economic analysis of future housing needs in the city of long beach-phase i · 2018. 9. 7. · 1.1...

EconomicAnalysisofFutureHousingNeedsintheCityof

LongBeach-PhaseIPreparedfor:DowntownDevelopmentCorporation

January15,2018

DRAFTBeaconEconomics 1

PurposeofStudy

ExecutiveSummary

Part1:LongBeachHousingNeeds1.1HousingCrisisinLongBeach1.2CurrentRegulatoryConstraints1.32040HousingNeeds1.3.1CityStaffEstimate1.3.2BeaconEconomicsProjection

Part2:ChallengesandOpportunities2.1ProposedLUE2.2ProposedPolicySolutions2.3HousingLegislation

DRAFT – EconomicAnalysisofFutureHousingNeedsintheCityofLongBeachPhase1 2BeaconEconomics

PurposeofStudy• LikemanycitiesinSouthernCalifornia,LongBeachmustperiodicallyestablishandupdateitsgoalsforhousing.• TheCityiscurrentlyintheprocessofupdatingitsLandUseElement• Citystaffhaveestimatedthatitmustbuild28,000unitsby2040tomeetitsfuturehousingneeds

• Thepurposeofthisstudyisto• EvaluatetheCity’shousingneedsestimate• DevelopindependentprojectionsoftheCity’sfuturehousingrequirementsbasedonvariousscenarios

• ConductapolicyanalysisoftheCity’sproposedLandUseElementandotherrelatedhousingpolicyproposalsthathavebeenputforthbytheCity

3DRAFT – EconomicAnalysisofFutureHousingNeedsintheCityofLongBeachPhase1BeaconEconomics

ExecutiveSummary


austinm

Highlight

ExecutiveSummary

• CityofLongBeach2040housingneedsestimateisstatic• RHNA2014-2021• Overcrowdingestimatebasedon2010Census

• BeaconEconomicsderived2040outlookbasedontwoscenarios:• Baseline:followsrecentdemographictrends• Alternative:followstrendinresidentemployment• Augmentscenarioswithovercrowdingestimates


austinm

Highlight

• 2014-2021RHNAnumberforLongBeachroughlyapproximatesincrementalhousingrequirementbasedoncurrentpopulationtrend

• CityofLongBeachovercrowdingnumberisroughlyunchangedfrom2010and2016• CityofLongBeachbasedon2010Census: 21,476units• Beaconbasedon2016ACS: 19,841units

• 2040ProjectionsshowthatCityestimateisclosetostatusquobutfallsshortofhousingrequirementsasimpliedbyemploymentgrowth:• CityofLongBeach: 194,523• PopulationTrend: 192,455• EmploymentTrend: 241,248

• Employmenttrendtrajectoryimpliesmuchgreaterhousingrequirementforresidentworkersthanpopulation-basedtrend

• Ifpopulation-basedtrendispursued,willconstrainpotentialjobandeconomicgrowthinCityeconomy

CityEstimateComparabletoStatusQuo,ShortofTrendImpliedbyEmploymentGrowth


austinm

Highlight

LandUseComparison:LongBeachvOakland

• Bothcitiesbuiltout.• Corecitiesinlargerregionsthatgrewrapidlyinthe20th Century,withlittleornowopenspace,onlyinfillavailable

• Similarpopulations(2016Census)• LongBeach:470,130persons,160,769households• Oakland:420,005persons,158,084households

• Similarhousingtenure• LongBeach:62.3%ofhouseholdsarerenters• Oakland:61.7%ofhouseholdsarerenters

• SlightlyhigherpercentageofovercrowdedhouseholdsinLongBeach(12.3%)thaninOakland(10.2%)


austinm

Highlight

IfThesePlacesWeretheSizeofLongBeach…• ComparedtoOaklandandSanDiego:• LongBeachhasmuchsmallerpercentageoflandzonedforhighorhighmediumdensity• LongBeachhasslightlyhigherpercentageoflandzonedforlowdensitymulti-family

LongBeach SanDiego Oakland%ofTotalLandDedicatedforResidentialUse 39.3% 47.9% 43.0%

%ofTotalLandforSFResidential 29.4% 38.7% 30.1%

PercentofLandzonedforMFzonedforHigh/HighMediumDensityMF(56+units/acre)

0.02% 6.17% 12.05%

PercentofLandforLowDensityMF(2,000sfland/unitorless) 6.05% 4.72% 5.98%


austinm

Highlight

PolicyAnalysis

BeaconEconomicsevaluatedthepoliciescontainedintheproposedLandUseElement(LUE),withevaluationwasorganizedalongthelinesoftheLUE’s4broadstrategies:

1. PlanandPrioritize2. ProtectandPreserve3. ProduceandPromote4. OtherPolicyRecommendations

• Pleaseseebodyofreportforanalysis


austinm

Highlight

PolicyAnalysisAssessment

• OnemustaccountforthefeedbackloopsthatresultfromtheLUEdeliberationsprocess• DownzoningthathasoccurredastheCityhasmovedthroughitsLUEdeliberationshasmeantthat• Fewerparcelsmayfallunderpoliciessuchasinclusionary• Buttheburdenontheremainingparcelswillbegreaterasaresult

• Moregenerally,theentiresequenceofdecisionmakingfromplanningtopermittingtobuildingsuccessivelyreducesthethenumberofparcelsthatmaybedeveloped,andinturn,thenumberofhousingunitsthatmaybedeliveredtomeettheneedsoftheCity’sresidents.


austinm

Highlight

Housing NeedsPlanning Zoning Permitting Building

Inadequate CapacityLocal Revenue Generating

Overly Restrictive Development Standards

Lengthy & UncertainHigh Fees

CEQACommunity Opposition

The MarketDevelopment Costs

Availability of FinancingPopulation ChangesEconomic Growth


austinm

Highlight

austinm

Highlight

austinm

Highlight

austinm

Highlight

• ThenewestproposedchangestotheLUEbasedontheJanuary2018updatesconflictwithgoalsoriginallyoutlinedintheRevisedLandUseElement:CitywideGoals,Strategies,andPolicies(Nov2017– ExhibitH).• Despitemorelandareaproposedtoberezonedforresidentialuses,single-familyhomeswilltakemorethanalion’sshareoftheaddedlandarea.

• Furthermore,theincreaseinresidentiallanduseareaswillcomeattheexpenseofdrasticallyreducedlandareasforcommercialandindustrialspaces.

• Specificconflicts:• GoalNo.1:ImplementSustainablePlanningandDevelopmentPractices.

