AGENDA
A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CUDAHY CITY COUNCIL
and JOINT MEETING of the
CITY OF CUDAHY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY and HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY
TO THE CUDAHY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 7, 2023 – 6:30 P.M.
Written materials distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council meeting shall be available for public inspection at www.cityofcudahy.com In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, you should contact the City Clerk’s Office at (323) 773-5143 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Rules of Decorum
Under the Government Code, the City Council may regulate disruptive behavior that impedes the City Council Meeting.
Disruptive conduct may include, but is not limited to:
• Screaming or yelling during another audience member’s public comments period; • Profane language directed at individuals in the meeting room; • Throwing objects at other individuals in the meeting room; • Verbal altercations with other individuals in the meeting room; and • Going beyond the allotted three-minute public comment period granted.
When a person’s or group’s conduct disrupts the meeting, the Mayor or presiding officer will request that the person or group stop the disruptive behavior and WARN the person or group that they will be asked to leave the meeting room if the behavior continues.
If the person or group refuses to stop the disruptive behavior, the Mayor or presiding officer may order the person or group to leave the meeting room and may request that those persons be escorted from the meeting room. Any person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up a City Council meeting is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 403.)
Daisy Lomelí, Mayor
Jose R. Gonzalez, Vice Mayor
Elizabeth Alcantar, Council Member
Martin U. Fuentes, Council Member
Cynthia Gonzalez, Council Member
Amended Agenda
2/3/2023 1:25 PM
REMOTE TELECONFERENCE AND
ELECTRONICALLY
This meeting will be conducted telephonically
and electronically pursuant to Government
Code § 54953
Teleconference Phone Number:
1 (669) 900-6833
Meeting ID: 851 2790 9545
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85127909545
City of Cudahy
City Council and Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Agenda
February 7, 2023, at 6:30 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Council / Agency Member Gonzalez
Council / Agency Member Fuentes
Council / Agency Member Alcantar
Vice Mayor / Vice Chair Gonzalez
Mayor / Chair Lomelí
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to acknowledge that the land we inhabit today was once known as Tovangaar, the home of the Gabrieleño-Tongva people. We show our respects to the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, as well as all Indigenous people, past, present, and future, and honor their labor as original caretakers of this land. We commit to uplifting the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, invite you to acknowledge the history, and join us in caring for this land.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recognition of Muralist Carlos Conde, Jaime Velasco, and Tersa Hughes Elementary School
6. CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Each member of the public may provide a public comment telephonically or electronically if he or she wishes to address the City Council on closed session matters by clicking the hand icon on Zoom or pressing star (*) nine (9) on the telephone. During this time, members of the public are permitted to speak for three (3) minutes concerning only items on closed session.)
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
At this time, City Council will meet in closed session to go over items of business on the closed session agenda. Closed session discussion will end at 7:30 p.m. At that time, City Council will have the option to continue discussing closed session items after deliberating on all agenda items or continue the discussion to the next regular meeting. Once closed session is complete and the City Council returns from closed session into open session, members of the public may then rejoin the proceedings.
7. CLOSED SESSION
A. Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 – Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Title of Employee: City Manager
City of Cudahy
City Council and Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Agenda
February 7, 2023, at 6:30 P.M.
Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 – Conference with Labor Negotiator
City’s Designated Representative: Stephanie Arechiga, City Attorney Unrepresented Employee: City Manager
B. Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(e)(1) – Conference with Legal Counsel to Discuss Matter Involving Potential Litigation – One Matter
8. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
9. PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Each member of the public may provide a public comment telephonically or electronically by clicking the hand icon on Zoom or pressing star (*) nine (9) on the telephone, if he or she wishes to address the City Council. Members of the public are permitted to speak for three (3) minutes concerning items under the City Council’s jurisdiction, including items on the council agenda.) (Any person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up a City Council meeting is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 403).)
10. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS / REQUESTS FOR AGENDA ITEMS (Each Council Member is limited to three minutes.)
(This is the time for the City Council / Agency to comment on any topics related to “City Business,” including announcements, reflections on city / regional events, response to public comments, suggested discussion topics for future council meetings, general concerns about particular city matters, questions to the staff, and directives to the staff (subject to approval / consent of the City Council majority members present, regarding staff directives). Each Council / Agency Member will be allowed to speak for a period not to exceed three (3) minutes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council Members shall not use this comment period for serial discussions or debate between members on City business matters not properly agendized. The City Attorney shall be responsible for regulating this aspect of the proceeding.)
11. CITY MANAGER REPORT (information only)
A. Parking Citations Reporting (page 7)
12. REPORTS REGARDING AD HOC, ADVISORY, STANDING, OR OTHER COMMITTEE
MEETINGS
A. Reports regarding Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee meetings (page 13)
13. WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
City of Cudahy
City Council and Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Agenda
February 7, 2023, at 6:30 P.M.
(Consideration to waive full text reading of all Resolutions and Ordinances by single motion made at the start of each meeting, subject to the ability of the City Council / Agency to read the full text of selected resolutions and ordinances when the item is addressed by subsequent motion.) (COUNCIL / AGENCY)
Recommendation: Approve the Waiver of Full Reading of Resolutions and Ordinances.
14. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion, prior to the vote to approve the Consent Calendar, each Council Member shall have a maximum of three (3) minutes to comment on the Consent Calendar as a whole. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council / Agency Member so requests specific item(s) be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Items may only be considered as a separate action if either (1) a Council Member must recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest or (2) a Council Member has specific questions for City Staff. Items called for separate discussion will be heard as the next order of business.) A. Consideration to Review and Approve the Draft Minutes of January 10, 2023, Special Meeting and January 17, 2023, for the Regular Meeting of the City Council and the Joint Meeting of the City of Cudahy as Successor Agency and Housing Successor Agency to the Cudahy Development Commission (page 15)
Presented by the City Clerk
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to review and approve the City Council / Successor Agency Draft Minutes for January 10, 2023, and January 17, 2023.
B. Adoption of Proposed Resolution No. 23-04 Proclaiming a Local Emergency, Ratifying the Proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and Re-Authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council, City Boards, and all Commissions of the City of Cudahy, for the Period from February 7, 2023, through February 28, 2023, Pursuant to Brown Act Provisions (page 33)
Presented by the City Attorney
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to approve proposed Resolution No. 23-04 proclaiming a local emergency, ratifying the proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and re-authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the City Council, City Boards, and all Commissions of the City of Cudahy, for the period from February 7, 2023, through February 28, 2023, pursuant to Ralph M. Brown Act provisions.
C. Consideration to Amend the Scope of the Public Utilities Ad Hoc Committee (page 43) Presented by the City Clerk
City of Cudahy
City Council and Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Agenda
February 7, 2023, at 6:30 P.M.
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to amend the scope of the Public Utilities Ad Hoc Committee to the Water Ad Hoc Committee.
D. Consideration to Dissolve Inactive Ad Hoc Committees (page 45) Presented by the City Clerk
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to consider dissolving inactive Ad Hoc Committees.
15. PUBLIC HEARING
A. City of Cudahy 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (page 47) Presented by the Community Development Director
Recommendation: Staff recommends that The City Council hear staff presentation on an update of the City’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element, open the floor for public comments and questions, and provide Council comments and questions to staff.
16. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with the Law Offices of Glenn Ward Calsada Cannabis Regulation Consulting Services (page 403)
Presented by the Management Analyst
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to approve a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with the Law Offices of Glenn Ward Calsada Cannabis Regulation Consulting Services for cannabis-related activities in the City.
B. Adoption of a Proposed Resolution No. 23-05 Amending the City of Cudahy Fiscal Year (FY) 2022- 2023 City Budget (page 429)
Presented by the Finance Director
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to:
1. Receive and file the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-2023 Mid-Year Budget review and related reports; and
2. Adopt proposed Resolution No. 23-05 amending the City of Cudahy Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-2023 City Budget.
City of Cudahy
City Council and Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Agenda
February 7, 2023, at 6:30 P.M.
17. COUNCIL DISCUSSION - NONE
18. ADJOURNMENT
I, Richard Iglesias, hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the City’s Website, City Hall, Clara Park, and Lugo Park not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. A copy of said Agenda is on file in the City Clerk’sOffice.
Dated this 3rd day of February 2023
Richard Iglesias
City Clerk
“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
CITY MANAGER REPORT
Date: January 24, 2023
To: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager/Executive Director
From: Joshua Calhoun, Finance Director
Subject: Parking Citations Reporting
RECOMMENDATION
City Manager/ Executive Director is encouraged to bring back the internal processing of parking tickets, and work together with Data Ticket Inc., to have a better understanding of parking ticket processing and control of the revenue it generates for the City.
BACKGROUND
1. On September 8, 2003, City of Cudahy entered into agreement with Data Ticket Inc. dba Municipal Services Bureau , Parking to provide typical Municipal Citation Data Processing including but not limited to the following: Process all citationsfor the City. Provide monthly summary of citations entered, paid, and cleared. Prepare notices for delinquent citation.
Obtain vehicle registration information and add it the Master File in order to mail notices of delinquency. Prepare Reports Supporting noticesfor mailing. Provide delinquent citation collection services.
“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
ANALYSIS
STRATEGIC PLAN
Finance Department Goal is to provide regular updates to the City Manager about the parking citation revenues.
“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City of Cudahy brings back in-house parking citations and work with Data Ticket to better control the parking ticket process and revenue collection.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Summary of Citation Status Reports
B. Parking Citations Aging Report
Status # Citations Original Charges/Fees Payments Owing Closed 2742 $147,129.00 $14,112.00 $161,337.50 ($96.50) Dismissed 36 $2,560.00 ($2,126.00) $389.00 $45.00
On Hold 288 $20,494.00 $770.00 $1,965.00 $19,304.00
Open 2348 $144,213.00 $72,012.00 $355.00 $215,885.00
Void 70 $4,590.00 ($4,590.00) $0.00
Warn 106 $0.00 $0.00
Totals: 5590 $318,986.00 $80,178.00 $164,046.50 $235,137.50 # of Payments # of Payments Total Paid Amount
376 64 $5,743.81
# of Payments
73 # of Mismatches 112
Cost Per Instance
$1.30
$0.50
30% collected revenue
$15.00
$0.90
$0.50
$0.50
$1.18
$1.18
$1.18
$1.00
$1.18
$25.00
$50.00
New Citation‐Enter Tickets
Scan and Upload Documentation
Fees Collecting Out of State
Payment Plan Admin Fee
Indigent Payment Plan
New Citation Appeals
Review, Hearing and Court
Appeal Letter Generated
Refund Correspondence
Scheduled Letter Extracted
Additional Correspondence
Waiver Form Sent
Write Wizard Contract‐Monthly
Web Access‐Monthly Fee
Data Ticket Cost of Services
Services
Adjudication Review Disposition Report
Date Range: 07/01/22‐01/23/23
Total Owing Amount
$1,326.00
Make Mismatch Report
Date Range: 07/1/22‐01/23/23
Total # of Mismatches
Total Paid Amount
$39,051.00
Franchise Tax Board Payments Report
Date Range: 07/01/22‐01/23/23
City of Cudahy‐Citation Status Reports
Date Range: 07/01/22 ‐ 01/23/23
Notes:
From July 1, 2022 to January 2023, Data Ticket has processed a total of 5,590 citations for the City of Cudahy.
Total Original Amount of $318,986.00 is the total of all closed, dismissed, on hold, open and void parking citations.
The Charges/Fees Amount of $80,178.00 is the amount the City assesses when a cite is not paid in a timely manner (penalty), refunds or any balance adjustments.
Total Payments Amount of $80,178.00 is the amount paid for each citation category.
Total Owing Amount of $235,138.50 is the outstanding amount Data ticket will collect by sending notices (up to 5 notices), placing DMV holds, and utilizing Franchise Tax Board.
DMV Payments Report
Date Range: 07/01/22 01/23/23
Attachment A Page 10 of 439
As of January 24, 2023
Department #0‐30 Days 0‐30 Days Total #31‐60 Days 31‐60 Days Total #61‐90 Days 61‐90 Days Total #91‐180 Days 91‐180 Days Total #181 Days‐ 1 Yr Count 181 Days‐1 Yr Total Total Count Total Amount CA ‐ w/RO & No DMV Hold Attempted ‐
OPEN 716 $40,838.00 284 $23,087.00 3 $239.00 0 $0.00 1 $45.00 1004 $64,209.00 CA ‐ w/RO & No DMV Hold Attempted ‐
On Hold 33 $2,085.00 24 $1,185.00 80 $5,773.00 98 $7,629.00 26 $2,355.00 261 $19,027.00 CA ‐ w/RO & DMV Hold Failed 0 $0.00 1 $62.00 77 $8,641.00 126 $18,202.00 230 $30,037.00 434 $56,942.00CA ‐ w/RO & DMV Hold Successful 0 $0.00 4 $336.00 338 $34,443.00 429 $52,544.00 402 $45,881.00 1173 $133,204.00CA ‐ w/RO & DMV Hold Successful & At FTB 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 9 $1,546.00 328 $40,148.00 337 $41,694.00 CA ‐ w/RO & At FTB 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 1 $84.00 158 $22,415.50 159 $22,499.50 CA ‐ w/RO and At Collections 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 CA ‐ w/RO and At Collections and DMV
hold 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
CA ‐ without R/O 39 $2,225.00 20 $1,410.00 46 $3,830.00 23 $2,030.00 75 $6,453.00 203 $15,948.00 Out of State ‐ w/RO 8 $600.00 5 $748.00 9 $1,156.00 15 $1,419.00 17 $1,627.00 54 $5,550.00 Out of State ‐ w/RO and At FTB 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 1 $84.00 1 $84.00 Out of State ‐ without R/O 5 $225.00 3 $345.00 19 $1,460.00 10 $830.00 23 $1,385.00 60 $4,245.00 Out of State ‐ at Collections 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 Totals: 801.00 $ 45,973.00 341 $ 27,173.00 572 $ 55,542.00 711 $ 84,284.00 1261 $ 150,430.50 3686 $363,402.50 City of Cudahy‐ Parking Citations Aging Report
Attachment B
Blank Page
“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
02/07/2023 Page 1 of 1
AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Date: February 7, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Agency Members From: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager/Executive Director
By: Richard Iglesias, City Clerk
Subject: Ad Hoc Committee Report Out
RENT CONTROL AD HOC COMMITTEE - MAYOR ALCANTAR, VICE MAYOR GONZALEZ,
LANDLORD SUSIE DE SANTIAGO, RESIDENTS TEVINA QUINTANA AND IRMA LOPEZ On January 25, 2023, the Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee met and discussed rental data presented, rental units covered under proposed rent control, possible exemptions, max rent increase within 12 months, the appeal process, and the next meeting date.
Blank Page
“Serving the People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
02/07/2023 Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
Date: February 7, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Agency Members From: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager/Executive Director
By: Richard Iglesias, City Clerk
Subject: Consideration to Review and Approve the Draft Minutes of January 10, 2023, Special Meeting and January 17, 2023, for the Regular Meeting of the City Council and the Joint Meeting of the City of Cudahy as Successor Agency and Housing Successor Agency to the Cudahy Development Commission
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is requested to review and approve the City Council / Successor Agency Draft Minutes for January 10, 2023, and January 17, 2023.
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS
On December 12, 2016, the City Council of the City of Cudahy adopted Resolution No. 16-38, approving the use of summary action minutes, meant to allow the City Clerk's Office to write the minutes in brief, assuring a record of Council's actions, due to having a recording of the full Council Meeting on the City’s website.
Historically
The Municipal Clerk is one of the oldest professions in government, dating back to 1272 A.D., originating in England. The record keeper then was called Remembrancer, an English official whose job was to remind the Lord Treasurer and Barons of Court, of business pending.
Years later, in the 1600s, when early colonists came to America, the office of the Clerk was one of the first offices to be established. Over the years, the City Clerk’s office has become the core for local government, and the liaison to the residents of the Community. The Municipal Clerk (City Clerk) is the record keeper of a City’s recorded history.
Item Number
14A
“Serving the People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
02/07/2023 Page 2 of 2
William Bennett Munro, a Canadian historian, and political scientist, who taught at Harvard University and the California Institute of Technology, stated in one of his first textbooks written: “No other office in municipal service has so many contacts. It serves the Mayor, the City Council, the City Manager (when there is one), and all administrative departments, without exception. All of them call upon it, almost daily, for some service or information. Its work is not spectacular, but it demands versatility, alertness, accuracy, and no end of patience.
The public does not realize how many loose ends of city administration this office pulls together.”
Moving forward to the present time, the City Clerk’s office today is generally responsible for keeping a record of City Council meetings; agreements; recordings of official documents; legal advertisements; municipal elections; commissions and committees current files; claims against the city; and other legal or official documents.
City Clerks are required to keep record of the proceedings (minutes) of Council meetings (Government Code Sections 36814 and 40801). Minutes are the official record of a meeting which provides a history of the Council’s decisions and actions.
CONCLUSION
City Council is requested to approve the attached City Council / Agency Draft Minutes of the proceedings of January 10, 2023, and January 17, 2023.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No Financial Impact.
ATTACHMENT
A. January 10, 2023, Special Meeting Minutes
B. January 17, 2023, Regular Meeting Minutes
C. Resolution No. 16-38, approving the City Clerk’s use of Summary Action Minutes as the Official Record of the City Council proceedings.
City Council/Successor Agency Minutes of 1/10/2023 Page 1 of 2
MINUTES
CUDAHY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING and
CITY OF CUDAHY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY and
HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CUDAHY
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JOINT MEETING
January 10, 2023 6:30 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor / Chair Lomeli called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Council / Agency Member Elizabeth Alcantar
Council / Agency Member Martin Fuentes
Council / Agency Member Cynthia Gonzalez
Vice Mayor / Vice Chair Jose R. Gonzalez (joined 6:37 p.m.) Mayor / Chair Daisy Lomelí
None
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager, Alfonso Noyola, City Attorney, Stephanie Arechiga, City Clerk, Richard Iglesias, Finance Director, Joshua Calhoun, Administrative Services Director, Brenda Rodriguez, Community Development Director, Juan Arauz, Executive Secretary, Janet Andrade, Public Works Director, Aaron Hernandez
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS — NONE
4. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Presentation
Presented by Public Works Director
Recommendation: The City Council is to receive a presentation on the proposed Fiscal Year 2023-28 CIP, discuss, provide staff with additional direction and/or approve the CIP.
Motion: Council Member Alcantar motioned to approve the Fiscal Year 2023-28 CIP with oral edits and heightened priority for signage, broadband, power, communications, and social media projects, seconded by Vice Mayor Gonzalez. Motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alcantar, Fuentes, C. Gonzalez, J. Gonzalez and Lomelí NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Attachment A Page 17 of 439
City Council/Successor Agency Minutes of 1/10/2023 Page 2 of 2 B. Update on the Southgate Development Project on 5037 Patata St.
Presented by the Community Development Director
Recommendation: The City Council is recommended to receive an update and discuss the Southgate Development Project.
