants are made to state and local public agencies, private, and non—profit agencies. ri D-11 luaaway sad Homeleas Youth Department of Labor, Grants to establish and operate short—term and emergency shelters for runaways. Also funds programs which include home —shelters and networks of agencies to support services to runaway youths. Competitive grants available to states, local governmenta, pri— vate and non—profit organizations. D-12