• Promotecompactdevelopmentandhigherdensitydevelopmentalongtransitcorridors• GoalNo.5:DiversifyHousingOpportunities

• LongBeachwillofferanincreasinglydiversehousingstock.PoliciesandpracticeswillcontinuetopromoteandexpandaffordablehousingoptionsbyaccommodatingarangeofhousingtypesandbyprovidingopportunityforanincreasedsupplyofhousingthroughfocuseddensitythroughouttheCity.


austinm

Highlight

TheResult:AContinuingHousingCrisis

Single-familyResidential LowDensityMulti-familyResidential ModerateDensityMulti-familyResidential

Commercial Industrial&Neo-Industrial

ExistingLandUse January2018ProposedLandUse

Note:1unitrepresents1percentoftotallandarea.


austinm

Highlight

1.1HousingSituationinLongBeach


1.1CurrentHousingSituationinLongBeach

• LongBeachHousingMarketismarkedby• Decliningvacancyrates• Relativelyslowgrowthinhousingstock• Increasesinhomepricesandrents• Relativelyhighlevelsofovercrowding

• Currentconditions• Escalatethecostofhousing• Deteryoungworkersandfamiliesfrommovingtothecity• Constraineconomicgrowth


FallingHousingVacancyRateDespiteSlowerPopulationGrowthComparedtoLACounty

• From2010to2017,housingvacancyrateinLongBeachhasdroppedfrom7.1%to5.8%,whereasthatofLACountystayedaboutthesameduringthesameperiod.• ThisisdespitehouseholdpopulationgrowthinLongBeachlaggingbehindthatofLACounty.

Year LACounty Long Beach

2010 5.9% 7.1%

2011 5.9% 7.0%

2012 5.8% 6.5%

2013 5.7% 6.0%

2014 5.7% 5.9%

2015 5.7% 5.8%

2016 5.7% 5.8%

2017 5.7% 5.8%

Source:DepartmentofFinancePopulationEstimates

Year LACounty LB

2011 0.6% 0.6%

2012 0.8% 1.1%

2013 0.6% 1.0%

2014 0.7% 0.5%

2015 0.6% 0.4%

2016 0.3% 0.1%

2017 0.6% 0.1%2010-2017Growth 4.3% 3.8%

VacancyRate:LongBeachvs.LACounty

HouseholdPopulationGrowth:LongBeachvs.LACounty


FallingHousingVacancyRateinLongBeach• ThestoryisevenworseifACSdatausedinsteadofDOFdata• From2010to2016,housingvacancyrateinLongBeachdroppedbyhalffrom9.1%to4.6%.• WhileLosAngelesCountyhasalsoexperiencedfallingvacancyrate,thedropismoremodestincomparison.

• Furthermore,LongBeachhasactuallylost housingunits whileLACounty’shasincreasedmodestly.

VacancyRate

US CA NY(State) LACounty LongBeach

2010 13.1% 9.3% 11.2% 7.0% 9.1%

2016 12.4% 7.9% 12.4% 6.1% 4.6%

HousingUnits(inthousands)


2010 131,791.1 13,683.0 8,108.2 3,444.9 174.2

2016 135,702.8 14,061.4 8,232.0 3,520.8 168.6

Change 3,911,710 378,399 123,828 75,941 -5,648

%Change 3.0% 2.8% 1.5% 2.2% -3.2%

Source:AmericanCommunitySurvey1-YearEstimates


FallingHousingVacancyRateinLongBeach• Atminimum,foreverynewhousehold,1housingunitshouldbeadded.• BothLACountyandCaliforniafellshort,havingaddedjust0.7housingunitperonenewhousehold.• InLongBeach,however,foreverynewhousehold,2.37housingunitswerelost.

NumberofHouseholds(inthousands)


2010 114,567.4 12,406.5 7,196.4 3,202.4 158.4

2016 118,860.1 12,944.2 7,209.1 3,305.6 160.8

Change 4,292.6 537.7 12.6 103.2 2.4

%Change 3.7% 4.3% 0.2% 3.2% 1.5%

D Units/D HH 0.911 0.704 9.807 0.736 -2.370

Source:AmericanCommunitySurvey1-YearEstimates


ComparativeOver-CrowdednessBetweencitieswithsimilarhouseholdpopulations,LongBeachhadconsiderablymoreovercrowdedhouseholds• Theproblemisespeciallyacuteamongrenterhouseholds.

• AmongovercrowdedHHs,46.2%(5.70/12.34)areseverelyovercrowdedinLongBeach,morethanthecomparablecities.

City Sacramento Fresno LongBeach Oakland

Year 2016 2016 2016 2016

No.ofHouseholds(HHs) 183,212 166,288 160,769 158,084

OwnerHHsOvercrowded 2,498 4,098 3,226 3,151

OwnerHHsSeverelyOvercrowded 623 744 1,210 708

RenterHHsOvercrowded 6,861 10,145 16,615 13,011

RenterHHsSeverelyOvercrowded 2,193 1,770 7,949 6,691

TotalHHsOvercrowded 9,359 14,243 19,841 16,162

%HHsOvercrowded 5.11 8.57 12.34 10.22

%HHsSeverelyOvercrowded 1.54 1.51 5.70 4.68

%OwnerHHsOvercrowded 1.36 2.46 2.01 1.99

%RenterHHsOvercrowded 3.74 6.10 10.33 8.23

Source:AmericanCommunitySurvey19DRAFT – EconomicAnalysisofFutureHousingNeedsintheCityofLongBeachPhase1BeaconEconomics

ComparativeOver-CrowdednessComparedtocitiesnearLongBeach:• LongBeachstillerredonthehighsideintermsofoverallover-crowdedness

• AlthoughLongBeachhadalowerpercentageofovercrowdedHHsthanBellflower,ithadthehighestpercentageofseverelyovercrowdedHHs.

City LongBeach Inglewood Downey Lakewood Bellflower

Year 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016

No.ofHHs 160,769 38,724 32,646 24,806 23,038

TotalHHsOvercrowded 19,841 4,023 3,891 1,880 3,518

%HHsOvercrowded 12.34 10.39 11.92 7.58 15.27

%HHsSeverelyOvercrowded 5.70 4.56 2.65 1.40 3.40

%OwnerHHsOvercrowded 2.01 3.47 3.41 3.42 5.64

%RenterHHsOvercrowded 10.33 6.92 8.51 4.16 9.63

Source:AmericanCommunitySurvey20DRAFT – EconomicAnalysisofFutureHousingNeedsintheCityofLongBeachPhase1BeaconEconomics

NewHousingUnitsAdditionLaggingBehind

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Built1939

orearlier

Built1940

to194

9Bu

ilt1950

to195

9Bu

ilt1960

to196

9Bu

ilt1970

to197

9Bu

ilt1980

to198

9Bu

ilt1990

to199

9Bu

ilt2000

to200

9Bu

ilt2010

to201

3Bu

ilt2014

orlater

YearStructureBuilt

(Percentage,201

6)LACounty LongBeach

Source:AmericanCommunitySurvey

YearBuiltLA

CountyLongBeach

BuiltBefore1960 45.5% 54.6%

Built2000orLater 7.4% 4.2%

Built2010orLater 2.0% 0.8%

LongBeachhasasubstantiallyhigherpercentageofolderhousingstockbutamuchsmallerpercentageofnewerhousingstockcomparedtoLosAngelesCounty.