NO MOTION – DISCUSSION ONLY
5. ADJOURNMENT
Vice Mayor J. Gonzalez motioned to adjourn the City Council / Agency meeting at 8:11 p.m., seconded by Council Member C. Gonzalez. Motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alcantar, Fuentes, C. Gonzalez, J. Gonzalez and Lomelí NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Daisy Lomelí
Mayor
ATTEST:
Richard Iglesias
City Clerk
City Council/Successor Agency Minutes of 1/17/2022 Page 1 of 12
MINUTES
CUDAHY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING and
CITY OF CUDAHY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY and
HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CUDAHY
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JOINT MEETING
January 17, 2023 6:30 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor / Chair Lomeli called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Council / Agency Member Elizabeth Alcantar
Council / Agency Member Martin Fuentes
Council / Agency Member Cynthia Gonzalez
Vice Mayor / Vice Chair Jose R. Gonzalez (joined 6:36 p.m.) Mayor / Chair Daisy Lomelí
None
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager, Alfonso Noyola, City Attorney, Stephanie Arechiga, City Clerk, Richard Iglesias, Assistant City Clerk, Estefania Zamora, Finance Director, Joshua Calhoun, Administrative Services Director, Brenda Rodriguez, Community Development Director, Juan Arauz, Public Works Director, Aaron Hernandez, Management Analyst, Andres Rangel, Administrative Analyst, David Reyes, and Assistant Planner, Jessica Guillen
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Fuentes.
4. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Land Acknowledgment was led by Council Member Alcantar.
We would like to acknowledge that the land we inhabit today was once known as Tovangaar, the home of the Gabrieleño-Tongva people. We show our respects to the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, as well as all Indigenous people, past, present, and future, and honor their labor as original caretakers of this land. We commit to uplifting the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, invite you to acknowledge the history, and join us in caring for this land.
Attachment B Page 19 of 439
City Council/Successor Agency Minutes of 1/17/2022 Page 2 of 12
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Certificate of Recognition presented to Johnny Guereca, Elizabeth Learning Center Student
B. Certificate of Recognition presented to Eloy Adame, Elizabeth Learning Center Band
C. Plaque presented to East Los Angeles Sheriff’s Deputy Montes D. Grant Application Submittal for the Former Successor Agency Sites E. City Manager’s Annual Update
F. Housing Element Update
G. Strategic Plan Update
6. CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENTS – NONE
City Attorney, Stephanie Arechiga advised to move items 7. Closed Session and 8.
Closed Session Announcement to the end of the meeting.
Motion: Council Member Alcantar motion to move items 7 and 8 to the end of the meeting, seconded by Vice Mayor Gonzalez. Motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alcantar, Fuentes, C. Gonzalez, J. Gonzalez and Lomelí NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
9. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Michael Shones mentioned the properties he owns in the City and stated he has been generous on not increasing the rent but due to insurance, taxes, and utilities going up has been affecting him to where he is not going forward at all.
Elena Edin mentioned she is the Director of Media Outreach and Education at the Housing Rights Center which is a non-profit that provides free fair housing services to tenants and landlords, mentioned they are having the first workshop where it will cover fair housing laws, discuss COVID-19 laws that are in effect right now in LA County, rent increase moratorium and invited everyone to come out.
Susie de Santiago commented on the presentations, stated communication needs a lot of growth especially on Nixel, mentioned the city needs more active programs for youth throughout the year but to include to include everyone not just youth or seniors, also commented on the street sweeping leaving trash behind and asked staff to looked into monitoring the street sweeper.
Laura Ibarra questioned how decisions are made regarding the moratorium, mentioned owning unit in the city for over 50 years and their rent is very low and are trying to get them to market rent.
City Council/Successor Agency Minutes of 1/17/2022 Page 3 of 12 Miriam thanked Mayor Lomeli for addressing her concerns regarding graffiti, reiterated Susie’s comments on the Nixel communications, mentioned she would like to be notified on days that there are city council meetings, commended the Sheriff’s department customer service for modifying their behavior and for being professionals, also welcomed new faces on the Council and looking forward to working with everyone.
Bertha Martinez expressed her gratitude for Deputy Montes from Ellen Ochoa Learning Center for his engagement mentioned his professionalism and wished him well, welcomed the new members to the City Council Cynthia and Martin and also mentioned wanting to get information from Parks and Recreation to shared with students.
Letter Emailed by Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles Dear Hon. Mayor Lomeli and Members of the Cudahy City Council:
At tonight’s City Council meeting, the Council will consider adopting an ordinance that will extend the temporary ban on residential rent increases for a period of 90 additional days, and potentially for a longer period of time. The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (Association) is strongly opposed to any further extension of the temporary rent increase freeze and strongly urges the City Council to allow it to expire, as scheduled on January 18, 2023.
For nearly three years, no other service provider has been subjected to greater government restrictions on revenue collections and pricing than the rental housing industry. Many of our members are small independent housing providers who have endured dire financial challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, collecting little, if any, rental income, and consequently many have depleted retirement and other savings or financed critical items with credit cards to maintain essential building operations. They are now contemplating or being forced into leaving the business entirely. This situation has only worsened due to massive increases in operational and other building costs.
The City’s Staff Report provides no data reflective of a widespread issue of rent increases, the majority of which are limited by Assembly Bill 1482, the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, nor widespread evictions. Furthermore, no evidence was presented by staff regarding any related emergency that exists today to warrant extending such extreme measures.
After almost three years of rent collection challenges and now skyrocketing inflation, the City’s independent, small business rental housing providers are struggling to maintain their buildings. This will only result in accelerating the loss of the City’s already scarce affordable housing as these properties will be bought by large developers that convert them into luxury condominiums or rentals.
Additionally, the Staff Report references the City’s Ad Hoc Rent Control subcommittee, which APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES AAGLA “Great Apartments Start Here!” 2 during the past nearly 90 days of the rent increase freeze has been exploring housing issues and are to provide recommendations for the City Council’s consideration. The report indicates that the basis for the extension is to enable the Subcommittee to complete its research. Yet, to date, nominal information has been provided on the work that has been done and whether the Subcommittee has conducted any stakeholder engagement over the last 90 days with all the involved parties, rental
City Council/Successor Agency Minutes of 1/17/2022 Page 4 of 12 housing providers and renters, who would be directly impacted. While the Subcommittee was to provide an update on their work at a previous City Council meeting, no update had been given. As part of tonight’s City Council agenda, the Subcommittee is set to provide an update. We urge the Council to inquire about the Subcommittee’s outreach and engagement with all affected parties. Stakeholder feedback is essential throughout the process and should be a core component of any study or analysis of rent control. In addition to the substantive concerns, raised above, there appears to be a definitional error with the base rent effective date included in the draft ordinance. The base rent date, as defined in the original ordinance (Ordinance No. 725) establishing the rent increase freeze, stated that the “Base Rent” is the monthly rent that was in effect on October 20, 2022. This definition aligns with the effective date of the adopted ordinance. The proposed draft ordinance extension being considered tonight defines “Base Rent” as the monthly rent that was in effect on January 17, 2022. As this would be an earlier date than the original date listed in the adopted ordinance, this appears to be done in error. We believe that the intended base rent date is January 17, 2023, which would be in line with the effective date of the draft urgency ordinance.
The Association strongly urges the City Council to reject any further extension of the City’s rent increase freeze and to direct the Subcommittee to conduct stakeholder engagement prior to advancing any housing policy recommendations. We welcome the opportunity to share our wealth of industry knowledge and participate in this important dialogue. Thank you for your time and consideration of these matters. If you have any questions, please call me at (213) 384-4131; Ext. 306 or contact me via electronic mail at [email protected].
Yours sincerely,
Max Sherman
10. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS / REQUESTS FOR AGENDA ITEMS
Council Member C. Gonzalez thanked everyone and all staff for the information in the PowerPoint presentations and all the attendees that have been sticking through to make sure that their voices are heard, mentioned tabling until we get a new deputy due to safety reports that she would like to see but will wait until settled.
Council Member Alcantar mentioned a meeting held last week with Angeles Por Siempre Unidos which is a non-profit that services all over Southeast Los Angeles but several of their families are from Cudahy, mentioned the Southeast Community Development Corporation fundraiser, it was a success we were able to fundraise and bring out families to support and also wanted to add to next agenda or following to add on an ordinance first and second reading on “just cause” supporting our tenants here in Cudahy.
Vice Mayor J. Gonzalez mentioned his attendance at the United Soccer Coaches Convention in Philadelphia representing Southeast LA to prepare for the World Cup, wants to make sure our city and students are part of the World Cup, and looking for ways to be part of the decision-making process and thanked everyone for being here.
Mayor Lomelí thanked everyone who joined tonight, mentioned her attendance at the LA County Vector Control District Board of Trustees meeting, spoke on the unfortunate equipment that was stolen at the incident at Lugo Park, thanked staff for working so
City Council/Successor Agency Minutes of 1/17/2022 Page 5 of 12 diligently, appreciate the city being able to contribute financially to replace the equipment, gave a praise to LA County Supervisor Janice Hahn who was also able to contribute the same amount, also attended the Southeast YMCA Youth and Government Delegation Presentation where a group of students from all over the Southeast who present bills, and took a moment to uplift Hailey which is a student from Cudahy who attended and would like to recognize her at a future meeting.
11. CITY MANAGER REPORT (information only)
12. REPORTS REGARDING AD HOC, ADVISORY, STANDING OR OTHER
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
A. Reports regarding Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee and Education Ad Hoc Committee meetings
Council Member Alcantar reported on Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee mentioned there are two members of council, two tenants and one landlord serving, feels that they are getting close to having a proposal for Council but not the final yet reason why on tonight’s agenda they are proposing an extension.
Mayor Lomelí reported out on the Education Ad Hoc Committee, thanked Principal Tetitla from ELC and Principal Mr. Hernandez from Ellen Ochoa Learning Center who joined. Principal Tetitla shared how their wellness center is available 5 days a week, discussed Johnny’s recognition, thanked her for continuing to join and communicate with us. Ellen Ochoa Learning School working on renovating their parents center, connected on issues like traffic but it was really refreshing to hear that those issues are improving, thanked staff for working with them and continuing to be solution oriented.
13. WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Motion: Council Member Alcantar motioned to waive full reading of resolutions and ordinances, seconded by Vice Mayor J. Gonzalez. Motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alcantar, Fuentes, C. Gonzalez, J. Gonzalez and Lomelí NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
14. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) for the Month of December 2022
Presented by the Finance Director
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to approve the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Report for the month of December 2022 in the amount of $11,261,389.49.
City Council/Successor Agency Minutes of 1/17/2022 Page 6 of 12 B. Approval of the City Demands and Payroll Including Statement of Investment for the Month of December 2022
Presented by the Finance Director
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to approve the Demands and Payroll in the amount of $1,395,830.23 including the Statement of Investments for the month of December 2022.
C. Informational Item – ARPA Utilization Plan Monthly Report (December 2022) Presented by the Finance Director
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to receive and file the ARPA Utilization Plan Monthly Report for the month of December 2022.
D. Consideration to Review and Approve the Draft Minutes of August 16, 2022, and December 6, 2022, for the Regular Meeting of the City Council and the Joint Meeting of the City of Cudahy as Successor Agency and Housing Successor Agency to the Cudahy Development Commission
Presented by the City Clerk
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to review and approve the City Council / Successor Agency Draft Minutes for August 16, 2022, and December 6, 2022.
E. Adoption of Proposed Resolution No. 23-01 Proclaiming a Local Emergency, Ratifying the Proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and Re-Authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council, City Boards, and all Commissions of the City of Cudahy, for the Period from January 17, 2023, through February 16, 2023, Pursuant to Brown Act Provisions Presented by the City Attorney
Recommendation: The City is requested to approve proposed Resolution No. 23-01 proclaiming a local emergency, ratifying the proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and re-authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the City Council, City Boards, and all Commissions of the City of Cudahy, for the period from January 17, 2023, through February 16, 2023, pursuant to Ralph M. Brown Act provisions.
F. Receive and File Proposed Change to Staffing in City Attorney’s Office Presented by the City Attorney
Recommendation: It is staff’s recommendation that the City Council receive and file the proposed change in staffing with the City Attorney’s Office.
City Council/Successor Agency Minutes of 1/17/2022 Page 7 of 12
AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY
G. Approval of the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the Fiscal Period of July 1, 2023 to June 30 2024 (ROPS 23-24
Presented by the Finance Director
Recommendation: The Successor Agency is requested to approve the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) for the fiscal period of July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 (ROPS 23-24), for submission to the City of Cudahy Oversight Board.
H. Consideration to Adopt Resolution No. SA 23-01 for Approval of the Administrative Budget for Fiscal Period of July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 Presented by the Finance Director
Recommendation: The Successor Agency is requested to adopt a proposed Resolution No. SA 23-01 approving the Administrative Budget for the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) for the fiscal period of July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 (ROPS 23-24).
Motion: Council Member/Agency Member Alcantar motioned to approve Consent Calendar items, seconded by Vice Mayor/Vice Chair J. Gonzalez. Motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alcantar, Fuentes, C. Gonzalez, J. Gonzalez and Lomelí NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
15. PUBLIC HEARING
A. A Public Hearing to Consider and Adopt Resolution No. 23-02 of the City of Cudahy City Council Approving Projects / Programs to the City Council for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding During the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 Presented by the Management Analyst
Recommendation: Staff Council is requested to Adopt Resolution No. CDAB 23-02, recommending Projects/Programs to the City Council for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.
At 8:56 p.m. Mayor Lomelí opened public comment
Public Comments:
Miriam inquired about the Clara Street Park restroom improvement plan and questioned the expenditures for it.
City Council/Successor Agency Minutes of 1/17/2022 Page 8 of 12 Susie de Santiago commented on the Housing Rehab program and suggested to increase it and do more outreach for the program, also mentioned the food distribution program stated the city should put more funds towards that program to make it better.
At 9:02 p.m. Mayor Lomelí closed public comment.
Motion: Council Member Alcantar motioned to Adopt Resolution No. CDAB 23-02, recommending Projects/Programs to the City Council for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding for Fiscal Year 2023-2024, seconded by Council Member Fuentes. Motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alcantar, Fuentes, C. Gonzalez, J. Gonzalez and Lomelí NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
16. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Consideration to Adopt a Proposed Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cudahy Establishing an Interim Prohibition on Residential Rent Increases Presented by the City Attorney
Recommendation: It is staff’s recommendation that the City Council take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 731 extending the temporary prohibition on residential rent increases for a period of 90 additional days with the ability to extend further; or 2. Take no further action, thereby allowing the current rent increase moratorium to expire on January 18, 2023.
Motion: Council Member Alcantar motioned to Adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 731 extending the temporary prohibition on residential rent increases for a period of 90 additional days with the ability to extend further, seconded by Mayor Lomelí. Motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alcantar, Fuentes, C. Gonzalez, J. Gonzalez and Lomelí NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
B. Receive and File of the FY 2021-22 Audited Financial Statements and Related Reports
Presented by the Finance Director
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to receive and file the FY 2021-22 Audited Financial Statements and Related Reports
City Council/Successor Agency Minutes of 1/17/2022 Page 9 of 12 Motion: Vice Mayor Gonzalez motioned to receive and file the FY 2021-22 Audited Financial Statements and Related Reports, seconded by Council Member Fuentes.
Motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alcantar, Fuentes, C. Gonzalez, J. Gonzalez and Lomelí NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
C. Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Municipal Financial Advisory Services
Presented by the Finance Director
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to award a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to NHA Advisors, LLC to conduct as needed Municipal Financial Advisory Services not to exceed $85,000.
Motion: Council Member Alcantar motioned to award a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to NHA Advisors, LLC to conduct as needed Municipal Financial Advisory Services not to exceed $85,000, seconded by Vice Mayor Gonzalez. Motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alcantar, Fuentes, C. Gonzalez, J. Gonzalez and Lomelí NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
D. Approval of Professional Services Agreement and Proposed Resolution for City Council Chambers Procurement and Installation Services for Audio/Visual Systems Presented by the Finance Director
Recommendation: City Council is requested to: 1. Award a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to Sunset Audio Visual to conduct Procurement and Installation Services for City Council Chambers Audio/Visual Systems for $66,774.15; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 23-03, appropriating seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) to fund the City Council Chamber Audio Visual Upgrades Project.
Motion: Vice Mayor Gonzalez motioned to award a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to Sunset Audio Visual to conduct Procurement and Installation Services for City Council Chambers Audio/Visual Systems for $66,774.15; and adopt Resolution No. 23- 03, appropriating seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) to fund the City Council Chamber Audio Visual Upgrades Project, seconded by Council Member Gonzalez.
Motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alcantar, Fuentes, C. Gonzalez, J. Gonzalez and Lomelí NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Council/Successor Agency Minutes of 1/17/2022 Page 10 of 12 ABSTAIN: None
E. Annual Council Member Appointments to Serve on Various Committees Presented by the City Clerk
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to consider appointing a delegate and an alternate member to the various committees.
Motion: Vice Mayor Gonzalez motioned to appoint the following delegates and alternates to each respective committee:
Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee
Council Member Alcantar and Vice Mayor J. Gonzalez
Public Safety Committee
Council Member Alcantar and Council Member C. Gonzalez
Commissions Ad Hoc Committee
Council Member Fuentes and Mayor Lomelí
Education Ad Hoc Committee
Council Member C. Gonzalez and Mayor Lomelí
Public Utilities Ad Hoc Committee
Vice Mayor J. Gonzalez and Mayor Lomelí
Ad Hoc Rent Control Committee
Mayor Alcantar, Vice Mayor Gonzalez, Landlord, Susie De Santiago, Resident, Irma Lopez and Tevina Quintana
California Contract Cities Association (CCCA)
Delegate: Gonzalez, J. Alternate: Fuentes
Gateway Cities Council of Governments Board of Directors Delegate: Alcantar Alternate: Lomelí
Gateway Cities Council of Governments I-170 EIS/EIR Project Committee Delegate: Alcantar Alternate: Lomelí
Hub Cities Consortium
Delegate: Alcantar Alternate: Lomelí
League of California Cities
Delegate: Fuentes Alternate: Lomelí
League of California Cities Los Angeles Division (City Selection Committee) Delegate: Fuentes Alternate: Lomelí
City Council/Successor Agency Minutes of 1/17/2022 Page 11 of 12 Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 1
Delegate: Lomelí Alternate: Fuentes
Eco Rapid Transit Committee
Delegate: J. Gonzalez Alternate: Alcantar
Southern California Association of Governments
Delegate: Lomelí Alternate: Fuentes
Los Angeles County City Selection Committee
Delegate: Alcantar Alternate: C. Gonzalez Second Alternate: Fuentes California Cities For Self-Reliance Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Delegate: Fuentes Alternate: J. Gonzalez
seconded by Council Member Fuentes. Motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alcantar, Fuentes, C. Gonzalez, J. Gonzalez and Lomelí NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
F. Consideration to Appoint Board Members to the Planning Commission Presented by the City Clerk
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to review applications and appoint commission applicants to the Planning Commission
Motion: Vice Mayor Gonzalez motioned to approve Council Member Fuentes appointment, Jessica Alvarez, to serve in the Planning Commission and follow up on applications/appointments following two council meetings so that the various vacancies are further advertised and marketed to residents, seconded by Council Member Alcantar.
Motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alcantar, Fuentes, C. Gonzalez, J. Gonzalez and Lomelí NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
17. COUNCIL DISCUSSION – NONE
7. CLOSED SESSION
At 10:50 p.m., City Attorney, Stephanie Arechiga recessed to closed session.
A. Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 – Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Title of Employee: City Manager
City Council/Successor Agency Minutes of 1/17/2022 Page 12 of 12 Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 – Conference with Labor Negotiator
City’s Designated Representative: Stephanie Arechiga, City Attorney Unrepresented Employee: City Manager
8. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
At 11:33 p.m., City Attorney, Stephanie Arechiga reconvened to open session, announced that all members of the Council were present, direction was received on Item 7A, and no further action was taken.