LackofHousingDriving(Young)FamiliesAway

28%

29%

30%

31%

32%

33%

34%

-1,400

-1,200

-1,000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Percen

tofH

ouseho

ldsw

ithCh

ildrenUn

derA

ge18

YoYCh

angeinHou

seho

ldsw

ithCh

ildrenUn

derA

ge18

HouseholdswithChildrenLongBeach,2009- 2016

Year-over-YearChangeinHHswithChildren PercentofHHswithChildren

Source:AmericanCommunitySurveyNote:5-yearestimatesused.


TheShareofNonfamilyHouseholdsIncreasing

95

100

105

110

115

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Indexedto200

7Values

HouseholdsbyFamilyType,California

Nonfamilynotlivingalone Nonfamilylivingalone Family

Source:U.S.CensusACSPUMS23DRAFT – EconomicAnalysisofFutureHousingNeedsintheCityofLongBeachPhase1BeaconEconomics

1.2CurrentRegulatoryConstraints


ComparingLongBeachvOakland

• Bothcitiesbuiltout.• Corecitiesinlargerregionsthatgrewrapidlyinthe20th Century,withlittleornowopenspace,onlyinfillavailable

• Similarpopulations(2016Census)• LongBeach:470,130persons,160,769households• Oakland:420,005persons,158,084households

• Similarhousingtenure• LongBeach:62.3%ofhouseholdsarerenters• Oakland:61.7%ofhouseholdsarerenters

• SlightlyhigherpercentageofovercrowdedhouseholdsinLongBeach(12.3%)thaninOakland(10.2%)


LongBeach’sLandUsePolicy(1989LUE)

Despitethecontinuoushousingshortfall,lessthan2%ofthelandareaiszonedforhighdensityorhighriseresidential(LandUsecodes400,500,and600).

Commercial16.1%

Industrial5.6%

OtherLU35.0%

SingleFamily76.0%

MixedStyleHomes11.8%

Townhomes2.6%ModerateDensity

Residential5.3%

HighDensityResidential4.0%

UrbanHighDensityResidential

0.0%

HighRiseResidential0.3%

Residential43.3%

LandAreaPercentagebyLandUse(LU),LongBeachwithResidentialBreakdown

Oftheareas zonedforresidentialpurposes,Single-Family takesup3/4ofthelandareaandSingle-FamilyandTwo-FamilyZonestakeup7/8 ofthelandarea.


“HighDensityResidential”isaMisnomer• TheCityofLongBeachdefinesLandUseDistrictNo.4as“highdensityresidential”– or44dwellingunitsperacre(DUA)maximum.• Thesame44DUAwouldbeconsideredas:• LosAngeles:Mediumdensity(30– 55DUA)• Oakland:LowtoMidRise(39– 54DUA)

• Therefore,excludingthe4.0%ofresidentialzonedfor“highdensity”residential,only0.3%ofresidentialland(UrbanHighDensityResidential+High-RiseResidential)istrulyhighdensity.• Inthefollowingcomparisons,zoningrequirementsforLongBeachandOaklandwillbenormalizedaccordingtotheCityofLosAngeles’definitionofmulti-familydensity,whichismoredetailed.


LongBeach’sLandUsePolicy

However,LongBeach’sdefinitionof”highdensity”or“highrise”areactuallynotveryhighcomparedtotheLosAngelesdensitydefinition.

LowDensity,45.55

LowMediumDensity,21.74

MediumDensity,32.69

HighMediumDensity,0.02 HighDensity,0.00

HighMedium/HighDensity,0.02

MultifamilyTypebyDensityperAcreLongBeach

Note:BasedonLosAngelesdensitydefinition


ComparisonCity:Oakland,CA

Industrial40.5%

Commercial9.1%

Other7.4%

SingleFamily70.0%

OtherMulti-Family21.3%

Multi-Family8.7%

Residential43.0%

Zoning,OaklandWithResidentialBreakdown

Outwardly,similarresidentialzoningprofilecomparedtoLongBeach.29DRAFT – EconomicAnalysisofFutureHousingNeedsintheCityofLongBeachPhase1BeaconEconomics

ComparisonCity:Oakland,CA

Overall,amuchhigherpercentagededicatedtohighmedium/highdensityresidentialthanLongBeach

LowDensity71.0%

LowMediumDensity0.0%

MediumDensity16.9%

HighMediumDensity11.3% HighDensity

0.7%

HighMedium/HighDensity12.0%

MultifamilyTypebyDensityperAcreOakland

Note:BasedonLosAngelesdensitydefinition


IfThesePlacesWeretheSizeofLongBeach…• ComparedtoOaklandandSanDiego:• LongBeachhavesubstantiallylesspercentageoflandzonedforhighorhighmediumdensity• LongBeachhaveslightlyhigherpercentageoflandzonedforlowdensitymulti-family

LongBeach SanDiego Oakland%ofTotalLandDedicatedforResidentialUse 39.3% 47.9% 43.0%

%ofTotalLandforSFResidential 29.4% 38.7% 30.1%

PercentofLandzonedforMFzonedforHigh/HighMediumDensityMF(56+units/acre)

0.02% 6.17% 12.05%

PercentofLandforLowDensityMF(2,000sfland/unitorless) 6.05% 4.72% 5.98%

Note:LBhasmuchlessspacededicatedindustrialusecomparedtoOakland:

LongBeach:6%Oakland:41%

Bothcitiesallowforadaptivereuse.The(much)largerindustrialbaseinOaklandmeansmoreopportunitiestoconverttoresidentialusagethanLongBeach,whileLongBeachstandstoloseeconomicopportunitywithfurtherlossofindustrialzoning.


1.32040HousingNeeds


1.3.1CityStaffEstimate


Officialsnowestimatethecityneedstobuildapproximately28,000housingunitsinthenext23yearstoaccommodateforanticipatedpopulationgrowth,accordingtocitydocuments.Aunitcouldbeanythingfromastudiotoatwoorthree-bedroom

condo.