18. ADJOURNMENT
Council Member C. Gonzalez motioned to adjourn the City Council / Agency meeting at 11:35 p.m., seconded by Council Member Alcantar. Motion passed 4-0-1 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alcantar, Fuentes, C. Gonzalez, and Lomelí
NOES: None
ABSENT: J. Gonzalez
ABSTAIN: None
Daisy Lomelí
Mayor
ATTEST:
Richard Iglesias
City Clerk
Attachment
C
“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
02/07/2023 Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
Date: February 7, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Agency Members From: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager/Executive Director
By: City Attorney’s Office
Subject: Adoption of Proposed Resolution No. 23-04 Proclaiming a Local Emergency, Ratifying the Proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and Re-Authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council, City Boards, and all Commissions of the City of Cudahy, for the Period from February 7, 2023, through February 28, 2023, Pursuant to Brown Act Provisions
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is requested to approve proposed Resolution No. 23-04 proclaiming a local emergency, ratifying the proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and re-authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the City Council, City Boards, and all Commissions of the City of Cudahy, for the period from February 7, 2023, through February 28, 2023, pursuant to Ralph M. Brown Act provisions.
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 (also known as the “Coronavirus Disease”) is a respiratory disease that was first reported in China in December 2019, has now spread throughout the state of California, including through the City of Cudahy (“City”). On March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency in response to the rising cases of COVID-19 throughout the state of California. On the same day as Governor Newsom’s declaration, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“LACDPH”) declared a local emergency and local public health emergency in response to the spread of COVID-19 throughout the County. On April 10, 2020, in response to the conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons within the City, the Cudahy City Council (“City Council”) declared a local emergency consistent with the declaration of local emergency by the LACDPH.
Item Number
14B
“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
02/07/2023 Page 2 of 3
On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill No. 361 (“AB 361”), which, until January 1, 2024, authorizes a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Brown Act when a legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared State of Emergency, as that term is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing or when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
Currently, the state-declared emergency remains in effect. LACDPH has issued a series of Health Officer Orders containing mandates and recommendations for keeping individuals safe, reducing risk, and preventing the spread of COVID-19. The most recent Health Order by the LACDPH, effective as of September 23, 2022, outlines the County’s current guidelines to continue to ensure the reduction in the transmission risk of COVID-19 and protect those persons at elevated risk for severe health outcomes due to COVID-19 infection.
On January 17, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-01, proclaiming a local emergency, ratifying the proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and re-authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the City Council, City Boards, and all Commissions of the City, for the period from January 17, 2023, through February 16, 2023.
ANALYSIS
AB 361 requires legislative bodies that hold teleconferenced meetings under its abbreviated teleconferencing procedures to give notice of the meeting and post agendas, as described, to allow members of the public to access the meeting and address the legislative body, to give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internetbased service option, and to conduct the meeting in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body. AB 361 also requires the legislative body take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored. AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and specifies that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comments in real time. AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from closing the public comment period and the opportunity to register to provide public comment, until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, as specified.
“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
02/07/2023 Page 3 of 3
All City Council, Board, and Commission meetings are open and public, as required by the Brown Act, so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City Council or City Commission conduct their business. Given the County of Los Angeles is currently experiencing an increase of COVID-19 cases throughout the County, the City continues to recommend measures to promote social distancing which include requiring staff and civilians wear masks in City buildings as well as posting COVID-19 safety measures throughout City buildings and on the City’s social media accounts.
Once the initial authorizing resolution is adopted, as it was on October 5, 2021, ongoing authorization every thirty (30) days is required by majority vote. If the legislative body desires to continue using the teleconference exception, it must confirm the circumstances of the State of Emergency thirty (30) days after the first teleconference meeting and every thirty (30) days thereafter. Resolution Number 23-01 expires on February 16, 2023, staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution before the existing resolution lapses.
CONCLUSION
In light of the continuing State declaration of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and the imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees at meetings conducted in person due to the spread of COVID-19, staff recommends the City Council approve proposed Resolution No. 23-01 proclaiming a local emergency, ratifying the proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and re-authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the City Council of the City of Cudahy, for the period from February 7, 2023, through February 28, 2023, pursuant to Ralph M. Brown Act provisions.
STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact on the City at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Resolution No. 23-04
1 RESOLUTION NO. 23-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUDAHY, CALIFORNIA PROCLAIMING A LOCAL
EMERGENCY, RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF A
STATE OF EMERGENCY BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM ON
MARCH 4, 2020, AND RE-AUTHORIZING REMOTE
TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
CITY BOARDS, AND ALL COMMISSIONS OF THE CITY OF
CUDAHY, FOR THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 7, 2023,
THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2023, PURSUANT TO BROWN
ACT PROVISIONS
WHEREAS, COVID-19 (also known as the “Coronavirus Disease”) is a respiratory disease that was first reported in China in December 2019, it has now spread throughout the state of California, including throughout the City of Cudahy (“City”); and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency in response to the rising cases of COVID-19 throughout the state of California; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“LACDPH”) declared a local emergency and local public health emergency in response to the spread of COVID-19 throughout the County; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29- 20, which allowed local governments meet remotely without adherence to the traditional teleconferencing rules set forth in the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”), this waiver was extended through September 30, 2021, by Executive Order N-08-21; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2020, in response to the conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons within the City, the Cudahy City Council (“City Council”) declared a local emergency consistent with the declaration of local emergency by the LACDPH; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill No. 361 (“AB 361”), which, until January 1, 2024, authorizes a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Brown Act, when a legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared State of Emergency, as that term is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing or when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; and
WHEREAS, the most recent Public Health Order (“Health Order”) by the LACDPH, effective as of September 23, 2022, outlines the County’s current guidelines to continue to ensure the reduction in the transmission risk of COVID-19 and protect those persons at elevated risk for severe health outcomes due to COVID-19 infection; and Attachment A Page 36 of 439
2 WHEREAS, the Health Order continues to strongly recommend masks for all persons, regardless of vaccine status, in indoor public settings and businesses; and WHEREAS, AB 361 requires legislative bodies that hold teleconferenced meetings under its abbreviated teleconferencing procedures to give notice of the meeting and post agendas, as described, to allow members of the public to access the meeting and address the legislative body, to give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option, and to conduct the meeting in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 requires the legislative body take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored; and WHEREAS, AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and specifies that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from closing the public comment period and the opportunity to register to provide public comment, until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, as specified; and WHEREAS, all City Council, Board, and Commission meetings are open and public, as required by the Brown Act, so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City Council or City Commission conduct their business; and WHEREAS, on October 5, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-35, proclaiming a local emergency, ratifying the proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the City Council, City Boards, and all Commissions of the City, for the period from October 5, 2021, through November 4, 2021, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and WHEREAS, on November 2, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21- 43, extending Resolution No. 21-35 an additional thirty (30) days through December 4, 2021, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21- 46, extending Resolution No. 21-43 through January 3, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21- 51, extending Resolution No. 21-46 through January 20, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
3 WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-02, extending Resolution No. 21-51 through February 17, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22- 07, extending Resolution No. 22-02 through March 17, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-11, extending Resolution No. 22-07 through April 14, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-13, extending Resolution No. 22-11 through May 5, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-19, extending Resolution No. 22-13 through June 2, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-21, extending Resolution No. 22-19 through June 16, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-25, extending Resolution No. 22-21 through July 7, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-36, extending Resolution No. 22-25 through July 21, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-41, extending Resolution No. 22-36 through August 18, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-48, extending Resolution No. 22-41 through September 15, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22- 52, extending Resolution No. 22-48 through October 6, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-56, extending Resolution No. 22-52 through November 3, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
4 WHEREAS, on November 1, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22- 59, extending Resolution No. 22-56 through December 1, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22- 62, extending Resolution No. 22-59 through December 15, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22- 68, extending Resolution No. 22-62 through January 5, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22- 75, extending Resolution No. 22-68 through January 19, 2023, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-01, extending Resolution No. 22-75 through February 16, 2023, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, the City continues to recommend measures to promote social distancing which include requiring staff and civilians wear masks in City buildings as well as posting COVID-19 safety measures throughout City buildings and on the City’s social media accounts; and
WHEREAS, in light of the continuing State declaration of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the continuing recommendation by Los Angeles County Public Health officials for masking at indoor events and social distancing, and the imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees at meetings conducted in person due to the spread of COVID-19, the City Council desires to make the findings required by AB 361 to allow the City Council and all City Boards and Commissions to continue to meet under AB 361’s abbreviated teleconferencing procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUDAHY, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the State and County declarations of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic remain in place.
SECTION 3. The City Council finds that local officials, specifically, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, continues to recommend social distancing and masks.
SECTION 4. The City of Cudahy staff along with the City Council are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution including, conducting open and public City Council and City Board and
5 Commission meetings in accordance with the newly revised provisions of the Ralph M.
Brown Act.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Resolution would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption and shall be effective until February 28, 2023.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cudahy at the regular meeting of this 7th day of February 2023. ______________________________
Daisy Lomelí
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Richard Iglesias
City Clerk
6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF CUDAHY )
I, Richard Iglesias, City Clerk of the City of Cudahy, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 23-04 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Cudahy, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of February 2023 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Richard Iglesias
City Clerk
Blank Page
“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
02/07/2023 Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
Date: February 7, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Agency Members From: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager/Executive Director
By: Richard Iglesias, City Clerk
Subject: Consideration to Amend the Scope of the Public Utilities Ad Hoc Committee
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is requested to amend the scope of the Public Utilities Ad Hoc Committee to the Water Ad Hoc Committee.
BACKGROUND
On March 1, 2022, City Council created the Public Utilities Ad Hoc Committee and appointed Vice Mayor Gonzalez and Council Member Lomelí to the committee.
On January 17, 2023, City Council approved keeping both Mayor Lomelí and Vice Mayor Gonzalez on the Public Utilities Ad Hoc Committee.
ANALYSIS
Ad Hoc Committees are formed to discuss specific topics, provide feedback to the City Manager, and provide policy recommendations to the City Council during its regularly scheduled meetings when needed. The original purpose of the Public Utilities Ad Hoc Committee was to discuss public utilities in general, at this time the City Council wishes to narrow the scope of the committee to specifically water. The Water Ad Hoc Committee will identify opportunities and issues raised by the community and recommend policies with regard to water specifically.
CONCLUSION
If the scope of the committee is amended, the Water Ad Hoc Committee will meet on an asItem Number 14C
“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
02/07/2023 Page 2 of 2
needed basis contingent on the goals and objectives established by the committee at its discretion. At this time, City staff recommends the City Council amend the scope of the Public Utilities Ad Hoc Committee to the Water Ad Hoc Committee.
STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
02/07/2023 Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
Date: February 7, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Agency Members From: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager/Executive Director
By: Richard Iglesias, City Clerk
Subject: Consideration to Dissolve Inactive Ad Hoc Committees
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is requested to consider dissolving inactive Ad Hoc Committees.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The Ad Hoc Committees were formed to discuss specific topics, provide feedback to the City Manager to formulate legislative policy, and report to City Council during its regularly scheduled meetings if needed.
While appointing Cudahy City Council Membersto fill open Ad Hoc Committee positions during the City Council Meeting on January 17, 2023, the City Council made the discovery that due to the hiring of new staff members in various departments who can now produce the work of specific inactive Ad Hoc Committees, there was no need to appoint City Council Members to the Waste Hauling Regulation Review Ad Hoc Committee, Delta Ad Hoc Committee, Finance Ad Hoc Committee, and Contracts Review Ad Hoc Committee. As such, these committees are currently empty, and City staff recommends they be dissolved.
CONCLUSION
If City Council approves the dissolving of inactive Ad Hoc committees, City staff will work on all issues or policies specific to the dissolved Ad Hoc Committees that may arise in the future.
STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
None.
Item Number
14D
“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
02/07/2023 Page 2 of 2
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
02/07/2023 Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
Date: February 7, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council
From: Juan Arauz, AICP, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Jessica Guillen, Assistant Planner
Subject: City of Cudahy 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that The City Council hear staff presentation on an update of the City’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element, open the floor for public comments and questions, and provide Council comments and questions to staff.
BACKGROUND
1. On October 2021, the City submitted its draft Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review. The document was returned to the City in December with comments.
2. On March 1, 2022, the City Council held a second reading, adopting Ordinance No. 718. The ordinance approved General Plan Amendment 21-01, adopting the 2021-2019 6th Cycle Housing Element, and approved the Addendum to Cudahy General Plan 2040 EIR (SCH#2017071071) for the draft Housing Element Update. Subsequently, City staff resubmitted its draft Housing Element to HCD for review.
3. On July 2022, HCD issued a second comment letter on the City’s draft Housing Element.
4. On November 23, 2022, the City received a proposal from The Arroyo Group (TAG) for the completion of its 6th Cycle Housing Element.
5. On December 6, 2022, the City contracted with TAG to complete Housing Element and 3rd submittal.
6. On January 27, 2023, City staff and TAG meet with HCD for a “technical assistance” review of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element revisions made to address HCD comments.
Item Number
15A
“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
02/07/2023 Page 2 of 3
ANALYSIS
The 6th Cycle Housing Element is a required element of the City’s General Plan and is, therefore, required to be consistent with the General Plan. The 6th Cycle Housing Element covers the time period from October 15, 202 through October 15, 2029, and includes extensive background information on community demographics, including population, employment and households, current housing, as well as updated policies, programs, and ‘quantified objectives’ to guide the City’s development through 2029. State Law requires that the Element include the following components:
• An analysis of the City’s population, household, and employment base, and the characteristics of the housing stock.
• A summary of the present and projected housing needs of the City’s households. • A review of potential constraints to meeting the City’s identified housing needs. • An evaluation of opportunities that will further the development of new housing. • A Community Outreach Plan.
• A Statement of the Housing Plan to address identified housing needs. • Implementation of Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) requirements aimed at Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
To address comments in HCD’s July 2022 letter (Attachment A), City staff and TAG have made revisions to the City’s draft 6th Cycle Housing Element (Attachment B). Comments from HCD require revisions generally covering the following topic areas:
Topic 1: “Demonstration to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).” Revisions to the City’s draft 6th Cycle Housing Element further describe the effort and progress the City has made to achieve its RHNA allocation – 393 for the 6th Cycle. This was achieved through data collection of approved permits and entitlements.
Topic 2: “Eliminating constraints to housing development.” Revisions to the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element include identification of onerous and outdated development standards that act as impediments to the construction of new housing stock.
These include code requirements for multi-family and mixed-use development pertaining to outdoor areas, parking locations, and floor area ration (FAR). Important to note that these
“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
02/07/2023 Page 3 of 3
standards are not being eliminated, but rather revised to address current trends in housing.
Topic 3: “Streamline permit processing to cut time between when a project is entitled and when it receives building permits.”
Revisions to the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element include municipal code modifications to reduce time and cost burdened by applicants for new housing development. Generally, this includes processing time and fees associated with public hearings for residential projects with five or less units. Examples of this include eliminating the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for new single- duplex and triplex units in the low density-residential zone that otherwise comply with code requirements, and allowing multi-family development with up to four units to be processed by City staff.
CONCLUSION
Attached to this report is the July 2022 HCD comment letter and the City’s 3rd draft 6th Cycle Housing Element. City staff recommends that The City Council, after hearing public comments and providing comments to staff, receive and file the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element.
STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
Goal C Housing Security and Affordability:
1. Implement the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element and utilize the newly adopted Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to provide affordable housing opportunities.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with resubmitting the revised draft 6th Cycle Housing Element for HCD review.
ATTACHMENTS
A. July 2022 HCD Comment Letter
B. City of Cudahy Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element – Redline Version
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
July 22, 2022
Salvador Lopez, Planning Manager
Department of Community Development and Planning
City of Cudahy
5220 Santa Ana Street
Cudahy, CA 90201
Dear Salvador Lopez:
RE: City of Cudahy’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Cudahy’s revised draft housing element received for review on May 23, 2022 along with revisions received on July 5, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on July 12, 2022 with you; Cindy Schaer, Principal Planner and Jennifer Maria, Grants Administration Manager.
The revised draft element addresses many statutory requirements described in HCD’s December 13, 2021 review; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The enclosed Appendix describes revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.
As a reminder, the City’s 6th cycle housing element was due October 15, 2021. As of today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The City’s 5th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD encourages the City to revise the element as described above, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (October 15, 2021), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).
Attachment A Page 50 of 439
Salvador Lopez, Planning Manager
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
HCD appreciates the dedication of the housing element team during the review. We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact me at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
City of Cudahy’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 1 July 22, 2022
APPENDIX
CITY OF CUDAHY
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.
Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.
A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).)
The element generally was not revised to address this requirement, as noted in the prior review, the element must provide an evaluation of the cumulative effectiveness of past goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed households, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness) and revise programs as appropriate.
B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Patterns and Trends: While the element includes some general demographics, this information is generally City-wide and the analysis should identify and evaluate patterns and trends within the City and compared to the region. HCD recommends the City utilize the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data Viewer available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing. HCD will send sample analyses under separate cover.
AFFH Outreach: The element was revised to include information on the City’s public outreach efforts including public workshops, public hearings, focused stakeholder meeting, dedicated website, article in the City’s monthly newsletter, and community survey (p. 74).
However, the element must describe the results of those outreach activities specific to AFFH, including a summary of comments and how comments were considered and
City of Cudahy’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 2 July 22, 2022
incorporated into the analysis, contributing factors to fair housing issues and goals and actions.
Enforcement and Outreach Capacity: While the element discusses how the City refers complaints, it should also quantify the number of complaints and evaluate the characteristics (e.g., disability, race, income source) to better inform policies and programs.
Integration and Segregation: While the element addresses integration and segregation at the local and regional level related to race and ethnicity and familial status, it must also analyze patterns and trends related to disability and income.
Disparities in Access to Opportunity: The element provides some general analysis of disparities in access to opportunity (pp. 77 to 78). However, this analysis must be conducted at a regional and local level and should address differences in access to education, economic, transportation, environment and other important opportunities based on socio-economic characteristics (e.g., race, income, familial status, disability, income, poverty).
Disproportionate Housing Needs including Displacement Risk: While the element provides some information on cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing at a local level (neighborhood to neighborhood), it must analyze these conditions at a regional level (city to region). Specifically, for cost burden, the element must cover cost burden and severe cost burden (renters and owners). In addition, the element must also provide an analysis of homelessness, and displacement (i.e., disinvestment-driven, investment-driven, and disaster-driven).
Sites Inventory and AFFH: While the element provides some information on TCAC Opportunity Areas (p. 79), it must include data on the location of regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) sites relative to all fair housing components. The analysis should address the number of units by income group and location, any isolation of the RHNA by income group, magnitude of the impact on existing concentrations of socio-economic characteristics and discuss how the sites improve fair housing conditions. The analysis should be supported by local data and knowledge and other relevant factors.
Local Data and Knowledge: The element should incorporate local data and knowledge of the jurisdiction into the AFFH section. To assist in meeting this requirement, the element should provide local data not captured in regional, state, or federal data analysis. For example, the element could utilize input from local service providers, neighborhood residents and advocates, local planning documents and City records.
Other Relevant Factors: The element must include other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. For instance, the element can analyze historical land use, zoning, governmental and nongovernmental spending including transportation investments, history of lending practices and demographic trends.
City of Cudahy’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 3 July 22, 2022
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Upon a full analysis of the AFFH section, the element should re-evaluate and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues. In addition, the element lists several contributing factors, but it should also prioritize those contributing factors. Contributing factors create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues and are fundamental to adequate goals and actions.
Examples include community opposition to affordable housing, housing discrimination, land use and zoning laws, lack of regional cooperation, location and type or lack of affordable housing and lack of public or private investment in areas of opportunity or affordable housing choices. The analysis shall result in strategic approaches to inform and connect goals and actions to mitigate contributing factors to affordable housing.