“Basedonourestimatewemaynotbeabletohitthe28,000numberthat’slistedinyourstaffreport,”AdvancedPlannerChristopherKoontztoldthecommission.“Butthatisthegoal,andwhatisinfrontofyouisanimportantstepforwardtowardthat

goal.”

- LongBeachPressTelegram,December12,2017


DetailsofEstimate

In2010 therewere21,476householdsinLongBeachthatwerecrowded(1.01-1.50occupantsperroom)orovercrowded(1.51+occupantsperroom).

7,048unitsisthetotaljurisdictionalRHNAallocationforLongBeachfornewconstructionfromJanuary1,2014toOctober1,2021 fromHCDandSCAG.

TheLongBeach2040 GeneralPlanLandUseElementisaimedatguidingLongBeachintoamoresustainablefutureoverthenext23years.

CityStaffEstimate

2010DecennialCensus:OvercrowdedUnits 21,476

2014- 2021(5thCycle)LongBeachRHNAAllocation:NewConstruction

7,048

TotalUnits: 28,524


1.3.2BeaconEconomicsProjections


SectionIntroduction

• CityofLB2040housingneedsestimateisstatic• RHNA2014-2021• Overcrowdingestimatebasedon2010Census

• 2040outlookdescribedbyscenarios:• Baseline:followsrecentdemographictrends• Alternative:followstrendinresidentemployment• AugmentscenarioswithovercrowdingestimatesdevelopedbyBeacon


Methodology

• Population-trendScenario• LongBeachpopulationprojectionsdrivenbyLosAngelesCountyprojectionsfromDOF• StatusQuoProjection:DOFprojectionsbasedonhistoricpopulationtrendsthatareconstrainedbylimitedgrowthinhousing

• Employment-trendScenario• LongBeachemploymentprojectionfollowslongruntrend• Workersperoccupiedhousingunitdecreasesfrom2016level(1.32)toaverage(1.25)duringforecasthorizon• Scenariofollowsconservativeemploymentgrowthtrajectoryandproducescorrespondinghousingrequirementstoaccommodatethattrajectory


ComparingCityEstimatetoProjections

100,000110,000120,000130,000140,000150,000160,000170,000180,000190,000200,000210,000220,000230,000240,000250,000260,000

CityofLB BaselinePopGrowth EmploymentTrend

HousingRequiredUnderDifferentScenarios

Unitsin2014 AdditionalUnitsby2040 PlusOvercrowding


BaselineScenario

• Population-basedprojectionsofhousing• LongBeachpopulationtrenddrivenbyCADepartmentofFinance(DOF)projectionsforLosAngelesCounty• Statusquoimpliedbyexplicitandimplicitmodelassumptions• DOFimplicitlyassumeshistoricaltrends

• Populationtrends• Buildingpatterns• Householdsize

• Populationandhouseholdsizeprojectionsusedtoestimatefutureoccupiedhousingunits


BaselineProjection

450,000

460,000

470,000

480,000

490,000

500,000

510,000

520,000

530,000

162,000

164,000

166,000

168,000

170,000

172,000

174,000

2014 2020 2030 2040

Popu

latio

n

Occup

iedHo

usingUn

its

BaselineScenario

Housing Population


TrendEmploymentScenario

• Drivenbyemploymentgrowthassumptions• Residentemploymentassumedtogrowby0.7%,inlinewithhistoricalgrowthinthecityandsurroundingmetropolitanareas.• Workersperhouseholdassumedtoreverttohistoricalaverageof1.25• Employmentandworkersperhouseholdprojectionsusedtoestimatefutureoccupiedhousing


ComparativeStatisticsCivilianEmployment AverageAnnualGrowthRatebyRegion (1990-2016)

RegionGrowthRate

Los AngelesCounty 0.60%

LongBeach 0.70%

United States 0.90%

California 0.93%

USMetroAreas 1.00%

Top25MetroAreas 1.10%

1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

1.30

1.35

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

WorkersperHousehold(Average:1.25)


2016ACSHousingProfiles

• Datafromthe2016AmericanCommunitySurveywasusedtoprojecthousingdistributions• distributionforsingle-familyandmulti-familyhousing• owner/renterdistribution.• housingcharacteristicsandprojectionsbyindustryinfinalreport

• PublicUseMicrodataSample(PUMS)allowsforgranularanalysisofhousingcharacteristicsbyemploymentindustry.


2016HomeValuesforOwnerOccupiedHousingUnder$200,000 12.0%$200,000to$299,999 10.6%$300,000to$399,999 21.0%$400,000to$499,999 17.6%$500,000to$699,000 23.4%$700,000andabove 15.4%Source:AmericanCommunitySurvey

2016HouseholdIncomeUnder$25,000 23.6%$25,000to$49,999 23.3%$50,000to$99,999 28.8%$100,000andabove 24.3%Source:AmericanCommunitySurvey


TrendEmploymentScenario

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2014 2020 2030 2040

CivilianEm

ployment

Occup

iedHo

usingUn

its

EmploymentTrendScenario

Housing Employment


BaselineScenario:HousingNeedsbyUnitsandTenureType 2014 2040 ChangeTotalOccupied 166,013 172,614 6,601Single-Family 72,541 75,426 2,884Multi-Family 91,849 95,501 3,652Owner 63,993 66,538 2,544Renter 102,020 106,076 4,056Source:BeaconEconomics,AmericanCommunitySurvey

AlternativeScenario:HousingNeedsbyUnitsandTenureType 2014 2040 ChangeTotalOccupied 166,013 221,407 55,394Single-Family 72,541 96,746 24,205Multi-Family 91,849 122,496 30,647Owner 63,993 85,346 21,353Renter 102,020 136,061 34,041Source:BeaconEconomics,AmericanCommunitySurvey,


Projections+Overcrowding

CityofLongBeach BaselinePopGrowth EmploymentTrend

2014Total 166,013 166,013 166,013

Requiredby2040 7,034 6,601 55,394

ReduceOvercrowding 21,476 19,841 19,841

2040Total 194,523 192,455 241,248


Summary-Projections

• 2014-2021RHNAnumberforLongBeachroughlyapproximatesincrementalhousingrequirementbasedoncurrentpopulationtrend• LongBeachovercrowdingreducedlowerbetween2010and2016• 2040Projections:

• CityofLongBeach: 194,523• PopulationTrend: 192,455• EmploymentTrend: 241,248

• Employmenttrendtrajectoryimpliesmuchgreaterhousingrequirementforresidentworkersthanpopulation-basedtrend• Ifpopulation-basedtrendispursued,willconstrainpotentialjobandeconomicgrowthinCityeconomy


Part2:ChallengesandOpportunities


2.1ProposedLUE


ProposedLUEChanges– January2018ThenewestproposedchangestotheLUEbasedonthemapsreleasedonJanuary18,2018displayaproblematic

useoflandinLongBeach.Despitemorelandareaproposedtoberezonedforresidentialuses,single-familyhomeswilltakemorethanalion’sshareoftheaddedlandarea.Furthermore,theincreaseinresidentiallanduseareaswillcomeattheexpenseofdrasticallyreduced

landareasforcommercial andindustrialspaces.


Citywide

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

HighDensityMulti-Family

LowDensityMulti-Family

SingleFamily

ChangebyRe

siden

tialType

(inAcres)

ResidentialAreaProposedLandChanges(inAcres)Jan2018vs.Existing,Citywide

LowDensityMulti-familyhousingunitsconsistof:Duplex/Triplex/GardenApartmentHousing(MFR-L),Neighborhood-ServingCenterorCorridor– Low,andTransitOrientedDevelopment– Low.

HighDensityMulti-familyhousingunitsconsistof:ModerateDensityApartmentandCondominiumBuildings(MFR-M),Neighborhood-ServingCenterorCorridor– Medium,andTransitOrientedDevelopment– Medium.

Type ChangeinAcreage

PercentChange

HighDensity Multi-Family 574.44 30.8%

LowDensity Multi-Family -965.99 -38.8%

SingleFamily 4,294.20 41.7%

TotalResidential 3,902.64 26.7%


NearDowntown– CouncilDistrict1




PercentChange

HighDensity Multi-Family -80.22 -23.4%


SingleFamily 282.14 139.3%

TotalResidential 77.84 9.6%

-100-80-60-40-20020406080100120



SingleFamily

ChangebyRe

siden

tialType

(inAcres)

ResidentialAreaProposedLandChanges(inAcres)Jan2018vs.Existing,CouncilDistrict1


NearDowntown– CouncilDistrict2




PercentChange




TotalResidential -17.06 -3.4%

-150-100-50050100150200250300



SingleFamily

ChangebyRe

siden

tialType

(inAcres)



CouncilDistrict3




PercentChange




TotalResidential 394.21 17.1%

-250-150-5050150250350450550650750



SingleFamily

ChangebyRe

siden

tialType

(inAcres)



ResidentialLandUseChangeSummary

CouncilDistrictsHighDensityMulti-Family

LowDensityMulti-Family SingleFamily

CD1 -50.2 -71.8 104.9CD2 -80.2 -124.1 282.1CD3 -203.4 -101.0 698.6CD4 196.8 -170.3 522.4CD5 70.2 28.8 778.1CD6 165.1 -89.3 411.6CD7 -34.3 11.1 501.9CD8 298.4 -260.2 514.6CD9 212.1 -189.3 479.9CityTotal 574.4 -966.0 4,294.2No.ofCDGains 5 2 9No.ofCDLosses 4 7 0

7outof9CouncilDistrictsintendtodisplacelowdensitymulti-familyspacesinfavorofsinglefamilyspaces


LossofCommercialandIndustrialLandAreas• TheJanuary2018proposedrevisionwillreducelandareasforcommercialandindustrialusesinallnineCouncilDistricts.• Theoverallslightgaininneo-industriallandarea(+212.4acrescitywide)ispaltrycomparedtothelossofcommercialspace(-2354.8acres)andtraditionalindustrialspace(-2,638.4acres)citywide.

-1200.0

-1000.0

-800.0

-600.0

-400.0

-200.0

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

CD1 CD2 CD3 CD4 CD5 CD6 CD7 CD8 CD9

CommercialandIndustrialAreasProposedLandChanges(inAcres),January2018vs.Existing,byCouncilDistrict

Commercial Industrial Neo-Industrial


TheResult:ContinuedCrisis

Single-familyResidential LowDensityMulti-familyResidential ModerateDensityMulti-familyResidential

Commercial Industrial&Neo-Industrial

ExistingLandUse January2018ProposedLandUse

Note:1unitrepresents1percentoftotallandarea.


• GoalNo.1:ImplementSustainablePlanningandDevelopmentPractices.• Promotecompactdevelopmentandhigherdensitydevelopmentalongtransitcorridors,inneighborhoodhubsand

inareasthatcansupportadditionalresidentialdensity,whileensuringadequatetransitionstoadjoininglow-densityneighborhoods.

• StrategyNo.1.Supportsustainableurbandevelopmentpatterns• Supporthigh-densityresidential,mixed- useandtransit-orienteddevelopmentwithinthedowntown,alongtransit

corridors,neartransitstationsandatneighborhoodhubs.

• GoalNo.5:DiversifyHousingOpportunities• LongBeachwillofferanincreasinglydiversehousingstock.Policiesandpracticeswillcontinuetopromoteand

expandaffordablehousingoptionsbyaccommodatingarangeofhousingtypesandbyprovidingopportunityforanincreasedsupplyofhousingthroughfocuseddensitythroughouttheCity.

• StrategyNo.12:DiversifyLongBeach’sHousingStock

• StrategyNo.13:FacilitateHousingTypeDistribution

• KeyObservation:TheproposedJanuary2018LUEmapsconflictwithGoalNo.1&GoalNo.5outlinedintheRevisedLandUseElement:CitywideGoals,Strategies,andPolicies(Nov2017– ExhibitH).

RevisedLandUseElement:CitywideGoals,Strategies,andPolicies(ExhibitH– Nov2017)


austinm

Highlight

2.2ProposedPolicySolutions


IntheFebruary21,2017AffordableandWorkforceHousingStudySession,theHousingStudyGroupadvocatedthesebroadstrategies:

1.PlanandPrioritize2.ProtectandPreserve3.ProduceandPromote4.OtherPolicyRecommendations

Eachofthesebroadstrategyhasmorespecificsub-strategies.Drawingonrelevantliterature,thissectionseekstocritiquethe“ProduceandPromote”and“OtherPolicyRecommendations”strategies.


Strategy#1: Plan&Prioritize + Neutral -

Withacombinationofdataandstory,buildthe“case”and“sharedvision”forinvestingintoolsandresourcesthatcreatehighqualityaffordablehousinginLongBeach.

CelebrateLongBeach’ssuccessesasitrelatestoaffordablehousing.Coalesceandmobilizecommunitysupportaroundthe“case.”