Goals and Actions: The element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions based on the outcomes of the analysis described above. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues. Actions must have metrics and milestones as appropriate and address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity areas, placebased strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.
2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Realistic Capacity: The element was not revised to address this requirement. Please see HCD’s prior review.
In addition, the element still appears to assume residential capacity on sites with zoning that allows 100 percent nonresidential uses. If so, the element must account for the likelihood of nonresidential uses. Please see HCD’s prior review.
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element was not revised to address this requirement.
Please see HCD’s prior review.
For your information, as noted in the prior review, if the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period (Gov.
Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2)). Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.
Small Sites: The element was not revised to address this requirement. Please see HCD’s prior review.
City of Cudahy’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 4 July 22, 2022
Sites Identified in Prior Planning Period: The element was not revised to address this requirement. Please see HCD’s prior review.
Infrastructure: While Program 14 (Infrastructure Availability) was revised to include timing of studies to determine capacity, as noted in the prior review, the element must clarify whether there is sufficient existing or planned water and sewer capacity to accommodate the City’s RHNA.
Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, as noted in the prior review, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions.
3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: The element added Program 28 (Zoning Code Review) which indicates the City will review and consider eliminating the garage parking requirements in the medium and high-density residential zone districts, while still maintaining the number of spaces required. However, the Program is limited to review and considering changes and should include specific commitment to remove the requirement by a specified date.
Further, the element still must evaluate the number of spaces and the impacts on smaller bedroom types (e.g., studio and one bedroom and add or modify programs as appropriate.
Processing and Permit Procedures: The element revised Section 5 Permitting Processing to include information on discretionary permits, conditional uses permits, tentative parcel maps. Additionally, the City added Program 28 (Zoning Code Review), which requires a review of the Zoning Code including such reviews of use categories, development standards (including parking), processing, and updates required due to statutory regulations. However, as noted in the prior review, the element must still describe the procedures for a typical single-family and multifamily development. Please see HCD’s prior review.
On/Off-Site Improvements: The element generally describes on and off-site improvements, but it should list the actual standards on a typical development and evaluate the impacts on the cost and supply of housing.
SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process: While the element now includes an explanation of SB 35, it should clearly explain whether the City has a written procedure to
City of Cudahy’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 5 July 22, 2022
implement SB 35 and if not, add or modify a program to establish a procedure by a specified date.
Local Ordinances: The element was revised to indicate that in 2022 the City adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and provides information on applicability, concessions, standards, and housing plan, housing agreement, and livability report (p. 141). However, as noted in the prior review, the element must still include an analysis of its impact on the cost and supply of residential development.
4. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-lowincome housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).).
The element was not revised to address this requirement. Please see HCD’s prior review.
C. Housing Programs
1. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding B2, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
• Program 4 (Promote Lot Consolidation): While the program was revised to include incentives, as noted in the prior review, it should also include a proactive and regular (e.g., annual) marketing component with the development community and property owners.
• Sites Identified in Prior Planning Periods: For your information, as noted in the prior review, if necessary, the element must include a program for vacant sites identified in two of more consecutive planning periods’ housing elements or nonvacant sites identified in a prior housing element, that are currently identified to accommodate housing for lower-income households. Please see HCD’s prior finding.
2. The Housing Element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)
Program 5 (Affordable Housing Incentives): The Program was revised to include commitment to providing developers with a list of updated incentives annually by 2024.
City of Cudahy’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 6 July 22, 2022
However, the program timing should be revised to include the annual and proactive outreach to the development community (i.e., each year 2024-2029).
3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.
The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
As noted in Finding B3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.
4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding B1, the element must include a complete assessment of fair housing.
Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs.
D. Public Participation
Local governments 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 element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) The element was revised to includes all dates the Draft and Revised Draft Housing Element documents were made available to the public (p. 18). However, as noted in the prior review, the element should also summarize the public comments received and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the element. For example, the element could include how the survey responses were consider and incorporated into the element (p. 20).
In addition, the City must continue to proactively make future revisions available to the public, including any commenters, prior to submitting any revisions to HCD and diligently consider and address comments, including making revisions to the document where appropriate.
HCD’s future review will consider the extent to which the revised element documents how the City solicited, considered, and addressed public comments in the element. The City’s consideration of public comments must not be limited by HCD’s findings in this review letter.
Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
1 CITYCITY OF CUDAHY
6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT
UPDATE
CITYCITY OF CUDAHY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
5220 SANTA ANA STREET
CUDAHY, CA 90201
323.773.5143
www.cityCityofcudahy.com
Attachment B Page 58 of 439
2 OCTOBER FEBRUARY JULYFEBRUARY 202321
HOUSING ELEMENT
Amended July 5, 2022
Amended March 20, 2018
6th Cycle Draft Amendment, October 2021
Amended February 1, 2023
Cudahy CityCity CouncilPlanning Commission Resolution No. 18-0722-01 Cudahy CityCity Council Resolution Ordinance No. 21-718 CITYCITY COUNCIL (20221)
Jose R. Gonzalez, Mayor
Elizabeth Alcantara, Vice Mayor
Daisy Lomeli, Councilmember
Jack M. Guerrero, Councilmember
Blanca Lazoya, Councilmember
PLANNING COMMISSION (20221)
Richard Corvera-Hernandez, Commissioner
Patricia Covarrubias, Commissioner
Gilbert Cuevas, Commissioner
Gustavo Mendez, Commissioner
CityCity of Cudahy
5220 Santa Ana Street
Cudahy, CA 90201
323.773.5143
www.cityCityofcudahy.com
3 Table of Contents
Executive Summary…………………………….……………………………………………………………………..Page
1. Introduction
1.1 What is a Housing Element?…………………………………………………………………..……...Page
1.2 Frequency of Review and Update…………………………………………………..……………...Page
1.3 Housing Element Contents………………………………………………..…………………………..Page
1.4 Relationship to General Plan Elements…………………………………………..…..………….Page
1.5 Information Sources…………………………………………………………….…………………………Page
1.6 Public Outreach…………………………………………………………………………..……….………..Page
1.7 Reviews by State HCD …………………………………………………………………………………...Page
2. Housing Needs Analysis
2.1 Population and Demographics.……………………………………………………………………...Page Population Trends.…………………………………………………..………………………………Page Race and EthnicityCity Characteristics ……………………………..……...……………………Page Age Characteristics.………………………………………………..…………….………………….Page Education Attainment.…………………………………………..…………………………………Page
2.2 Employment Characteristics……………………..………………………………………………….Page Employment and Unemployment…………………………………………………………….Page
2.3 Household Characteristics………………………………………………………..……………...……Page Household Sizes………………………………...…………………………………………………….Page
2.4 Housing Stock……………………………………………………….…………………………………….…Page Housing Types.…………………………………………………………………………………………Page
Housing Age, Condition & Overcrowding………………….…..………………………….Page Housing Tenure, Occupancy and Vacancy……………………………..……...…………Page
2.5 Housing Cost and Affordability…………………………………………………...…………………Page Housing Costs and Affordability……..………………………………………………………Page
2.6 Rent vs. Own……………………………………………………………………………….………………...Page
4 Renter…………………………………………….………………………………………………………..Page
Owner………………………………………………………………………………………………………Page
2.7 Housing Need Assessment…………………………………………………………………………..…Page Extremely Low-Income Households…………………………………………………………. Page Existing Needs……………………….…………………………………………………………………Page
Projected Needs……………………………………………………………………….………………Page
2.8 Overcrowding and Overpayment……………………………………………………………….…..Page
2.9 “At Risk” Housing…………………………………………………………………………………………..Page Conversion Risk…………………………………………..……………………………………………Page
Federally Assisted “At-Risk” Units…………………………….……………………………..Page Cost of Replacement vs. Preservation……………………………………...………………Page Qualified Entities…………………………………………………………..…………………………Page
2.10 Opportunities for Energy Conservation…………………………….………………………….Page Greenhouse Gas Emissions……………………………………………………….……………..Page Utility Costs……………………………………………….……………………………………………..Page Energy Conservation………………………………….……………………………...…………….Page CityCitywide Strategies……………………………..…………………………..……………………….Page
3. Regional Housing Needs Assessments and Special Needs
3.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2021-2029…………………………….…..…………..Page Methodology……………………………………………………………………….…...……………..Page
Cudahy’s ‘Fair Share’ of the Regional Housing Need…………………………..……Page What the Numbers Mean………………………………………………………….……………..Page
3.2 Special Housing Needs…………………………………………………………….....…………………Page Emergency Shelter & Transitional Housing…………………………………….…………Page Homelessness……………………………………………………..……………………………………Page
Persons with Disabilities……………………………………………..…………………..……….Page Households in Need of Reasonable Accommodation……………………..…………Page Developmental Disabilities…………………………………………………….………………..Page Strategies and Programmatic Responses to Meet Need……………………….…..Page
5 Female-Headed Households………………………………………..…………………………..Page Large Family Households………….………………………………………………………………Page Overcrowding…………………………………………………….….…………………..…………….Page
Elderly Households…………………………………………..……………...………………………Page Farmworkers…………………………………………………..……………….………………………Page
4. Land Inventory
4.1 Housing Inventory…………………………………………….………………………...…………………Page Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)…………………..…………………………Page Sites Inventory Assumptions………………………………………………….…………………Page Zoning Appropriate to Accommodate Housing for Lower-Income Households…………………………..Page Site Suitability …………………..………………………………………………….…………………Page Sites Inventory and Analysis…………………………………………………..…………………Page Unaccommodated RHNA (4th Cycle, 2008-2013)……………………………………………..Page RHNA (5th Cycle, 2014-2021)…………………………..………………………………………..Page Adequacy of Sites to Meet the RHNA………………………………………………..……..Page
4.2 Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints…………………..…………………………..Page Environmental Setting…………………………………….………………………..……………..Page Noise……………………………………………………………………….……….………………………Page
Geologic and Seismic Hazards………………………………………….……………………….Page Roads……………………………………………………………………………………………………….Page
Assessment of Sewer and Water………………………………………………………………Page
5. Resources and Constraints
5.1 Financing and Subsidy Sources…………………………………………….……………..…………Page Federal Resources…………………………………………………………………………………….Page
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)……………….………..………………Page
5.2 Government Constraints on Housing Production…………………………………...………Page Governmental Constraints……………………………………………….………………………Page Cudahy General Plan Land Use Policy………………………………………….……………Page
6 Development Code Requirements………………………………….…….………………….Page Processing and Permit Procedures………….………………………….………………..….Page Entitlement fees……………………………………………………………………………………….Page
On-/Off-Site Improvements………………………………………………………………………Page Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities…………………………...……Page Procedure for Ensuring Reasonable Accommodation……………………………….Page Development Review Process………………………………………….………...……………Page
5.3 Market Constraints on Housing Development………………………………………………Page Land Costs / Construction Costs……………………………………....………...……………Page Availability of Financing………………………………………………….………………………..Page Housing Crisis………………………………………………………………..………….……………..Page
6. Evaluation of the Prevention Housing Element
Assessment of Goals, Policies, Programs and Quantified Objectives.…….Page
7. Housing Goals, Policies, Programs and Quantified Objectives
7.1 Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs………………………………………………….…….Page Goal H-1: Housing Supply and Mix……………………………………………....………..Page Policies 1.1 - 1.8………………………………...…………….…………………………Page
Goal H-2: Meeting Special Needs………....………………...………………….....……….Page Policies 2.1 – 2.8……………………………………………………………..………….Page
Goal H-3: Maintenance and Rehabilitation……..…………...……………..………..Page Policies 3.1 – 3.10………………………………………………………….….………Page
Goal H-4: Quality Neighborhoods…….………………………………………….…………Page Policies 4.1 – 4.8……………………………………………………………..…….…..Page
Goal H-5: Equal Housing Opportunities………………………………………….……..Page Policies 5.1 – 5.8……………………………………………………………..…..…….Page
Goal H-6: Equal Housing Opportunities………………………………………….……..Page Policies 6.1 – 6.2 …………………………………………………………..…..…….Page
7 Housing Programs…………………………………………………………………………………Page
Summary of Housing Programs………………………………………………………………..Page Executive Summary ……………………………………….…………………………………… . Pages 3
1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………… Page 8
2. Housing Needs Assessment nalysis
……………………….………………………………………….… Page 30
3. Regional Housing Needs Assessments and Special Needs ……………….
4. Land Inventory ………………………………………………………………………………
5. Resources and Constraints …………………………………………………………….
6. Evaluation of the Previous Prevention Housing Element ………………………………
7. Housing Goals, Policies, Programs, and Quantified Objectives ………..
8. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) ……………………………….
Attachments
Attachment 1 Community Survey
8 List of Tables
Table 2-1 Population Trends 1970 - 2010…………………………………………..……………………………Page Table 2-2 Trends in Average Household Size………………………………….………………………………..Page Table 2-3 Race and EthnicityCity Characteristics………………………………………………………………...…Page Table 2-4 Age Characteristics of the Population…………………………………….…………………..……Page Table 2-5 Age Group Changes 1980-2010………………………………………………………………………..Page Table 2-6 Types of Housing 2010…………………………………………………………………….....…………..Page Table 2-7 Changes in Housing Types Between 1980-2010………………………………………..….…..Page Table 2-8 Housing Condition Survey 2013…………………………………………………….…………………Page Table 2-9 Age of Housing Stock 2010……………………..……………………………….………………………Page Table 2-10 Overcrowded Units 2011……………………………………………………………….………………Page Table 2-11 HUD Fair Market Rates Los Angeles-Long Beach SMSA……….................………….Page Table 2-12 Housing Need for Extremely Low-Income Households…………………………………..Page Table 2-13 Household Overcrowding………………………………………..………………..…………………..Page Table 2-14 Total Households Overpaying………………..……………………………………..……………….Page Table 2-15 Total Households Severely Overpaying…………………..………………………………………Page Table 2-16 Low-Income Households Overpaying……………………………………………………..………Page Table 2-17 Summary of At-Risk Units………………………………………………………………....…………..Page Table 2-18 Rehabilitation Costs…………………………………………………………………………….…………Page Table 2-19 New Construction/Replacement Costs………………………………………………..…………Page Table 2-20 Organizations………………………………………………………………………………………..……….Page Table 3-1 4th Cycle RHNA January 2006-June 2014…………..……………………………….…………….Page
9 Table 3-2 5th Cycle RHNA January 2014-October 2021……………………………….……………………Page Table 3-4 Estimates Residents with Disabilities 2011…………………..…………………….……………Page Table 3-5 Active Consumers by Age Group……………………………………………………………………...Page Table 3-6 Mental Disabilities by Gender…………………………………………………………………….……Page Table 3-7 Physical Disabilities by Gender…………………………………………………………………………Page Table 3-8 Tenure by Large Families………………………………………………………………………………….Page Table 3-9 Tenure by Elderly Households……………………………………………………………………….…Page Table 4-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation..……………………..………………………..……………….Page Table 4-2 Sites Inventory Table..………………………………………………………………………………...…..Page Table 4-3 2014-2021 RHNA Sites CapacityCity (Units)………………………………………….………………..Page Table 4-4 Comparison of Sites Inventory and RHNA .………………………………………….…………..Page Table 5-1 Development Standards…………………………………………………………………………..………Page Table 5-2 Housing Type Permitted by Zoning District……………………………………………………...Page Table 5-3 Timeliness for Permit Procedures………………………………………………………….…………Page Table 5-4 Processing Procedures by Project Type……………………………………………………….……Page Table 5-5 Planning and Development Fee Schedule as of December 14, 1987, Per CityCity Ordinance No. 376…………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………….Page Table 7-1 Summary of Programs…………………………………………………………….….………………….Page Table 7-2 Proposed Quantified Objectives for 2013-2021…………………….…….……….………..Page List of Charts
Population Growth 1970-2010…………………………………………………….………………………………….Page Trend of Average Household Size…………………………………………………….………………………………Page
10 Age Groups………………………………………………………………………………………..……...……………………Page Change in Age Groups 1980-2010………………………………...……………………………………..………….Page Educational Attainment………………………………………………….…………………………………………….…Page Homelessness…………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..Page List of Maps
Sites Inventory Map…………………………………………………………………..…………………………………...Page
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Cudahy is located in southeastern Los Angeles County and encompasses 1.2 square miles. The Los Angeles River and Interstate 710 (I-710) run in parallel along the eastern edge of the City. I-710 provides regional access to Cudahy, while locally, Atlantic Avenue serves as a popular access route. Cudahy consists predominantly of dense residential development, with retail, commercial, light industrial, and public uses found along the main streets.
Every California jurisdiction is required to include a Housing Element as part of the jurisdiction’s General Plan. Cudahy’s 6th Cycle Housing Element has a planning period of eight years from 2021 to 2029. This Housingg Element is organized into seven sections:
1. INTRODUCTION
This Housing Element is divided into eight (8) Sections:
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Housing Needs Assessment nalysis
• 3. Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Special Needs • 4. Land Inventory
• 5. Resources and Constraints
• 6. Evaluation of Previous Housing Element
• 7. Housing Goals, Policies, Programs, and Quantified Objectives Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Following is a summary of each of the seven sections.
1. INTRODUCTION
The 6th Cycle Housing Element
The 6th Cycle Housing Element for the CityCity of Cudahy is a required element of the CityCity’s General Plan and is, therefore, required to be consistent with the General Plan. The 6th Cycle Housing Element covers the time period from October 15, 2021, to October 15, 2029, and includes extensive background information on community demographics, including population, employment and households, current housing, as well as updated policies, programs, and ‘quantified objectives’ to guide the CityCity’s development through 2029. State Law requires that the Element include the following components:
• An analysis of the CityCity’s population, household, and employment base, and the characteristics of the housing stock.
2 • A summary of the present and projected housing needs of the CityCity’s households. • A review of potential constraints to meeting the CityCity’s identified housing needs. • An evaluation of opportunities that will further the development of new housing. • A Community Outreach Plan
• A Statement of the Housing Plan to address identified housing needs • An analysis on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Also, this is the first Housing Element Cycle to implement the requirements of Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686), Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). As of January 1, 2019, AB 686 extends the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing to all public agencies in the State of California. Affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions to combat discrimination that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.
This Housing Element Must Address must address:
(1) Significant discrepancies in housing needs and in access to opportunities., (2) Replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns., (3) Transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP) into areas of opportunity., (4) Fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair h housing laws.
Housing Element Review and Comment
The Housing Element was made available for review and comment at all City facilities, including City Hall, the Senior Center, Parks and Recreation Facilities, during workshops and public hearings, and on the City’s website.
August 1, 2021 Planning Commission Workshop
October 10, 2021 Draft Element was made available for review (no comments were received) Jannuary 14-February 15, 2022 Public Comment Review Period January 24, 2022 Planning Commission Public Hearing of the Draft Element February 15, 2022 City Council Public Hearing of the Draft Element May 23, 2022 Revised Draft submitted to HCD
2. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT NALYSIS
This chapter gives an overview of the CityCity’s population and employment growth, household characteristics, and housing characteristics. It also provides an analysis of the housing affordability and a discussion of housing receiving federal, State, or local aid ‘at-risk’ of conversion due to the impeding expiration of assistance. Key findings of this chapter include: This chapter also includes the Fair Housing Assessment.
3 3. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND SPECIAL NEEDS The first part of this chapter outlines the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process which is maintained by the State. Through this process, each jurisdiction is given a set of numbers presenting housing units for each income level that the jurisdiction must help construct, rehabilitate, or conserve during the housing period from 2021 to 2029. The chapter then describes Cudahy’s share of the regional housing needs, and what has already been achieved in meeting those needs.