SynthesizetheCity’sHousingActionPlan,HousingElement,otherrelevantCityplanningdocuments,andAffordableHousingStudyGroupPolicyRecommendationsintounified,coherent“plan”orroadmapforaffordableandworkforcehousingthatenjoysbroadcommunitysupport.ConsidertheplansandprioritiesofotherpublicagencystakeholderssuchastheCountyofLosAngelesandStateofCalifornia.


Strategy#1: Plan&Prioritize + Neutral -

EnsurethattheplanisthecenterpieceofaCommunityInvestmentSystemthatestablishespriorities,contemplatesapipelineofopportunities,andpromotestheadoptionofenablingconditions.

Maintainadatabaseofopportunitiesinvolvingpubliclyheldland(i.e.,currentCityownedparcels,Metroownedlots,underutilizedpubliclyownedlots).

CommittotheCommunityInvestmentSystemandCollectiveImpactmethodologiesbyadoptingpoliciesandgoalsthatare“SMART”(Strategic,Measurable,Actionable,Relevant,andTime-Bound.

Establishan“interdepartmental”backbonerolewhichfeaturesamechanismforcommunityfeedbackandpublicaccountabilitytoensureplanimplementation.

Pursuefoundationfundingtofundthisbackbonerole.


Strategy#2: ProtectandPreserve + Neutral -

Considerapolicytolimitcondoconversionswhenvacancyratesdropbelowacertainpercentage.

One-for-onereplacementofallhousinglosttoredevelopment.

Preservestockofexistingaffordablehousingwithinthecommunity.




Eachofthesebroadstrategyhasmorespecificsub-strategies.Drawingonrelevantliterature,thissectionseekstocritiquethe“ProtectandPreserve”and“ProduceandPromote”strategies.


Encouragemixedincomehousingthroughadoptionofaninclusionaryhousingpolicyandestablishmentofincentivesfordevelopers.Subsidizeormandatemixedincomehousingthroughinclusionaryzoningprogram,orpaymentofadequate“inlieu”fees.

• Hoving (2010)findsthatempiricalstudiesonwhethermixed-incomehousingstipulateshousingoptionsandimprovecommunitieshavebeeninconclusive.Plannersshouldbecautiousinendorsingmixed-incomehousingasatooltoassistlow-incomeresidents.

• Anothermajorproblemislackofprecisedefinitionastowhat“mixed-income”pertainsto.Plannersshouldclearlydefinetheterm“mixed-income”andprovidespecificintentionswhenrecommendinga“mixed-income”strategy.• Furthermore,policymakersanddevelopersshouldbeclearerabouttheirexpectationsandprioritiesforany

mixed-incomedevelopmenttheyundertake(Joseph,2006).• Withproperfundingandplanning,mixed-incomehousingcanhelppovertyalleviation,however,plannersneedtohaverealisticexpectations.• Forexample,short- tomedium-termeffectsintermsofsocialorderandincreasedqualityofgoodsand

servicesmaybereasonable(Joseph,2006).• KeyObservation:Thesemeasuresincreasethecostperunitofproductioninamarketthatalreadyhasashortage,thuswilldriveuppricestoconsumers.

Source:Hoving,Kimberly. Mixed-IncomeHousing:AssumptionsandRealities.CaliforniaPolytechnicStateUniversity,June2010.MarkL.Joseph.Ismixed-incomedevelopmentanantidotetourbanpoverty?,HousingPolicyDebate,17:2,209-234.2006


austinm

Highlight

Encouragetheproject-basingofSection8vouchersforsupportivehousingdevelopments.

Empiricalresearchfindsthatthereareafewcomplicationsthathinderthesuccessofthisprogram.

• Themostprominentissueisthelackofhousinginitself.• AlthoughtheRHNAstatesthedevelopmentsneededforhousingtomatchpopulationgrowth,TheHCDfinds

thatintheperiodbetween2003-2014,notoneregionbuiltenoughhousingtomeetthedemandrequired.• Evenwithacertainamountsubsidizingthehouseholds’rent,therearemanyhouseholdsthatarestillunabletofindtheaffordablehomestomeettherequirement.• TherentcoveredbythevouchersiscappedbasedontheHUDFairMarketRent,whichoftenisseverely

underestimated.• Manylandlordsandrentalsoftenrefusetoacceptvouchers.

• Uncertaintyandinstabilityoffundingtowardstheselow-incomehousingprograms.• Becauselow-incomehousingproductionneedstobeplannedaccordingly,fundinguncertaintymakesithard

to“identifyandseparatethecostimpactsoflocation,construction,fees,andprogramrequirements…”• Federalfundingforhomeallocationtowardslow-incomehouseholdshasdecreasedovertheyears,which

impedesjurisdictions’abilitytodevelopnewerhomes.• KeyObservation:WhileSection8isfundedfederally,thefundingisn’tstableandthenumberofunitsavailableforprogramislimited

Source:Brown,EdmundG,etal. California'sHousingFuture:ChallengesandOpportunities.CaliforniaDepartmentofHousingandCommunityDevelopment,Jan.2017.<http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/California's-Housing-Future-Full-Public-Draft.pdf>


austinm

Highlight

Strategy#3: Produce andPromote + Neutral -

Throughvoterapprovalofalocalbondmeasure,establisha“onetime”sourceofcapitalizingtheCity’sHousingTrustFund.Bondproceedswouldbeinvestedoverafinitetimeperiod(i.e.,10years)inprojectsthatmeetspecificlocalprioritiesandneeds.Encouragemixedincomehousingthroughadoptionofaninclusionaryhousingpolicyandestablishmentofincentivesfordevelopers.Subsidizeormandatemixedincomehousingthroughinclusionaryzoningprogram,orpaymentofadequate“inlieu”fees.Addresszoningandregulatoryimpedimentsthatserveasbarrierstothecreationofaffordablehousing.Onesuccessfulexampleistheadoptionofspecificplans(i.e.,communityplans)thatfeaturemasterEIRswhichprovideregulatoryrelief,greaterenvironmentalcertainty,andmorerapidentitlements.



ContinuetopartnerwithdevelopersandothercommunitystakeholdersinthepursuitofgrantfundingandotherthirdpartyresourcessuchasMetroresources,StateAHSCfunding,Countyresources,andotherFederalgrant/loanprograms.Encouragetheproject-basingofSection8vouchersforsupportivehousingdevelopments.

Adoptordinancethatpavesthewayforthedevelopmentofaccessorydwellingunits.

Addressthehousingneedsofcollegestudentsthroughpromotionofstudenthousingonuniversitycontrolledoruniversityadjacentland.



CommunicatetheCity’sStateandlocallegislativeprioritiesasitrelatestoaffordablehousing.PromotetheengagementofinterestedCitystakeholdersinanefforttomaximizetheflowofexternalresourcesintotheCity.

PasslocalArticle34referendumtoensuremaximumleveragingofStateresourcesonlocalaffordablehousingdevelopments.

Explorethefeasibilityandmechanicsofusingnewstructuressuchastheenhancedinfrastructurefinancingdistrict(EIFD)tooltocapitalizetheHousingTrustFundwithnewresourcesforthecreationofaffordablehousing.

ProvidenecessaryCitystaffingresourcestoeffectivelymanagethegrowthofaffordablehousingcontemplatedbythissetofpolicyrecommendations.




Eachofthesebroadstrategieshasmorespecificsub-strategies.Drawingonrelevantliterature,thissectionseekstocritiquethe“ProtectandPreserve”and“ProduceandPromote”strategies.


SupportCEQAreform.

TherearemajorproblemsassociatedwithCEQAperresearchfindingsfromHolland&Knight(Hernandezetal.,2015).• LitigationAbuse.AbouthalfofallCEQAlawsuitstargetbusinessandprivatesectorsponsors,thebalancebeingdirectedattaxpayer-fundedprojects.• CEQAlitigationabuseisprimarilythedomainofNotInMyBackyard(NIMBY)opponentsandspecialinterestssuchascompetitorsandlaborunionsseekingnon-environmentaloutcomes.

• ProjectsdesignedtoadvanceCalifornia’senvironmentalpolicyobjectivesarethemostfrequenttargetsofCEQAlawsuits• Housing,particularlyhighdensityhousing,isthemostfrequentlychallengedtypeofprivatesectorproject.

• AnyindividualcanfileaCEQAlawsuittodelayorevencompletelyeliminateacompetingproject,withoutanybasisonenvironmentalpurpose.• Only13percentofallCEQAlawsuitsfiledareactuallyrelatedtoenvironmentalgroups.

• KeyObservation:SomeCEQAlitigationislegitimateandwarranted,butingeneralitslowsdowntheprojectapprovalprocess,withthepotentialtoderaileffortstobuildmorehousing,anddrivesupfixedcostsforahousingdevelopment.

Source:Hernandez,JenniferL,D.Friedman,andS.DeHerrera. IntheNameoftheEnvironment.HollandandKnight,Aug.2015.<https://www.hklaw.com/publications/in-the-name-of-the-environment-litigation-abuse-under-ceqa-august-2015/>


austinm

Highlight

SupportCEQAreform.

TherearemajorproblemsassociatedwithCEQAperresearchfindingsfromHolland&Knight(Hernandezetal.,2015).

• NIMBYscompromisedthelargestnumberofopponentstowardsprojects,suchasinfillprojects.• Usuallycharacterizedasolder,wealthierandlessethnicallydiverse.• Usuallygoingagainst“projectsforurbanschools,parksandmultifamilyhousing.”

• WhilespecialinterestsgroupssuchasNIMBYsoftenclaimthatCEQAcombatssprawl,analysisofthetypeoflitigationexposestheircharade.• Projectssuchasinfillprojects- thatactuallycombatssprawlandaccommodateeconomicandpopulationgrowth- aretheoverwhelmingtargetofCEQAlawsuits.

• Ofalltheinfillprojectstargeted,25percentofthemareresidential,and28percentofthemarepublicservice&infrastructureprojectssuchasschools,universities,andworkforcetrainingfacilities.

• Furthermore,CEQAlitigationisoverwhelminglyusedincities,targetingcoreurbanservicessuchasparks,schools,librariesandevenseniorhousing.



austinm

Highlight

SupportCEQAreform.

Holland&Knight’srecommendationsforCEQAreform:

• Litigationtransparency.RequirethosefilingCEQAlawsuitstodisclosetheiridentityandenvironmentornon-environmentalinterests.• EliminateduplicativelawsuitsaimedatderailingplansandprojectsthathavealreadycompletedtheCEQAprocess.• Fixit,don’tderailit.Fixthetechnicalstudygap,requiremorepublicdisclosureandcomment,requiremoremitigationifappropriateunderthecorrectedstudy,andholddecisionmakersaccountablefortheirfinalactions.



austinm

Highlight

ReduceParkingRequirements.

Placingparkingrequirementsaffectsbothrentersandbuyers,specificallythosewhoareinthelowerincomebracket.

• Generousparkingrequirementsreducehousingaffordabilityandimposevariouseconomicandenvironmentalcosts.• Eachparkingspaceperunitincreasescostsbyroughly12.5percent.• Increasingthelandneededperresidentialunitcausedbyparkingrequirementsdisproportionatelydecreasesthemaximumpotentialdevelopmentdensityforsmallerhousingunits.• Examplesofperverseincentivesbyunitsize(impactislargerforsmallerunits):

• 500sq.ft.apartments:37%declineinmaximumdensity.• 2,000sq.ft.townhouses:13%declineinmaximumdensity.

Source:Litman,T.ParkingRequirementImpactsonHousingAffordability.VictoriaTransportPolicyInstitute.August24,2016.<http://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf>


austinm

Highlight

ReduceParkingRequirements.

Otherproblemsassociatedwithminimumparkingrequirements:

• Highervehicleownership• Moretrafficcongestion• Poorairquality• Morehouseholdspendingonmobility• Unrecognizedequityissues

• Therealcostsofprovidingparkingareincorporatedintothepriceofothergoodsandservicespurchasedbyawidevarietyofconsumerswhomaynothaveusedthoseparkingfacilities.

• Underusedland

Source:MikhailC.,A.Fraser,J.Matute,C.Flower&R.Pendyala (2015).ParkingInfrastructure:AConstraintonorOpportunityforUrbanRedevelopment?AStudyofLosAngelesCountyParkingSupplyandGrowth,JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation,81:4,268-286,DOI:10.1080/01944363.2015.1092879


austinm

Highlight

ReduceParkingRequirements

ProposedSolutions

• Insteadofblindlyincreasingparkingsupply,plannersshouldrecognizetheneedtoprovideadequateparking,butvaluestrategiesthatresultinmoreefficientuseofparkingresources andreducetheamountofparkingneededataparticularlocation.

• Createflexiblerequirementsperbuilding,whereitisdeterminedbasedondemographics,geographicandmanagementfactors.• Forexample,housingsforstudentsandtheelderlyneedfewerparkingspacescomparedtootherdemographicgroups.

• Sharedparkingfacilitiesmayincreaseefficiencyandflexibility.• Unbundle parkingwithbuildingspace.Occupantsarenotforcedtopayforparkingtheydonotneed,andconsumerscanadjusttheirparkingsupplytoreflecttheirneeds.