4 4. LAND INVENTORY
This chapter assesses the housing development potential in Cudahy. The purpose is to determine the quantity of land available on suitable sites to accommodate the CityCity’s RHNA. The analysis indicates there are approximately 16.18 acres of vacant or underutilized land that can support 314 -housing units at various income levels.
5. RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS
This chapter identifies the resources that are available to the cityCity to meet its quantified objectives for housing, especially new construction for affordable housing; as well as government and market constraints that might hinder housing development and includes a detailed analysis of the current permitting and regulatory process. In those cases where potential governmental constraints are identified, the cityCity has identified programs to remove and/or mitigate those constraints. Also included is an analysis for low- and moderate-income housing assistance from State and federal sources.
6. EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT
This chapter reviews the CityCity’s accomplishments under the 2013 Housing Element. Comprehensive General Plan and Housing Element updates were adopted in 2018; therefore, this chapter also reviews accomplishments under the updated 2018 Housing Element. , particularly the city’s progress towards meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment goals, and the 2018 update. The analysis found that since 1992, 68 affordable units have been constructed. 142 are considered at-risk. A comprehensive General Plan update was adopted in 2018 as part of the comprehensive General Plan and housing element update.
7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AN QUANLTIFIED OBJECTIVES This chapter of the Housing Element lists updated housing goals, policies, and implementing programs, and quantified objectivesfor the CityCity of Cudahy, responding to the assessment and update of the 2013-2021 and updated 2018 Housing Elements, the 2018 update, as well as key issues, trends, opportunities, and constraints outlined in the Housing Needs Analysis and the assessment of Resources and Constraints.
The following ten nine goal areas have been defined in the Housing Element:
Goals
• Housing Element Goal 1: The CityCity of Cudahy will improve the housing supply and the choice of housing opportunities through private investment and, where necessary, through public action and financing.
• Housing Element Goal 2: The CityCity of Cudahy will promote affordable housing and shelter for all economic segments of the community.
5 • Housing Element Goal 3: The CityCity of Cudahy will support and provide incentives for the maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock. • Housing Element Goal 4: The CityCity of Cudahy will encourage development of a viable urban community consistent with orderly growth and environmental conservation to provide suitable living environments, with access to employment, community facilities, and services. • Housing Element Goal 5: The CityCity of Cudahy will promote equal access and opportunity to housing regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, or color. • Housing Element Goal 6: The CityCity of Cudahy will identify and address significant discrepancies in housing needs and in access to housing opportunities and will initiate anti-displacement. policies aimed at protecting existing residents of the CcityCity from potential gentrification when new developments are proposed in the CcityCity.
• Housing Element Goal 7: The CityCity of Cudahy will identify and replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns. • Housing Element Goal 8: The CityCity of Cudahy will identify and transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP) into areas of opportunity. • Housing Element Goal 69: The CityCity of Cudahy will foster and maintain compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.
• Housing Element Goal 10: The CityCity of Cudahy will advance housing goals designed to focus on address economic development initiatives aimed at addressing the intersection of housing goals and economic justice.
For each goal, a series of policies are defined, with implementing programs for each policy, as appropriate.
6 8. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
This section will address the following:
• Significant discrepancies in housing needs and in access to opportunities. • Replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns. • Transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP) into areas of opportunity.
• Fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. 1 Introduction
1.1 WHAT IS A HOUSING ELEMENT?
The Housing Element is one of the seven required elements of the General Plan. State Housing Element law, enacted in 1969, mandates that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all segments of the population. It requires that the Housing Element be consistent with all parts of the General Plan and be closely related to the Land Use Element, which specifies land within the jurisdiction that can be utilized for housing development. The law acknowledges that, for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demands, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems, which support housing developments. As a result, the successful growth of a community rests largely upon the implementation of local general plans, and in particular, the Housing Element.
The 6th Cycle Housing Element has a planning period of 8 years. It is programmatic in focus and is required to meet specific requirements set by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
The Housing Element of the Cudahy General Plan addresses the housing needs of the cityCity. The primary focus of the Housing Element is to encourage the provision of suitable housing for CityCity residents and to protect the vitality of existing residential neighborhoods. The goals and policies of the Cudahy Housing Element address the following issues:
(a) the promotion of new housing development,
(b) the maintenance and improvement of existing housing unit, (c) and identifying and addressing housing discrimination.
Through its housing program, the cityCity will improve the quality of existing housing and encourage the production of new housing types to meet residents' needs.
Cudahy is primarily a residential community, with most of the cityCity zoned residential with varying maximum densities. These designations are:
§ Low Density Residential Zone (LDR) - 15 du/acre
7 § Medium Density Residential (MDR) – 25 du/acre
§ High Density Residential (HDR) – 40 du/acre
There is also a large number of mobile home parks in the cityCity, which the cityCity is committed to improve and maintain with continued partnership with the State.
The cityCity spans just over 1 square mile and with a population density of 19,729 people per square mile, Cudahy is 10th in the Nation, and 2nd in California as the most densely populated cityCity. The Housing Element examines the housing problems of the CityCity and seeks to provide solutions to improve future housing conditions.
The average household income in Cudahy is $55,752 with a poverty rate 26.16%. The median rental cost is $1,306 per month, and median house value $420,700.
This Housing Element is designed to address key housing issues in the CityCity. These issues include:
(a) Tthe need to maintain and rehabilitate the existing housing stock., (b) Ddevelopment of new housing to relieve overcrowding and housing cost., and (c) Tthe maintenance of affordable housing for low-income households, special needs households and overpaying households.
The CcityCity is continuously seeking to meet the housing needs of its residents and to accommodate its share of regional housing. This will accomplish both state and local housing goals.
The Housing Element fulfills the requirements of the State Planning and Zoning Law and the regulations of Section 65580-65589.5 of the California Government Code. State law is very specific on the content of the Housing Element and makes it clear that the provision of affordable housing is the responsibility of all local governments. It expects the cityCity to have its fair share in the development of regional housing needs and to contribute to the attainment of State housing goals.
1.2 FREQUENCY OF REVIEW AND UPDATE
The process of updating Housing Elements is triggered by HCD through the “regional housing needs” process. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process is a State mandate on planning for housing, whereby each jurisdiction in the State is given “fair share” of local housing needs according to income distribution. Prior to the 2013 update, the last time the State initiated the regional housing needs process was in 1999.
The current Housing Element will serve the planning period beginning October 15, 2021, to October 15, 2029. This is an eight-year period to coincide with the RHNA process.
1.3 HOUSING ELEMENT CONTENTS
8 The Housing Element is required by State law to include:
• An assessment of existing housing needs-with an analysis of housing affordability, conditions, special needs, and affordable units at-risk of converting to market-rate—as well as projected needs as laid out in the RHNA.
• A detailed sites inventory and analysis that evaluates the jurisdiction’s ability to accommodate its RHNA.
• An analysis of constraints on housing in the jurisdiction. • Housing programs that identify adequate sites to accommodate the CityCity’s share of the regional housing need; assisting in the development of housing for very low- and low- income households; removing or mitigating governmental constraints to affordable housing; conserving and improving the existing affordable housing stock; promoting equal housing opportunity; and preserving the atrisk units identified.; and • Quantified objectives that estimate the maximum number of units, by income level, to be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the planning period of the element.
1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
The current Cudahy 2040 General Plan was adopted in March 2018 and established a long-range plan. The plan includes eight elements the elements required by State law: Land Use, Circulation, Safety, and Noise (the Cudahy General Plan combined Open Space and Conservation into one heading). The City’s General Plan incorporates the Housing Element as a separate document, included Economic Development and Air Quality Elements, and took a holistic approach to Environmental Justice. All of Cudahy is considered by the State of California to be a disadvantaged community. As a resultresult, environmental justice was considered at every level of the General Plan. Like Environmental Justice, Sustainability was also integrated into every , Element. including:
Land Use,
Transportation,
Open Space/Recreation,
Conservation,
Public Safety,
Noise,
Housing,
Air Quality, and
Economic Development Elements.
This Housing Element is an update to the Housing Element adopted by the City in 2018. intended to serve as the seventh required element of the General Plan. It takes into consideration new land use designations and other policies in the Plan to ensure consistency between the other Plan elements. The Housing Element
9 update will serve as the foundation for a comprehensive update of the goals/policies of the remaining 6 elements during the next General Plan update in the coming years.
Consistency with General Plan and Policies
2018 General Plan Amendment
Between 2016 - 2018, the CityCity of Cudahy undertook a comprehensive General Plan update. New General Plan Land Use designations were developed, allowing higher densities in residential areas, and identifying new areas for mixed-use development with higher residential densities. The cityCity completed a concurrent Development Code and Zoning Map update to provide zoning districts consistent with the new General Plan. This focused Housing Element amendment identifies sitesto meet the existing RHNA, with consistently higher densities allowed, and replaces sites identified in the original 2013 and the updated 2018 Housing Element that were no longer available due to rezoning.
The Housing Element of the General Plan is one component of the CityCity's overall long-range planning strategy. The California Government Code requires that the General Plan contain an integrated, consistent set of goals and policies. The Housing Element is, therefore, affected by policies contained in other elements of the General Plan.
As stated earlier, Cudahy is primarily a residential community where most of the zoning is higher density residential. Cudahy is one of the most densely populated cities in the region. The Housing Element examines the housing problems of the CityCity and seeks to provide solutions to improve future housing conditions.
This Element has been developed in accordance with the current Land Use Plan. All goals and policies in the General Plan were also reviewed concurrently to ensure consistency between the Elements.
10 1.5 INFORMATION SOURCES
The information presented in this Housing Element is gathered from a variety of sources. The primary source of information used in the compilation of demographic, housing, and socio-economic information for Cudahy includes data collected by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Several other sources were also consulted during the preparation of this analysis, with the key sources being the State Department Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the State Department of Finance (DOF), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the American Community Survey (ACS). SCAG is mandated under State law to prepare population, housing, and employment projections that are to be used in the development of the region’s Growth Management Plan. These projections were used in the determination of the cityCity’s regional housing needs assessment (RHNA).
Various other sources (both private and public) were also used. Wherever possible, data from the CityCity and County were used to facilitate an understanding of local needs and conditions.
1.6 PUBLIC OUTREACH
Covid-19
The 6th Cycle Housing Element is the first Housing Element to be prepared during the COVID-19COVID-19 pandemic. From the beginning of 2020 through 2021, most offices, schools, places of worship, places of social gathering, retail stores, restaurants, government offices and religious and educational institutions were either closed or operated remotely and/or with limited staff.
As a result of government and health regulations regarding social distancing and closures of government establishments and other facilities, gathering information from cityCity staff and members of the community as required by the California Housing Element Law has been a challenge. Interacting with cityCity staff to obtain information has also been restricted. However, through it all, the CityCity of Cudahy has been able to proceed with community outreach efforts through a series of community surveys in English and Spanish, Planning Commission Workshop, focused stakeholder interviews and other outreach efforts designed to measure the effectiveness of the existing 5th Cycle Housing Element while serving as potential foundation for the 6th Cycle policies, goals, and objectives.
Los Angeles County in general, and specifically cities within the gateway communities, experienced more disruption in services than any other county or counties in the State. For example, Los Angeles County reported 1.43 million cases of covid-19COVID-19 and 25,530 deaths. In comparison, San Diego County reported 3,942 deaths, Riverside County reported 4,826 deaths, San Bernardino County reported 5,439 deaths, and Orange County reported 5,312 deaths. The number of deaths in these counties did not equal the deaths in Los Angeles County alone. By contrast, Santa Barbara County reported only 494 deaths, and Sonoma County reported 368 deaths.
Community Outreach
11 The Housing Element was prepared with public outreach and participation to the extent permissible under the restrictions of covid 19. To ensure the broadest community involvement, particularly among low-income and special needs groups, the cityCity used several strategies, including:
• On August 1, 2021, the cityCity conducted a Planning Commission workshop via zoom to inform members of the Commission and the general public of the housing element process, receive input, and to inform of the AB 686 requirements. .
• An article was included in the August edition of the City’s monthly newsletter providing information on what is a Housing Element, how the community can participate in the preparation of the Element, and the process including public workshop and public hearings. • On August 26, 2021, a focused stakeholder interview consisting of 11 members of the Cudahy community who were either land developers, community activists, residents, and business owners, was conducted via zoom. The participants ranged from the owner of a bakery, a residential developer, a representative from the East Yard Communities for Economic Justice to a school principal and an executive from a utility company. The survey questions ranged from the functions of the Housing Element to whether the CityCity’s current land use policies adequately meet the CityCity’s housing goals.
•
• A Community Outreach survey prepared in English and Spanish, and made available over a period of 60 days, between July 14, 2021, and September 14, 2021, was distributed and broadcast over several social media outlets, including a dedicated website specifically for the Housing Element Update, was made available to everyone. There was a total of 52 respondents. • A Community Outreach survey prepared in English and Spanish, and made available over a period of two months, between June 15, 2021 and August 16, 2021. The survey questions were specifically related to the potential adoption of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. There were a total of 32 respondents.
•
• Information on the Housing Element update was made available at all CityCity facilities, including CityCity Hall, Senior Center, Parks and Recreation, as well as on the cityCity’s website. • Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 2022 – Minutes and zoom meeting recording of this meeting are available on the CcityCity’s website and from the cityCity Cclerk’s office upon request. • CityCity Council meeting of February 145, 2022 – Minutes of the meeting and zoom meeting recording of this meeting are available on the CcityCity’s website and from the City cityCity Cclerk’s office upon request.
• City Council meeting of March 1, 2022 – Minutes of the meeting and zoom meeting recording of this
12 meeting are available on the City’s website and from the City Clerk’s office upon request.
The cityCity distributed survey fliers to all CityCity facilities, including. • Senior Center
• CityCity Hall
• Parks & Recreation
• Nation Night Out
• Food Distribution
• Other cityCity events
The CityCity maintains a distribution list of stakeholder organizations, interested private citizens and public agencies, (see list above), posts public information on the CityCity’s website and at the physical location of the meetings, and issues press releases. The venues for the public meetings were ADA accessible and served by public transportation. The CcityCity also advertised meetings, public hearings, and availability of the Housing Element in the City’s monthly community newsletter.
13 Community Input
Community input was provided through a variety of means including public hearings and a community survey.
The comments received at the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, centered around the perceived inability of the City to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation of 393 housing units for the 6th Cycle. One City Council member opined that the Housing Element did not do a good enough job to push back on the City’s inability to comply with the RHNA numbers because of the City’s land size, the existing number of housing units, the City’s residential density, the City’s population, and the lack of adequate space to develop new housing units without displacing existing units.
The Housing Element Community Survey was conducted to engage the community at the beginning of the Housing Element update process, to provide input, and to be a part of the preparation of the update. The questions were formulated to get an understanding of who was participating in the survey, identification of the housing issues facing the City, and options to address the housing issues. Interested parties could complete the Survey online, at the City’s website. To further efforts to reach as many citizens as possible, survey fliers were provided at all City facilities including: the Senior Center, City Hall, Parks and Recreation facilities, National Night Out, and Food Distribution events. Following are many of the responses received from the Survey participants:
Through the published survey using SurveyPlanet, the cityCity was able to collect responses to the questions on the survey regarding the Draft Housing Element. Comments and suggestions included:
• Providing more affordable housing
• Address the homelessness issue
• Most respondents were favorable toward gentrification if the CityCity provides existing residents with first right of refusal for existing residents
• Utilizing existing properties in the CityCity that are currently under-utilized or vacant for more housing unit opportunities
• Concerns over the CityCity’s residential height restrictions which prevent the development of more high rises with higher densities
• Concern with parking in the CcityCity
• A reduction in the size of units required by the CcityCity would allow developers to build more affordable units.
• The use of density bonus to encourage development of more affordable housing • Provision of permanent shelters for the homeless
• The CcityCity should investigate making more of its resident homeowners rather than renters • The CityCity’s current rents are too high
• Residential properties are not being kept up
• Provide diverse housing opportunities
From the Planning Commission and CityCity Council meetings, the overwhelming comments centered around the perceived inability of the cityCity to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation
14 of 393 housing units for the 6th Cycle. One cityCity council member opined that the Housing Element did not do enough job to push back on the cityCity’s inability to comply with the RHNA numbers because of the cityCity’s land size, the existing number of housing units, the cityCity’s residential density, the cityCity’s population, and the lack of adequate space to develop new housing units without displacing existing units.
See Attachment 1 Community Survey for the complete survey including questions and responses.
15 Integration of Community Input Receieved during Housing Element Outreach Survey Results
The following are the results of the multi-language survey sent to the residents of the cityCity regarding the Housing Element update:
1. Do you live and/or work in the CityCity of Cudahy?
The City understands the concerns residents have regarding housing in Cudahy. The City has been able to address these concerns within this Housing Element, through several programs the City is continuing and adding.
Generally, residents expressed a great need for affordable housing in Cudahy as well as a concern regarding high rental prices being charged by landlods. This Element includes several programs addressing the production of affordable housing in the City. Through Program 29 (Implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Program), the City shall begin implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Program to include a requirement that all residential and mixed-use projects throughout the City with a residential component include affordable housing units. With Program 5 (Affordable Housing Incentives), the City commits to encouraging the development of affordable housing units in Cudahy. The City will accomplish this by conducting outreach to developers (both market rate and affordable), streamlining the permit process to low-income and senior housing projects, streamlining environmental review for eligible Inclusionary Housing projects, providing technical assistance to affordable housing developers, and providing developers with a list of affordable housing financing sources. In Program 31 (Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee), a Committee of the City Council will study adoption of rent stabilization and tenant protection ordinances for the City of Cudahy. The City has currently enacted a rent increase moratorium on multifamily housing, through April 2023 to give the Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee time to complete its study and for the City Council to take appropriate action.
A series of programs in this Housing Element address the need to rehabilitate housing. Through Program 8 (Housing Maintenance and Conservation) of the City will continue the program for the maintenance and conservation of the existing housing stock through the sixth cycle. Program 8 specifically targets the conservation of older housing units which are in good condition to maintain the units as affordable housing options. Through Program 13 (Code Enforcement) the City shall continue code enforcement each year of the sixth cycle, focusing on property maintenance, substandard units, and illegal garage conversions.
Program 23 (Housing Conditions Survey) of this Element shall conduct a survey in 2023 to identify the number of units in need to rehabilitation and replacement. Lastly, the Element’s Program 32 (First Time Homebuyers) will promote homeownership in the City, which should improve conditions of housing in Cudahy as owner occupied units are more likely to well-maintained as owners wish to maintain the value of their investment. The lack of homeownership opportunities in the City was cited as another concern of residents.
Residents also identified homelessness in the City as a key concern. This Element includes several programs addressing homelessness. Through Program 9 (Hotel and Motel Resources) the City shall preserve 160 hotel and motel rooms as an emergency housing resource for homeless residents. To encourage the use of hotels by "homeless" individuals, the City continuously works with hotel managers on making rooms available for
16 emergency/transitional housing and makes community service agencies in the area aware of the facilities.
With Program 11 (Emergency, Transitional, and Supportive Housing) the City is committed to prioritizing funding and other available incentives for projects that provide housing for homeless and extremely lowincome residents whenever possible. Through Program 24 (Low Barrier Navigation Centers) the City shall review the City’s mixed use and non-residential zones that permit multifamily residential uses and amend the permitted uses sections of the appropriate zone districts to include low barrier navigation centers, in compliance with statutory requirements. Lastly, Program 17 (Food Distribution) and Program 18 (Homeless Assistance) both provide City assistance to homeless residents in the form of free meals and referrals to service providers. Additionally, through Program 28, the City commits to permitting transitional and supportive housing by right in all residential zones.
Residents also cited the need to utilizing existing properties in the City that are currently under-utilized or vacant for more housing unit opportunities. A review of this element’s land inventory (Section 4) reveals that this element’s site inventory claims many underutilized and vacant sites as sites for future housing development. In some cases, these underutilized sites are identified as sites for incremental development, or development of a few more housing units on a site. In other cases, these underutilized sites have been identified as sites to be completely demolished and rebuilt at a higher residential density.
During outreach residents cited residential parking requirements in the City. Throughs site planning studies and studies of development standards, the City found it necessary to commit to reducing the residential guest parking requirement down to 0.25 space per unit in Program 28. The rest of the residential parking requirements are being left as they are stated in the current code.
As for raising the height limit, through site planning studies and studies of development standards the City did not find the current code’s height limits to be a limitation for residential development. The City did not find the size of unit to be an issue during the several studies conducted during this Housing Element process. 69% of the participants in this survey live in Cudahy but their job is located somewhere else where only 20 percent live and work in in the cityCity of Cudahy.
2. Do you own a business in the CityCity of Cudahy?
92% for both English and Spanish Survey) of participants do not own a business in the cityCity of Cudahy.
3. Are you a member of a community civic organization?
Most participants are members of a community civic organization (at 87%) but in the Spanish survey more participants are involved in the community at 41%.
4. Do you currently own or rent your residence?
17 In the English survey that most of the participants (62%) rent their residence where in the Spanish survey about 50% of the participants who own their own residence and about 50% rent their residence within the cityCity of Cudahy.
5. Do you think that the range of housing options currently available in Cudahy meets the needs of the community?
Most of the participants believe that the range of housing options available in Cudahy do not meet the needs of the community.
6. In your opinion, what type(s) of additional housing are most needed in the CityCity of Cudahy? (Select all that apply
Participants are equally split between the different types of housing with the most focusing on Single family housing, Condominiums and Duplex/attached housing.
7. Describe the housing stock in the CityCity of Cudahy (Select all that apply):
28% of the English survey participants picked other and wrote their own word to describe the cityCity’s housing stock (for example: limited, expensive, overpopulated, low income, lack of stock, crowded, unsafe, etc.) with Diverse coming in second at 25% where the Spanish survey is the reverse. For the Spanish survey the word Diverse is selected by 27% of the participants where in second they selected other at 18% of the time.
18 8. How important are the following housing priorities to you and your household? Provide more housing for all income levels.
19 9. How important are the following housing priorities to you and your household? Promote housing affordable to working families.
20 10. How important are the following housing priorities to you and your household? Build more Single-Family Housing.
21 11. How important are the following housing priorities to you and your household? Build more Multi-family housing (apartments, condos, etc.)
22 12. How important are the following housing priorities to you and your household? Rehabilitate existing housing.
13. How important are the following housing priorities to you and your household? Create mixed-use (commercial/retail/office and residential projects to bring different land uses closer together).
23 14. How important are the following housing priorities to you and your household? Provide more housing for the disabled.
24 15. How important are the following housing priorities to you and your household? How do you feel about Fair Housing?
25 16. In a built-out community like Cudahy, what strategies should the cityCity apply or pursue to ensure affordable fair housing for its residents?
In both the English and Spanish surveys, the most frequent answer given was rent control regarding the number one strategy the cityCity should apply or pursue to ensure affordable fair housing for its residents.
17. In your opinion, what is the most pressing housing need(s) for the CityCity of Cudahy right now? The most frequently suggested responses are affordable housing, parking, and overall availability of housing to the community.
In conclusion, the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Survey completed for the cityCity of Cudahy allowed us to infer from this sample size of participants that of most of the residents rent their residence and do not own their own business. Even though most respondents in English are not involved in a community civic organization, about 50% of the respondents in Spanish are involved in a community organization. But the majority of both survey’s participants agreed that the current range of housing options in the cityCity of Cudahy do not meet the needs of the community and all types of housing are needed to provide even more diverse, affordable, and safer options for all residents. As seen in the graphs above for questions 10 - 17 most of the participants for both surveys thought the housing priorities mentioned were very important to their households but the strategies to pursue fair housing or even deciding on the most pressing needs for the cityCity were mainly focused on rent control, affordable housing, housing availability, and parking. Overall, in total there were 52 participants who took part in both surveys over a two-month period.
1.7 REVIEWS BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT HCD
State law requires every updated Housing Element be submitted to the State of California Department of California’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) to ensure compliance with the State’s minimum requirements. This ‘certification’ process is unique among the General Plan elements.
Housing Elements are submitted twice to HCD for review and comment: once during development of the Housing Element (in draft form), and again after adoption of the Housing Element by the local jurisdiction.
The first period requires 60 days and must take place prior to adoption deadline. The second review requires 90 days and takes place after the adoption deadline. It is after the second review that written findings regarding compliance are submitted to the local government.
26
27 2 Housing Needs Assessment nalysis
List of Charts, Tables, and Maps
Chart 2.1 – ……………………………….Population, Employment and Households - Page 31 Chart 2.2 - ………………………………………...Households by Household size - Page 32 Chart 2.3 – …………………………………Female Headed Households - Page 33 Chart 2.4 – ………………………………….People Experiencing Homelessness – Page 34 Chart 2.5 – …………………………………..Educational Attainment- Page 35 Chart 2.6 - …………………………………..Employment by Industry - Page 36 Chart 2.7 – ……………………………………Employment by Occupation - Page 36 Chart 2.8 - ……………………………………Households by Household Size - Page 38 Chart 2.9 – …………………………………….Housing Types - Page 38
Chart 2.10 – ……………………………………Housing Trend - Page 39
Chart 2.11 – …………………………………….Vacant Units by Type - Page 39 Chart 2.12 –……………………. ……………..Housing Units by year Structure Built - Page 40 Chart 2.13 - ………………………………………………….. Substandard Housing - Page 43 Chart 2.14 ………………………………Overcrowding by Extent and Tenure - Page 44 Chart 2.15 ………………………………………………………….…..Housing Tenure - Page 44 Chart 2.16 ……………………………………………………...…..Median Home Price - Page 45 Chart 2.17 ………………………………………….………...Housing Cost by Income – Page 45 Chart 2.18 …………………………….....Monthly Owner Cost for Mortgage Holders Page 46 Chart 2.19 ……………………………..Percent of Income Spent on Mortgage Costs - Page 46 Chart 2.20 ………………………………………….…….Spending on Rent by Renter – Page 47 Chart 2.21 …………………………………………..…...Spending on Rent by Income - Page 47 Chart 2.22 …………………………………………..Household Income by Cash Rent - Page 48 Chart 2.23 …………………………... .Monthly Owner Costs for Mortgage Holders - Page 48 Chart 2.24 ……………………………... ……..Cost for Mortgage Holders by Income -Page 49 Chart 2.25 …………………………………….....Household Income by Home Value – Page 49 Chart 2.26 ……………………………… . Housing Units Permitted SCAG and CityCity - Page 54 Chart 2.27 ……………………………… Housing Units Permitted – Owner/Renter - Page -55 Chart 2.28 ………………………………………… Crowding by Extent and Tenure - Page 55 Chart 2.29 ………………………………………………………….. .Spending on Rent – Page 57 Chart 2.30 …………………………………………….. Spending on Rent by Income - Page 57 Chart 2.31 ………………………………………….Household Income by Cash Rent – Page 58 Table 2.1 ………………………………..Elderly Households by Income and Tenure - Page 33 Table 2.2 …………………………………………..Age Characteristics by Population – Page 34 Table 2.3 ………………………………………………….Farmworkers by Occupation -Page 37 Table 2.4 ………………………………......Housing Units Built between 2015 – 2021 - Page 41 Table 2.5 ……………………….Final 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation - Page 50 Table 2.6 ………………………………... Extremely Low-Income Household Needs – Page 52
28 Table 2.7 ………………………………………… ………….. Cost Burden by Income – Page 55 Table 2.8 …………………………………………… ………..Cost Burden by Income - Page 56 Table 2.9 …………………………………… …. Assisted Units at risk of Conversion – Page 59
29 2. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2.1 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS AND
DEMOGRAPHICS
The type and amount of housing needed in a community is largely determined by population growth and various demographic variables. Factors such as population and population trends, ethnicity, education, household size and housing stock, population, specialized housing needs, size, age, race, and occupation can be used to analyze the effectiveness of existing housing policies and provide a general direction and focus for future housing initiatives. Population characteristics include population growth trends in the cityCity, age characteristics, and ethnicityCity.
POPULATION TRENDS
Cudahy is in Los Angeles County and is one the Gateway Communities of the county. According to the 2020 United States Census, Cudahy has a 2020 total population of 22,811 persons, which is a decrease from the 2010 census figure of 23,805 persons. The population growth estimate for the cityCity by the State Department of Finance was 24,172. As stated earlier, the CityCity of Cudahy spans over 1 mile and with a population density of 19,729 people per square mile, is 10th in the Nation, and 2nd in California as the most densely populated cityCity. The average household income in Cudahy is $55,752 with a poverty rate 26.16%.
The median rental cost is $1,306 per month, and median house value $420,700.
Chart 2.1 (Population, Housing, and Households) describes the population trend in Cudahy from 2000 to 2020. Over this period Cudahy had an annual population growth rate of 0% compared to 0.7% for the region.
Cudahy experienced its greatest population growth in the 1990s; however, from 2007 through 2010 there was a slight reduction in population that may be attributed to out-migration, cost of living, and the declining economy from 2000 to 2010. By contrast, in 1970, the cityCity had a population of 16,998 persons. In 1980, the census estimated the CityCity’s population at 17,984 persons; the 1990 census estimated the population at 22,817 persons and 24,208 persons in 2000.
Chart 2.1 – Population, Employment, and Households
30 Population
Population and Population Trends
The CityCity experienced a slight increase in population from 1990 to 2000. However, from 2000 to 2010 the CityCity experienced a decrease in population and experienced another decrease between 2010 and 2020. The population trend between 2000 and 2010 and again between 2010 and 2020 raises some concern for the CityCity if the trend continues. The 1992 Housing Element assumed that growth in the coming decade would be similar to the increase experienced from 1970 to 1980 (5.8%) and the resulting population projection included in the earlier housing element projected a population of 24,140 in the year 2000, which was quite close to the actual 2000 population of 24,208 identified in the US Census for that year. A slight reduction in population in recent years may be due to the growing cost of housing in the CityCity, the lack of “affordable” housing based on the CityCity’s socioeconomic data, new migration trends, and the inability to balance housing cost with lifestyle in the CityCity. Table 2.1 identifies these population trends from 1990 to 2020.
Table 2.1
CityCity of Cudahy Population Growth Trends 1990-2020
Year Population Numerical
Change
Percent Change Average Annual
Growth Rate
1990 22,817
2000 24,208 1,391
2010 23,895 -313
2020 22,811 -1,084
Source: US Census
Comparing the City’s population over time to neighboring cities shows not only the growth patterns of each City but also allows for a regional analysis of population growth and trends. Table 2.2 compares population growth in the City of Cudahy with the surrounding cities of South Gate, Huntington Park, Bell Gardens, and
31 Bell. Between 2000 and 2010, Cudahy and the surrounding four cities all experienced decreases in population. However, between 2010 and 2020 only Cudahy had a decrease in population while the surrounding four cities saw small increases.
Table 2.2
Neighboring Cities Population Trends
City 2000 2010 2020 Change
2000-2010
Change
2010-2020
Cudahy 24,208 23,805 22,811 -8.0% -6.4%
South Gate 96,375 94,396 97,003 -2.1% 2.8%
Huntington Park 61,348 58,411 59,515 -5.3% 2.4%
Bell Gardens 44,054 42,072 42,449 -4.5% 0.9%
Bell 36,664 35,477 36,531 -3.2% 2.3%
Source: US Census, CA Department of Finance
According to US Census, American Community Survey data the 2020 Census, the median age of CityCity residents was 26.0was 26.0 in 2010 and 29.1 in 2020. Table 2.3 provides a comparison of Cudahy’s population by age for 2010 and 2020. 23.8 years of age compared to 33.7 years of age for the County.
Currently the median age is 27, showing a shifting trend from a predominantly younger age group of 23.8 in 2000 to the current 2020 age group of 27.
The elderly population (persons 65 years of age or older) consisted of 7.6% of the total population in 1970.
In 1980, the proportion of persons aged 65 and over declined to 4.8% of the total population. In 1990, the proportion of the same elderly group declined even further to 4.0% of the total population. The 2000 Census indicated that elderly residents accounted for 3.7% of the CityCity's total population, and more recently at 5.1% in the 2010 Census. After many declining years, the population of those over 65 years old has begun to rise, likely due to longer expected life spans, improved health care and services, and current residents staying in the community. In 2020, persons 65 years or older make up 6.9% of the population.
According to the 2020 Census, 7.9% of the CityCity’s population were under 5 years of age. A total of
30.7% were between 5 years and 19 years of age. Working aged adults between the ages of 20 and 64 totaled 12,779 persons which represented 52.8%. Households with children, especially those with working parents or single heads of households, create a need for quality, affordable early care, and education services. The age grouping of the cityCity’s population according to the 2020 Census are indicated below in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3
City of Cudahy Population by Age
Age 2010 2020
32 Group (years) Number Percent Number Percent
Under 5 2,182 9.2 1,868 7.9
5-9 2,241 9.4 1,768 7.5
10-14 2,408 10.1 2,398 10.2
15-19 2,399 10.1 2,137 9.1
20-24 1,953 8.2 1,944 8.2
25-29 1,886 7.9 2,005 8.5
30-34 1,832 7.7 1,736 7.4
35-39 1,791 7.5 1,526 6.5
40-44 1,770 7.4 1,580 6.7
45-49 1,414 5.9 1,646 7.0
50-54 1,178 4.9 1,293 5.5
55-59 841 3.5 1,321 5.6
60-64 688 2.9 633 2.7
65-69 465 2.0 694 2.9
70-74 296 1.2 426 1.8
75-79 206 .9 316 1.3
80-84 155 .7 86 .4
85+ 100 .4 229 1.0
Median Age 26.0 29.1
Source: US Census, American Community Survey
As identified in Table 2.4 Cudahy and the neighboring four cities have very similar age profiles. In 2018 the Cudahy had the highest percentage of residents under 18 years of age and the lowest percentage of residents over 65 years of age than its neighboring cities.
Table 2.4
Neighboring Cities Age Distribution (2018)
City Median
Age
Under 18
Years
% of Total 18-64
Years
% of Total 65+
Years
% of Total
Cudahy 29.1 7,571 31.5 16,455 68.5 1,658 6.9
South Gate 31.6 23,376 27.7 59,957 63.0 8,770 9.2
Huntington
Park
30.7 16,619 28.3 37,230 63.4 4,845 8.3
Bell
Gardens
29.1 13,153 30.8 26,329 61.7 3,159 7.4
Bell 30.5 10,232 28.6 25,577 71.4 2,979 8.3
Source: US Census, American Community Survey
33 CityCity Median
Age
Under 18
Years
% of Total 18-64
Years
% of Total 65+
Years
% of Total
Cudahy
South Gate 31.6 23,376 27.7 59,957 63.0 8,770 9.2
Huntington
Park
30.7 16,619 28.3 37,230 63.4 4,845 8.3
Bell
Gardens
29.1 13,153 30.8 26,329 61.7 3,159 7.4
Source: US Census, American Community Survey (ACS)
EthnicityEthnicity
The United States 2020 Census summarizes the race and ethnicity for the City's population. Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin make up 95.2% of the community, with 3.1% White (non-Hispanic), 0.7% Black, and less than 1% Asian or Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Of the City’s 22,811 residents, 42.9% are foreign born, and 91.7% speak a language other than English at home.Cudahy is a predominately Hispanic/Latino community with Hispanic/Latinos comprising 95.2% of the city’s residents. The City’s White population is 3.1% and the Black/African American population is 0.7%. Cudahy also has a large immigrant population, and according to local sources, a large undocumented immigrant population. The number of undocumented immigrants residing in the city may sometimes skew socio-demographic information as most undocumented immigrants may be able to work and contribute to the economy of the area but may not be able to utilize Federal or State programs that require valid social security numbers or other means of identification.
Education
The City of Cudahy is served by the Los Angeles Unified School District. According to the 2020 Census, 54.3% of Cudahy’s residents aged 25 years and older are a high school graduate or higher. Table 2.5 provides educational attainment by age category.
Table 2.5
Age by Educational Attainment 2020
Age
Group
(years)
Less than a
high school
graduate*
High School
Graduate
Bachelor’s
Degree or
Higher
18-24 355 1,108 83
25-34 3,021 348
35-44 1,783 143
45-64 2,180 368
65+ 344 96
*Data unavailable for other age groups.
Source: US Census, American Community Survey
34 Compared with the Los Angeles County and surrounding four cities’ populations, Cudahy’s residents are younger, and many do not seek further education after high school. Generally, this means that residents may not have the same opportunity to obtain higher-paying jobs and invest in their community through either business or property ownership. In 2022 the City adopted the Inclusionary Housing Program which requires affordable housing with each residential and mixed-use with residential component project. The Program includes both rental and homeownership housing. Also, in 2022 the City initiated preparation of the Economic Development Strategic Plan to identify opportunities for business development and employment in the City. Program 29 Implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Program and Economic Development Strategic Plan further the City’s commitment to the provision of affordable housing and housing opportunities.
According to US Census numbers, the percentage of high school graduates or higher of persons residing in Cudahy age 25 years or older is 50.7%. The percentage of bachelor’s degree holder or higher is 6.6%. 42.7 percent of Cudahy’s residents have less than a high school education.
Household Size and Housing Stock
The average household size in the cityCity has increased over the years largely due to several trends including increasing family size, shared living space to reduce cost, increasing cost of living, and overcrowding due to lack of available, affordable housing. In fact, the lack of affordable housing for the residents of Cudahy is cited at the top of their housing challenges.
According to data from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Cudahy’s current household size of 5 persons per household, is 32% higher than the State average persons per household.
In addition, the CityCity’s housing stock is getting older; well over half (57.4%) of the CityCity’s housing stock was built prior to 1960, therefore, housing supply, in conjunction with affordability, may contribute to the growing household size.
According to the latest California Department of Finance the housing makeup in Cudahy is as follows; 37 percent single detached units, 22.8 percent single attached units, 5.6 percent 2-4 units, 27.3 percent 5 or more units, and 7.3% mobile home units.
Population and Population TrendAlthough population increased from 1990 to 2007, the percentage of increase was smaller than the 26.9% growth from 1980 to 1990. 2020 saw a slight decrease in population but the 2015 population showed a slight rebound. The 2020 population, which was smaller than the projected population for same period, is 6.4% lower than the 2015 population. The population trend between 2015 and 2020 raises some concern for the cityCity if the trend continues. The previous Housing Element adopted in 1992 assumed that growth in the coming decade would be like that observed from 1970 to 1980 (5.8%) and the resulting population projection included in the earlier housing element projected a population of 24,140 in the year-2000, which was quite close to the actual 2000 population figure of 24,208 persons identified in the U.S. Census for that year. A slight reduction in population in recent years may be due to the growing cost of housing in the cityCity, the lack of “affordable” housing based on the CityCity’s socio-economic data, new migration trends, and the inability to balance housing cost with lifestyle in the cityCity.