Source:Litman,T.ParkingRequirementImpactsonHousingAffordability.VictoriaTransportPolicyInstitute.August24,2016.<http://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf>


austinm

Highlight

ParkingSpaceOutpacingPopulation

Source:Chester,M.,A.Fraser,J.Matute,C.Flower,andR.Pendyala (2015);U.S.CensusBureau

90.095.0100.0105.0110.0115.0120.0125.0130.0135.0140.0

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Indexedto1970Values

LongBeachParkingvs.PopulationGrowth

TotalParking Population

Between2000and2010,totalpopulationinLongBeachheldsteadywhileparkingspaceincreasedby6.4%.

ParkingandPopulation2000-2010Pct. Change

ResidentialOffStreet +3.0%

Non-ResidentialOff Street +12.6%

OnStreet +0.0%

TotalParking +6.4%

Population +0.2%


OtherStaffRecommendations + Neutral -

Modifymoderate-incomedefinitionfrom80-120%ofAMIto80-150%.

SupportCEQAreform.

Reduceparkingrequirements.


2.3HousingLegislation


PopulationGrowthDrivesHousingRequirements…• …butpolicieslimitactualamountofhousingthatisultimatelybuilt

•PLANNING•ZONING•PERMITTING•Building


Housing NeedsPlanning Zoning Permitting Building

Inadequate CapacityLocal Revenue Generating

Overly Restrictive Development Standards

Lengthy & UncertainHigh Fees

CEQACommunity Opposition

The MarketDevelopment Costs

Availability of FinancingPopulation ChangesEconomic Growth


CACitiesOftenFallShortofRHNAGoals:Resultsfromthe4th RHNACycle

86.1% 85.4%80.8% 78.5%

67.8%

52.4%40.4%

58.8%54.3%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Inglewood Lakewood Bellflower LongBeach Downey SantaAna LosAngeles(City)

Percen

tof4

thCycle

RHNAAllocatio

nUnfulfilled

LongBeachvs.SelectedCitiesinLosAngelesCounty

TotalUnfulfilled LACountyAverage SCAGAverage



Resultsfromthe4th RHNACycle- Detailed


-60%-40%-20%0%

20%40%60%80%

100%120%140%160%

Inglewood Lakewood Bellflower LongBeach Downey SantaAna LosAngeles(City)

LACountyTotal

SCAGRHNATotal

Percen

tof4

thCycle

RHNAAllocatio

nFulfilled

LongBeachvs.SelectedCitiesinLosAngelesCounty

SF/MobileHomes MF(2+) TotalUnfulfilled

LossofMulti-FamilyUnits


Resultsfromthe4th RHNACycle


78.5%

56.0%46.5%

26.6%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

LongBeach Oakland Sacramento Fresno

Percen

tof4

thCycle

RHNAAllocatio

nUnfulfilled

LongBeachvs.CitieswithSimilarPopulation


Resultsfromthe4th RHNACycle- Detailed


LossofMulti-FamilyUnits

-10%

10%

30%

50%

70%

90%

110%

LongBeach Oakland Sacramento Fresno

Percen

tof4

thCycle

RHNAAllocatio

nFulfilled

LongBeachvs.CitieswithSimilarPopulationSF/MobileHomes MF(2+) TotalUnfulfilled


SB35:2017LegislativeSession

Planningandzoning:affordablehousing:streamlinedapprovalprocess.

• ThehousingelementlawusespopulationprojectionsfromtheDOFtoestimatehowmanynewhousingunitswillbeneededinthestate.RegionalCOGSallocatetheseunitstocitiesandcounties,whicharethenrequiredtoupdatethehousingelementoftheirGeneralPlanstoaccommodatefuturehousingneeds.

• TheenforcementofRHNAhousinggoalswasnonexistentpriortoSB35.• CitiesthatfailtomeettheirRHNAallocationhavefacednoconsequences,andcitiesthatachievethemhavereapednorewards.SB35,createdanenforcementmechanismtofacilitateneededhousingconstructionincitiesthathavenotmettheirfairshareRHNAgoals.

• KeyObservation:LongBeach’sinabilitytoachieve4th CycleRHNAallocationgoalsmayrequiredifferentstrategiesforthe5th CycleRHNA(andfuturecycles)asstateenforcementmechanismschange.



RHNAReform:RelyingonData,NotPolitics,inProjectingHousingNeeds

• TheRegionalHousingNeedsAssessment(RHNA),whichishowCaliforniadetermineshowmuchhousingeachlocalcommunityshouldbuild,isbasedonaflawedmethodologythatsignificantlyunderestimatespopulationgrowthandhowmuchhousingwillbeneeded.Inaddition,thecurrentRHNAallocationprocessisnon-standardized,insufficientlyconnectedtoactualdata,andhighlypoliticized,thusgivingsomecommunitiesadvantageswhenassigningstatehousinggoals.

• SB828createsaclearer,fairer,moredata-driven,andmoreequitableprocessforhowthestateandregionalbodiesassignRHNAnumberstolocalcommunities.Itdoesthisbyrequiringamoredata-focused,objectiveprocessandbycreatingstrongerguardrails,thusreducingthewiggleroomjurisdictionsusetolowertheirRHNAallocations.SB828alsorequirescommunitiestobeginmakingupforpastRHNAdeficits.

• KeyObservation:MoreandbetterlocaldatawillmakefutureRHNACyclesmoretransparenttostakeholders,resultinginabetter-informedprocess.



MandatingDenser&TallerZoningNearTransit

• ThestateofCaliforniaandLosAngelesCountycontinuetoinvestinpublictransportation,buttoooftentheareasaroundtransitlinesandtransitstopsarezonedatverylowdensities,evenlimitinghousingtosinglefamilyhomesaroundmajortransithubslikeBART,Caltrain,Muni,andLAMetrostations.

• Requiringlow-densityhousingaroundtransitmakesnosense.Transit-richareasare*exactly*whereweshouldbeputtingdensehousing.Wemustbuildmorehousingneartransitsothatwecanreducerelianceoncars.Buildingdenseandtallhousingaroundtransitisnotonlysoundenvironmental,economic,andequitypolicy– itisalsooneofCalifornia’smostpromisingsourcesofnewhousing,accordingtoarecentCaliforniaanalysisbytheconsultingfirmMcKinsey

• KeyObservation:RecentchangesintheLUEfromTransitOrientedDevelopmenttolowerdensity(e.g.NeighborhoodMixedUseLowDensity)areatoddswithlegislationintroducedtoincreasedensityaroundtransit.


economic analysis of future housing needs in the city of long beach-phase i · 2018. 9. 7. · 1.1...

Documents