35 Table 2.1
Population Trends 1970-2021
Year Population Change (#) Change (%)
1970 16,998 n/a n/a
1980 17,984 986 5.8%
1990 22,817 4,833 26.9%
2000 24,208 1,391 6.1%
2007 25,870 1,662 6.9%
2010 23,805 -2,065 -8%
2015 24,383 +578 +2.37%
2020 22,811 - -1,572 -6.4
Sources: U.S. Census
From the table above, it is apparent that population growth in Cudahy was the greatest in the 1990's compared to the 1980 number. Although population increased from 1990 to 2007, the percentage of increase was smaller than the 26.9% growth from 1980 to 1990. 2020 saw a slight decrease in population but the 2015 population showed a slight rebound. The 2020 population, which was smaller than the projected population for same period, is 6.4% lower than the 2015 population. The population trend between 2015 and 2020 raises some concern for the cityCity if the trend continues. The previous Housing Element adopted in 1992 assumed that growth in the coming decade would be like that observed from 1970 to 1980 (5.8%) and the resulting population projection included in the earlier housing element projected a population of 24,140 in the year-2000, which was quite close to the actual 2000 population figure of 24,208 persons identified in the U.S. Census for that year. A slight reduction in population in recent years may be due to the growing cost of housing in the cityCity, the lack of “affordable” housing based on the CityCity’s socio-economic data, new migration trends, and the inability to balance housing cost with lifestyle in the cityCity.
Chart 2.2 – Current Population by Age and Sex
36 Looking at the CityCity’s population breakdown by age and gender, Cudahy’s population is 49.7% male and
50.3% female. The 31.5% share of the population which is under 18 years of age is higher than the regional share of 23.4%. Cudahy's seniors (65 and above) make up 6.9% of the population, which is lower than the regional share of 13%. Table xx describes Cudahy’s current population be age and sex.
Chart 2.3 – Households by Household Size
American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year estimates
The most commonly occurring household size in Cudahy is five people per household (24.4%) and the second-most commonly occurring household size is of four people per household (21.9%). There are also some household sizes of 7 persons and some with 1 person. Cudahy has a lower share of single-person households than the SCAG region overall (7.2% vs. 23.4%) and a higher share of 7+ person households than the SCAG region overall (5.7% vs. 3.1%)
Specialized Housing Needs
According to the US Census American Community Survey (ACS), data, 2data, 227.7 percent of Cudahy’s households are experiencing poverty, compared to 7.9 percent of households in the SCAG region. Poverty thresholds, as defined by the American Community Survey ACS, vary by household type. In 2018, a single individual under 65 years was considered in poverty with a money income below $13,064/year while the threshold for a family consisting of 2 adults and 2 children was $25,465/yearIn 2020, in the United States, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 years of age was an annual income of $12,760.00. The threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was $26,200.00. 69 133 171 121 170 52 74 403
812
1,030
1,224
1,368
443
321
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7+
Households (% by size category)
Number of People per Household
Owner Total
37 Overcrowding
The average household size in the City has increased over the years largely due to several trends including increasing family size, shared living space to reduce cost, increasing cost of living, and overcrowding due to lack of available, affordable housing. In fact, the lack of affordable housing for the residents of Cudahy is cited at the top of their housing challenges.
According to data from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Cudahy’s current household size of 5 persons per household, is 32% higher than the State average persons per household.
The most commonly occurring household size in Cudahy is five people per household (24.4%) and the second-most commonly occurring household size is of four people per household (21.9%). There are also some household sizes of 7 persons and some with 1 person. Cudahy has a lower share of single-person households than the SCAG region overall (7.2% vs. 23.4%) and a higher share of 7+ person households than the SCAG region overall (5.7% vs. 3.1%)
Female Headed Households
As part of the Housing Element process, State law requires analysis of specialized housing needs, including female-headed households to ensure adequate childcare or job training services. Of Cudahy's 5,601 total households, 24.5% are female-headed (compared to 14.3% in the SCAG region), 15.8% are female-headed and with children (compared to 6.6% in the SCAG region), and 1.4% are female-headed and with children under 6 (compared to 1.0% in the SCAG region).
According to the American Community Survey (ACS), 22.7 percent of Cudahy’s households are experiencing poverty, compared to 7.9 percent of households in the SCAG region. Poverty thresholds, as defined by the ACS, vary by household type. In 2018, a single individual under 65 years was considered in poverty with a money income below $13,064/year while the threshold for a family consisting of 2 adults and 2 children was $25,465/year.
Table 2.2 - Elderly Households by Income and Tenure
Owner Renter Total Percent of Total Elderly Households
Income category,
relative to
surrounding area:
< 30% HAMFI 75 170 245 61.9%
30-50% HAMFI 40 40 80 20.2%
50-80% HAMFI 19 14 33 8.3%
80-100% HAMFI 10 0 10 2.5%
> 100% HAMFI 4 24 28 7.1%
TOT
AL
148 248 396
HUD CHAS, 2012-2016. HAMFI refers to Housing Urban Development Area Median Family Income.
Elderly
Statute requires analysis of specialized housing needs, including housing needs for seniors. Federal housing data define a household type as 'elderly family' if it consists of two persons with either or both age 62 or
38 over. Of Cudahy's 396 such households, 61.9% earn less than 30% of the surrounding area income, (compared to 24.2% in the SCAG region), 82.1% earn less than 50% of the surrounding area income (compared to 30.9% in the SCAG region). Chapter 3 includes identification of projections and quantification of projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households.
Chart 2.6 - People Experiencing Homelessness
82 82
0 Sheltered Unsheltered Total
Cudahy
2019 cityCity and county homelessness point-in-time counts processed by SCAG. Jurisdiction-level counts were not available in Imperial County and sheltered population (and thus total) counts were not available in Riverside County. As a result, SCAG region totals from this compilation of data sources likely undercount true totals.
RACE AND ETHNICITYCITY CHARACTERISTICS
The United States 2020 Census summarizes the race and ethnicityCity for the cityCity's population. Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin make up 95.2% of the community, with 3.1% White (non-Hispanic), 0.7% Black, and less than 1% Asian or Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Of 22,811 residents, 42.9% are foreign born, and 91.7% speak a language other than English at home.
AGE CHARACTERISTICS
According to the 2020 Census, the median age of CityCity residents was 23.8 years of age compared to 33.7 years of age for the County. Currently the median age is 27, showing a shifting trend from a predominantly younger age group of 23.8 in 2000 to the current 2020 age group of 27.
The elderly population (persons 65 years of age or older) consisted of 7.6% of the total population in 1970.
In 1980, the proportion of persons aged 65 and over declined to 4.8% of the total population. In 1990, the proportion of the same elderly group declined even further to 4.0% of the total population. The 2000 Census indicated that elderly residents accounted for 3.7% of the CityCity's total population, and more recently at
5.1% in the 2010 Census. After many declining years, the population of those over 65 years old has begun to rise, likely due to longer expected life spans, improved health care and services, and current residents staying in the community. In 2020, persons 65 years or older make up 6.9% of the population.
According to the 2020 Census, 7.9% of the CityCity’s population were under 5 years of age. A total of 30.7% were between 5 years and 19 years of age. Working aged adults between the ages of 20 and 64 totaled 12,779 persons which represented 52.8%. Households with children, especially those with working parents
39 or single heads of households, create a need for quality, affordable early care, and education services. The age grouping of the cityCity’s population according to the 2020 Census are indicated below in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3
Age Characteristics of the Population
Age Group Number of People Percentage of Population
Under 5 years 2,182 9.2%
5 to 9 years 2,241 9.4%
10 to 14 years 2,408 10.1%
15 to 19 years 2,399 10.1%
20 to 24 years 1,953 8.2%
25 to 29 years 1,886 7.9%
30 to 34 years 1,832 7.7%
35 to 39 years 1,791 7.5%
40 to 44 years 1,770 7.4%
45 to 49 years 1,414 5.9%
50 to 54 years 1,178 4.9%
55 to 59 years 841 3.5%
60 to 64 years 688 2.9%
65 to 69 years 465 2.0%
70 to 74 years 296 1.2%
75 to 79 years 206 0.9%
80 to 84 years 155 0.7%
85 years and over 100 0.4%
Total Population 23,805 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2020
The median age for the CityCity of Cudahy is 27 years of age which is significantly less than the national average of 37.2 years of age. Table 2-4compared major age groupings tabulated from the 1980, 1990, 2000, and the 2010 census. As indicated in the table, the overall age distribution of the CityCity’s population illustrated a decrease in the younger population and a slight increase of people 45 years old and higher.
The trends in the CityCity’s age characteristics are summarized in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4
Age Group Change 1980 - 2020
Age Group 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
<20 years 8,344 (46%) 9,626 (42%) 10,545 (44%) 9,230 (39%) 7,236 (30.7%) 20-44 years 6,830 (38%) 9,955 (44%) 9,947 (41%) 9,232 (39%) 9,563 (40.6%)%_) 45-64 Years 1,952 (11%) 2,319 (10%) 2,832 (12%) 4,121 (17%) 5,121 (21.8%) >65 years 868 (5%) 917 (4%) 884 (4%) 1,222 (5%) 1,649 (6.9%) Total 17,984 (100%) 22,817 (100%) 24,208 (100%) 23,805 (100%) 23,569 (100%)
40 Chart 2.7 – Age Groups
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years15 to 19 years20 to 24 years25 to 29 years30 to 34 years35 to 39 years40 to 44 years45 to 49 years50 to 54 years55 to 59 years60 to 64 years65 to 69 years70 to 74 years75 to 79 years80 to 84 years 85 years and over
Age Groups
41 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Chart 2.8- Educational Attainment
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2021 American Community Survey To help increase the levels of educational attainment the CityCity is looking to increase its support in policies that favor education; especially starting with education at early stages in life for those individuals in ages 0-
5. Quality early care and education provides a foundation for success in grades K-12 for Cudahy’s youngest residents. Early care and education translate to success in life because children who attend these programs are more likely to graduate from high school and attend college.
2.2 EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Employment types, income levels, and other factors determine the type of housing residents of the cityCity can afford, while the unemployment rate is an indicator of the level of housing assistance needed.
Employment and income levels are generally the function of regional growth or decline, which depends on factors beyond the cityCity’s control. Employment characteristics describe those economic and market factors relevant to the maintenance of existing housing and the need to produce new housing in the cityCity.
39.8%
24%
3.2%
2.4% 1.2%
Less than 9th Grade
High School Graduate
Associate's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate or Professional Degree
42 Employment And Unemployment
Cudahy has 10,146 workers living within its borders who work across 13 major industrial sectors. The charts below provides detailed employment information by industry and occupation. The most prevalent industry is manufacturing with 1,773 employees (17.5% of total) and the second most prevalent industry is Education & Social Services with 1,613 employees (15.9% of total).
Chart 2.19 - Employment by Industry
American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year estimates using groupings of 2-digit NAICS codes 10 1,044
1,773
681
1,246
988
203
345
672
1,613
922
494
155
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Rrade
Retail Trade
Transportation
Information
Finance
Professional Services
Education & Social Services
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation
Other
Public Admininstration
43 Chart 2.210 - Employment by Occupation
American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year estimates using groupings of SOC codes In addition to understanding the industries in which the residents of Cudahy work, it is also possible to analyze the types of jobs they hold. The most prevalent occupational category is Production, in which 3,251 (32% of total employees) work. The second most prevalent category is sales (21.4% of the total employees), followed by Services (20.2%). Cudahy’s numbers for production workers doubles the SCAG region number (14.6%), while SCAG’s Management employment category (34.2%) almost triples Cudahy’s (12.3%).
This trend is indicative and a symptom of the educational levels of Cudahy’s residents and the lack of employment opportunities in the City. The City and local schools provide services in Spanish, and there are immersion programs in the local schools. The City will continue to work with the local schools to continue providing these services, Program 15 Public Participation. Recognizing the need for additional employment opportunities within the City, in 2022 the City initiated the preparation of an Economic Development Strategic Plan. The Plan will empower the City to define its vision, mission, and values to guide the City’s planning, zoning, and economic development priorities. Components of the Plan include identifying the City’s identity, capturing quality redevelopment investment, and adopting objectives and initiatives.
Program 29 Implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Program and the Economic Development Strategic Plan.
Farmworkers
Statewide, farmworker housing is of unique concern and of unique importance. While only a small share of SCAG region jurisdictions has farmworkers living in them, they are essential to the region’s economy and food supply. The 2020 census identified 37 persons residing in Cudahy as employed in the agricultural, forestry, and fishing sectors. These persons are likely to be employed in nurseries, stables, and not in traditional agricultural production. The demand for housing generated by farm workers in the City is thus estimated to be extremely low.
1,250
2,047 2,172
1,426
3,251 2,616,827
1,500,551
1,743,617
675,894
1,118,977
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
Management Services Sales Natural Resources Production
Cudahy 12.3% 20.2% 21.4% 14.1% 32.0%
SCAG 34.2% 19.6% 22.8% 8.8% 14.6%
Cudahy SCAG
44 Table 2.5 - Farmworkers by Occupation
The Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning published a Farmworker Housing Ordinance in September 2010. The ordinance is part of a program in the Los Angeles County Housing Element which brings the County’s provisions for farmworker housing into compliance with the Employee Housing Act of the California Health and Safety Code.
Government Code 65580-65589.5 (Housing Element Law)
The Housing Element Law requires an analysis of housing needs specific to special needs populations, including farmworkers (Government Code Section 65583 (a)(7)). In addition, the Housing Element Law requires an inventory of sites suitable for residential development, including housing for farmworkers (Government Code 65583(a)(3)). Where the sites inventory does not identify adequate sites to accommodate housing for farmworkers, the program shall provide sufficient sites to meet the need with zoning that permits farmworker housing use by right (Government Code 65583(c)(1)(C)).
The Housing Element Law also states that local jurisdictions cannot disapprove a housing development project or impose conditions that render a project infeasible for low-income individuals, including farmworkers, without providing written findings based on substantial evidence on specified provisions, including that the development project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project (Government Code Section 65589.5).
45 In the Los Angeles County area, Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita Valley Areas include land with active agricultural uses, as well as the Santa Catalina Island Local Coastal Plan (LCP), which outlines policies that include the provision and expansion of ―support‖ (employee) housing.
With low wages and very high housing costs in Los Angeles County, farmworkers are one group among many who are designated as having a special need for affordable and appropriate housing by the State of California. The variability of seasonal changes, technological advances in agriculture, along with increasing international market competition have led to fewer days of work per year for the County’s agricultural employees.
Los Angeles County has seen a significant decrease in agricultural workers. State EDD data (CA Employment Development Department, Industry Employment & Labor Force data for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale March 2020) shows that between 2000 and 2020, the number of farmworkers countywide decreased by 43 percent, from 7,700 to 4,400. Agricultural practices no longer account for a significant sector of Los Angeles County’s economy, and as more agricultural land is converted for nonagricultural uses, this sector will continue to decline. Maps from the State of California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program show no farmland in the City of Cudahy. Most of the Los Angeles basin is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land.”
The Based on the graphic below, which is obtained from the County of Los Angeles Housing Element, indicates that there are a total of 225,217 acres of farmland designated by the Sstate of California in Los Angeles County. There are 699,846 acres of land zoned for Agriculture. Of these designated areas, none are within proximity to the City of Cudahy. Table 2.7 identifies the locations and acreages of farmland in Los Angeles County.
Table 2.7
State Designated Farmland and Agricultural Zoning in Selected Communities Unincorporated
Community
Farmland
Designated
by the
State
(acres)
% of Farmland
Designated by
the State
Zoned for
Agriculture
(acres)
% of Zoned Acres
Antelope Valley 165,142 73.33% 525,366 75.07%
Santa Clarita Valley 59,737 26.52% 114,051 16.30%
Malibu Coastal Zone 235 0.10% 47,899 6.84%
Santa Monica Mountains 103 0.05% 12,530 1.79%
Total 225,217 100.00% 699,846 100.00%
Source: Los Angeles County, Department of Regional Planning, GIS Section
46 With the wages earned by farm workers and the need for transportation and food, Cudahy is not an ideal location for farm workers for the following reasons:
The cityCity’s current housing cost which is documented in Section 8 of the Housing Element The cityCity’s current overcrowding which is documented in Section 8 of the Housing Element Housing Needs for Farmworkers
The City has no land devoted to the production of field crops and/or plant life. Likewise, there is not land used for animals. As a result, there are no farmworker jobs located in Cudahy. The 37 people identified as employed in the agricultural, forestry, and fishing sectors may be persons residing or “housed” in the City who are farmworkers at locations outside the City’s boundaries, or are workers employed in not traditional agricultural production. Any housed “farmworkers” who may reside in the City would live in a household and occupy a housing unit. As such, they would be among the existing households counted as part of the existing housing needs and estimates of existing and project housing needs produced b HCD and SCAG. That is, the resident farmworker housing needs would be counted as part of the lower income households experiencing problems of overpaying, overcrowding, and living in substandard housing and their housing needs can be met through general affordable housing programs.
47 2.3 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERITICS
Household type and size, income levels, and other household characteristics determine the type of housing needed by residents. This section details the various household characteristics affecting housing needs.
Household characteristics provide an overview of the key socioeconomic characteristics that affect housing needs.
Household Sizes
The U.S. Census defines a household as any group of people who occupy a housing unit, including families*, single people, or unrelated persons sharing living quarters. Persons living in licensed facilities, retirement homes, or dormitories are not considered households. Household characteristics are important indicators of the type of size of housing needed in a community.
*According to the most current U.S. Census definition, family is defined as “A group of two or more people who reside together and who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption.”
2.4 HOUSING STOCK
Housing Stock
Housing types, age, vacancy rates, conditions and other factors affecting housing stock determine if the current supply of housing is in good conditions or in adequate supply for residents. This section examines various stock characteristics that affect the living environment of Cudahy residents. Housing characteristics focuses on trends related to residential development, housing type, and housing tenure. In addition, the CityCity’s housing stock is getting older; well over half (57.4%) of the CityCity’s housing stock was built prior to 1960, therefore, housing supply, in conjunction with affordability, may contribute to the growing household size.
According to the 2020 California Department of Finance data, there were 5,780 housing units in Cudahy.
This number is an increase of 10 units (5,770) over the 2010 number. Of this total, 2,127 units (36.8%) were single detached units, 1,313 units (23.1%) were single attached units, 326 units (5.6%) were 2-4 units, and 1,574 units (27.3%) were 5 or more units. In addition, a significant number of households live in mobile home parks. A total of 420 units (7.3%) are mobile home units. Chart 2.3 identifies housing by type.According to the latest California Department of Finance the housing makeup in Cudahy is as follows; 37 percent single detached units, 22.8 percent single attached units, 5.6 percent 2-4 units, 27.3 percent 5 or more units, and 7.3% mobile home units.The breakdown of housing unit types is illustrated in Table 2.
Chart 2.113 - Housing Types
48 CA DOF E-5 Population and Housing Unit Estimates
According to the 2020 California Department of Finance data, there were 5,780 housing units in Cudahy.
This number is an increase of 10 units (5770) over the 2010 number. Of this total, 2,127 units (36.8%) were single detached units, 1,313 units (23.1%) were single attached units, 326 units (5.6%) were 2-4 units, and 1,574 units (27.3%) were 5 or more units. In addition, a significant number of households live in mobile home parks. A total of 420 units (7.3%) are mobile home units. The breakdown of housing unit types is illustrated in Table 2.
Over the last two decades, (2000 to 2020), there has been more construction of single-family residential units than multi-family residential units in Cudahy. When comparing 2000 to 2020, Single-Family Residential (SFR) units increased by 529, Multi-Family Residential (MFR) units increased by 298, and mobile units increased by 7. Chart 2.4 identities the City’s housing trend.
Chart 2.124 - Housing Trend
,.
Over the last two decades, (2000 to 2020), there has been more construction of single-family residential units than multi-family residential units in Cudahy. When comparing 2000 to 2020, Single-Family Residential (SFR) units increased by 529, Multi-Family Residential (MFR) units increased by 298, and mobile units increased by 7.
2,127
1,333
326
1,574
420
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Single-Family
Detached
Single-Family
Attached
Multifamily, 2-4
Units
Multifamily, 5+
Units Mobile Homes
Cudahy (%) 36.8% 23.1% 5.6% 27.2% 7.3%
SCAG (%) 54.4% 7.2% 7.5% 27.3% 3.5%
Percent of Total Units
2,931
2,198
413
3,183
2,064
417
3,450
1,900
420
3,454
1,900
420
3,460
1,900
420
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Single-Family Residential (SFR) Multifamily Residential (MFR) Mobile Homes Housing Units
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
49 Chart 2.13 - Vacant Units by Type
American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year estimates.
Chart 2.14 - Housing Units by Year Structure Built
American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year estimates.
Examining the age of the current housing stock is one way to determine how historical developments patterns have contributed to a city’s form. The time period where the highest share of the City of Cudahy’s housing units was built is 1950-1959, while in the SCAG region more were built during 1970-1979 than any other period.
32.8%
0.0%
16.1%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
51.1%
20.7%
5.4% 7.9%
4.5%
33.5%
0.3%
27.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
For Rent Rented For Sale Sold Seasonal Migrant Other
Percent of Total Vacant Units
Cudahy SCAG
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2014 &
Later
2010-
2013
2000-
2009
1990-
1999
1980-
1989
1970-
1979
1960-
1969
1950-
1959
1940-
1949
1939 &
Earlier
Cudahy (%) 0.0% 0.3% 5.2% 5.1% 8.7% 10.8% 15.5% 27.1% 18.1% 9.3% SCAG (%) 1.0% 1.5% 10.1% 9.5% 15.0% 16.3% 14.5% 15.9% 6.9% 9.3% Percent of Total Units Cudahy (%) SCAG (%)
50 Housing Age, Condition & Overcrowding
Housing age is an important indicator of the conditions of Cudahy’s housing stock. Homes and structures weather with use and deteriorate with time. If they are not properly maintained, housing can deteriorate quickly and become eyesores or potential sources of danger. This directly affects property prices and the quality of life of cityCity residents. A cityCity with an older housing stock will have to budget more for preservation assistance, home repair costs, and energy requirements.
Examining the age of the current housing stock is one way to determine how historical development patterns have contributed to a City’s form. The time period where the highest share of the City of Cudahy’s housing units was built is 1950-1959, while in the SCAG region more were built during 1970-1979 than any other period. Chart 2.5 identifies housing units by the year built.
51 Chart 2.5 - Housing Units by Year Structure Built
American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year estimates.
A parcel specific housing condition survey was undertaken in February 2013. During the survey, housing conditions wereas evaluated according to the following criteria:
Category I: Good Condition. Housing units included in this category were considered to be in a good state of repair and no repairs were warranted.
Category II: Minor Fix-Up; Paint-Up. General housing improvement needed including paint and minor repairs. Typically, improvements can be and are usually made by the property owner.
Category III: Major Repairs. This category includes major repairs such as replacement of the roof.
Typically, such repairs would be performed by a contractor.
Category IV: Beyond Repair. This housing condition category applies to those structures where the cost of repair is estimated to exceed the value of the structure.
The 2018 Housing Element update indicated that there are 5,403 housing units in the City in a good state of repair and no repairs are warranted. There are 246 units that require paint and minor repairs, 18 units that require major repairs such as roof replacement, and three units where the cost of repair is estimated to exceed the value of the unit. A summary of the 2013 Housing Conditions Survey is provided in Table 2-8. xxSAlthough the City has not conducted a more recent housing conditions survey, it is safe to conclude that current conditions may not differ significantly from the results in 2013. The table identifying substandard housing identify few units lacking telephone, plumbing or kitchen facilities. The city is currently conducting a review of the housing conditions consistent with the analysis provided in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, specifically as it relates to Table 2-8, Housing Condition Survey 2013. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2014 &
Later
2010-
2013
2000-
2009
1990-
1999
1980-
1989
1970-
1979
1960-
1969
1950-
1959
1940-
1949
1939 &
Earlier
Cudahy (%) 0.0% 0.3% 5.2% 5.1% 8.7% 10.8% 15.5% 27.1% 18.1% 9.3% SCAG (%) 1.0% 1.5% 10.1% 9.5% 15.0% 16.3% 14.5% 15.9% 6.9% 9.3% Percent of Total Units Cudahy (%) SCAG (%)
52
53 Table 2.8
Housing Conditions Survey 2013
Category of Housing Condition Number of Houses
Category I 5,403
Category II 246
Category III 118
Category IV 3
Total 5,770
Source: City Survey 2013
The cityCity is currently conducting a review of the housing conditions consistent with the analysis provided in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, specifically as it relates to Table 2-8, Housing Condition Survey 2013. A new Program is included in this Housing Element as follows: Program 23: Housing Conditions Survey:
The City shall complete a Housing Conditions Survey to identify the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. The Survey shall be completed in 2023.
The American Community Survey (ACS) includes surveys about three factors of what may be considered substandard housing. In Cudahy, 60 units (1.06%) lack telephone service, 0 units lack plumbing, and 34 units (.61%) lack complete kitchen facilities. Chart 2.6 identifies substandard housing in the City.
Chart 2.615 - Substandard Housing
54 American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year estimates.
The American Community Survey (ACS) includes surveys about three factors of what may be considered substandard housing. In Cudahy, 60 units lack telephone service, 0 units lack plumbing, and 34 units lack complete kitchen facilities.
According to the most recent Department of Finance estimates, a total of 5,607 units were occupied while the remaining 163 units were vacant. This translated into a vacancy rate of 2.82% compared to a vacancy rate of 5.9% for Los Angeles County. In 2020 the vacancy rate for owner-occupied units was 2.9% and the vacancy rate for rental units was 1.5%. Compared to other cities in the county, Cudahy’s housing vacancy rate is among the lowest. This results in an increased demand for a limited supply of housing units, which in turn, could affect the cost of both rental and owner-occupied units. Chart 2.7 identifies vacant units by type.
Chart 2.7 - Vacant Units by Type
1.07%
0.00%
0.61%
1.95%
0.39%
1.29%
0%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
No Telephone Service Available Lacking Plumbing Facilities Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities Percent of Total Units
Cudahy SCAG
55 Chart 2.16 -
Overcrowding by Extent and Tenure
American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year estimates.
Housing Tenure, Occupancy And Vacancy
According to the most recent DOF estimates, a total of 5,607 units were occupied while the remaining 163 units were vacant. This translated into a vacancy rate of 2.82% compared to a vacancy rate of 5.9% for Los Angeles County. In 2020 the vacancy rate for owner-occupied units was 2.9% and the vacancy rate for rental units was 1.5%. Compared to other cities in the county, Cudahy’s housing vacancy rate is among the lowest.
This results in an increased demand for a limited supply of housing units, which in turn, could affect the cost of both rental and owner-occupied units.
2.5 HOUSING COSTS AND AFFORDABILITY
Housing Costs and Affordability
The Ddepartment of Housing and Urban Development defines affordable housing as housing for which the owner or tenants pays less than 30 percent of the household income. The cost of housing vis-à-vis income directly impacts the degree of affordability. If housing costs are high relative to income, there will be a correspondingly higher prevalence of borrowing in the case of homeowners, and overpayment in the case
32.8%
0.0%
16.1%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
51.1%
20.7%
5.4% 7.9%
4.5%
33.5%
0.3%
27.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
For Rent Rented For Sale Sold Seasonal Migrant Other
Percent of Total Vacant Units
Cudahy SCAG
11.8%
0.9%
31.6%
7.2%
4.9%
1.3%
15.6%
6.4%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
1.0+/room 1.5+/room 1.0+/room 1.5+/room
Owner Owner Renter Renter
Percent of Total Households
Cudahy SCAG
56 of renters. Overcrowding also increases as people turn to sharing homes and apartments to reduce housing costs. This section summarizes the cost and affordability of Cudahy’s housing stock.
Between 2000 and 2020 median home sales prices in Cudahy increased 179% while prices in the SCAG region increased 151%. 2018 median home sales prices in Cudahy were $430,000 and the highest experienced since 2000 was $493,500 in 2007. Prices in Cudahy have ranged from a low of 62.2% of the SCAG region median in 2002 and a high of 93.2% in 2008. Chart 2.8 identifies the median sales of existing homes.
57 Chart 2.8 - Median Sales Price of Existing Homes
Chart 2.17 - Median Sales Price of Existing Homes
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
2000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018 Cudahy SCAG Cudahy Percentage of SCAG Price
SCAG Local Profiles, Core Logic/Data Quick. SCAG median home sales price calculated as household-weighted average of county medians.
58 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
Housing Costs And Affordability
Census data indicated that for owner-occupied housing units, most of the monthly mortgage payments in the cityCity in 2010 was $2,000 or more with the median being $1,812 per month.
In 2020, the median mortgage payment was $1,921.00. The 2020 median household income in Cudahy is $46,642.00. A household is overpaying for housing if more than 30% of their net “takehome” income is used for paying rent or mortgages.
According to census figures for the year 2020, 255 households (45.2% of the total owneroccupied units) living in owner-occupied units paid more than 30% of their monthly income towards the mortgage. According to the same census figures, 2,624 renter households (56.3% of the total renter households) paid more than 30% of their monthly income towards the rent. For renters, the median gross rent per month significantly increased from $1,103 in 2011 to $1,306.
On a percentage basis, this increase in cost represents an 18.4 percent increase. This dollar amount refers to the contract rent (i.e., monthly rent agreed to, or contracted for) plus the estimated average cost of utilities and fuels if paid for by the renter. This definition was used by the census to eliminate differentials due to varying practices in rent structuring.
The HUD-formulated Fair Market Rent (FMR)schedule is a guideline to maximum rents allowable for units receiving Section 8 assistance. HUD uses the Consumer Price Index and the census data to calculate the FMRs for each Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA).
Because HUD includes different criteria in its definition of rent, census data and FMRs are not directly comparable. While some vacant property is available for new residential development, most of the new residential construction will occur on land that is presently occupied by existing development. The demolition, removal, and clean-up of these existing properties contribute to the higher cost of development. During the latter part of the 1990s, interest rates were generally low. In 2000, interest rates were raised by the Federal Reserve though they were once again lowered in the years following 2000 in response to fears of recession and have continually dropped in response to avoiding a further recession. With the currently low interest rates in 2020, the prices of residential and commercial properties have skyrocketed. In general, the cost (market-rate) for new land in the cityCity ranges from $100/square foot up to $150/square foot.
The actual construction cost for residential development ranges from $300/square foot up to $530/square foot. The current average rent in the cityCity is $1,624.00, and the average cost of a single-family residential property is approximately $450.00 per square-foot. Homes are not as affordable in the cityCity as they were 10 years ago, following a similar regional and state-wide trend. Chart 2.9 identifies the percentage of rent households are paying.
59 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
60 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
2.6 RENT VS. OWN
Rent/Ownership
Rent RENTER
Chart 2.918 - Spending on Rent by Renter (ACS -2020)
Across Cudahy's 4,811 renter households, 2,854 (59.3%) spend thirty percent or more of gross income on housing cost, compared to 55.3% in the SCAG region. Additionally, 1,457 renter households in Cudahy (30.3%) spend fifty percent or more of gross income on housing cost, compared to 28.9% in the SCAG region.
While the previous table breaks down cost burden by area-relative income, the The ACS also allows for the analysis of Cudahy's 4,733 renter households (for which income data are available) by spending on rent by income bracket (dollar amounts). As one might expect, the general trend is that low-income households spend a higher share of income on housing (e.g., over 50%) while high-income households are more likely to spend under 20% of income on housing. Chart 2.10 identifies spending on rent by income.
71 275
385
601 547
431 381
585
1,457
78 0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
<10% 10-15% 15-20% 20-25% 25-30% 30-35% 35-40% 40-49% >50% Not Computed
Number of Households
Percent of Income Spent on Rent
61 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
Chart 2.109 – Spending on Rrent By Income
American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year estimates.
Cudahy renter households' cash rent paid can be broken down by household incomes. As one might expect, the general trend is that lower-income households spend less on rent while higherincome households spend more on rent, though this may not be universally true. Rent categories range from <$500/month (3.6% of Cudahy renters) to >$2000/month (3% of Cudahy renters).
The most common rent category in Cudahy is $1000-1500/month with 57.6% of renters. Chart
2.11 identifies household income by cash rent.
Chart 2.1120 - Household Income by Ccash Rent
American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year estimates.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than
$20,000
$20,000 to
$34,999
$35,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 or
more
>50% 754 615 88 0 0 0
30-49% 86 419 660 232 0 0
20-29% 38 58 179 651 206 16
<20% 0 0 17 133 235 346
Number of Renter Households
Income Category
>50%
30-49%
20-29%
<20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
to
$99,999
$100,00
0 or
more
>$2000/mo. 0 19 36 39 0 47
$1500-2000/mo. 109 142 157 243 139 63
$1000-1500/mo. 443 637 557 589 265 252
$500-1000/mo. 225 269 177 145 37 0
<$500/mo. 129 25 17 0 0 0 Renter Households
Income
>$2000/mo.
$1500-2000/mo.
$1000-1500/mo.
$500-1000/mo.
<$500/mo.
62 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
Cudahy renter households' cash rent paid can be broken down by household incomes. As one might expect, the general trend is that lower-income households spend less on rent while higherincome households spend more on rent, though this may not be universally true. Rent categories range from <$500/month (3.6% of Cudahy renters) to >$2000/month (3% of Cudahy renters).
The most common rent category in Cudahy is $1000-1500/month with 57.6% of renters.
OWNER Ownership
While renter households receive much of the focus when it comes to housing cost analysis, owner households make up 14.1% of Cudahy and 52.5% of the SCAG region. The most commonly occurring mortgage payment in Cudahy is $1500-$2000/month and the most commonly occurring mortgage payment in the SCAG region is $2000-$3000/mo. Chart 2.12 identifies the monthly owner costs for mortgage holders.
Chart 2.1221 - Monthly Owner Costs for Mortgage Holders American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year estimates
While renter households receive much of the focus when it comes to housing cost analysis, owner households make up 14.1% of Cudahy and 52.5% of the SCAG region. The most commonly occurring mortgage payment in Cudahy is $1500-$2000/month and the most commonly occurring mortgage payment in the SCAG region is $2000-$3000/mo.
Mortgage-holding households in Cudahy can be broken down by income and the percentage of income spent on mortgage costs. As one might expect, the general trend is that lower-income households spend a higher share of income on housing costs, while high-income households may spend a lower share of income on housing. Chart 2.13 identifies the cost for mortgage holders by
0.0%
3.7%
20.8%
29.7% 29.2%
12.3%
4.3%
0.5%
5.1%
13.7%
19.6%
33.4%
15.4%
12.3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
<$500 $500-$1000 $1000-$1500 $1500-$2000 $2000-$3000 $3000-$4000 >$4000 Pct. of mortgage-holders
Mortgage - Monthly Payment
Cudahy SCAG
63 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
income.The income category most prevalent amongst Cudahy mortgage-holding households is $75,000 or more (305 households) and the most prevalent share of income spent on mortgage costs is over 30% (317 households).
Chart 2.13 - Cost for Mortgage Holders by Income
Another approach to evaluating the relationship between housing and income is to compare incomes and home values in Cudahy. Chart 2.14 identifies the household income by home value. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than
$20,000
$20,000 to
$34,999
$35,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999 $75,000 or more
Over 30% 19 90 58 71 79
20-29% 0 0 2 17 117
Under 20% 0 0 0 0 109
Mortgage-holding households
Household Income; Percent of income spent on mortgage costs
64 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
Chart 2.14 - Household Income by Home Value
2.7 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has identified a total of 393 housing units for Cudahy’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The units are broken down as follows:
80 very low-income units (40 of which are extremely low-income units), 36 low-income units, 53 moderate income units, and 224 above moderate-income units. Table 2.8 provides a breakdown of Cudahy’s regional housing needs allocation.
Table 2.8
Final 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than
$20,000
$20,000 to
$34,999
$35,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000
or more
Above $500,000 0 55 11 0 36 82
$200,000 to $500,000 18 44 72 112 45 220
$100,000 to $200,000 0 5 7 0 0 0
Below $100,000 70 8 27 3 0 0
Owner-occupied households
Household Income; Home Value
65 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has identified a total of 393 housing units for Cudahy’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The units are broken down as follows:
80 very low-income units, 36 low-income units, 53 moderate income units, and 224 above moderate-income units.
Extremely Low-Income Households
Although the extremely low-income category is not specifically identified, to calculate the projected housing needs, the City assumed 50% of its very low-income regional housing needs are extremely low households. As a result, from the very low income need of 80 units, the City has projected a need of 40 units for extremely low-income households. Extremely low-income is defined as households with income less than 30 percent of area median income. The area median household income in Cudahy is $46,642. For extremely low-income households, this results in an income of $13,992.6 or less. Households with extremely low incomes have a variety of housing situations and needs. For example, most families and individuals receiving public assistance, such as social security insurance (SSI) or disability insurance is considered extremely low-income households. At the same time, a minimum wage worker could be considered an extremely low-income household with an annual income of approximately $17,000 or less.
Housing the extremely low-income population (below 30% of area median income) can be especially challenging. The race/ethnicitycity with the highest share of extremely low-income households in Cudahy is Black, non-Hispanic (40% compared to 31% of total population). In the SCAG region, the highest share of extremely low-income households is Black, non-Hispanic (27.1% compared to 17.7% of total households).
Existing Needs
According to the 2020 Census data prepared by SCAG, of the CityCity's 5,690 households in 2020, 2,879 households were considered low-income. Most extremely low-income households are renters and experience a high incidence of housing problems. For example, extremely lowincome households faced housing problems (defined as cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities). Even further,
66 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
extremely low-income households paid more than 50% of their income towards housing costs.
Table 2.9 identifies the housing needs for extremely low-income households.
Table 2.9
Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households
Table 2.7 Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households Renters Owners Total
Total Number of ELI
Households
2,624 255 2,879
Percentage with Any
Housing Problems
12.6% 12.6% 25.3%
Percent with Cost Burden
(30% of income)
56.3% 45.2% 50.3%
Percent with Severe Cost
Burden (50% of income)
10.2% 71% 12%
Total Number of Households 4,702 1,011 5,713
Source: Census.gov; Southern California Association of Governments Projected Needs
To calculate the projected housing needs, the cityCity assumed 50% of its very low-income regional housing needs are extremely low-income households. As a result, from the very lowincome need of 116 80 units, the cityCity has a projected need of 80 40 units for extremely lowincome households. Many extremely low-income households will be seeking rental housing and most likely facing an overpayment, overcrowding or substandard housing conditions. Some extremely low-income households could experience be with mental or other disabilities and special needs.
The City previously adopted a number of programs as part of the City’s ongoing commitment to provide adequate housing for all residents. Amendments to several of these programs are included in this Housing Element. The amended programs include updates to the Zoning Code for accessory dwelling units and single room occupancy units. To address the range of needs, the cit will employ a detailed housing strategy including promoting a variety of housing types, such as accessory dwelling units (ADU) and single-room occupancy (SRO) units without requiring a CUP. Program 3 has been amended as follows:
The City will update the accessory dwelling unit requirements within the Zoning Code, and update the Ordinance, to comply with statutory requirements. The City will review development standards and make amendments as necessary to provide incentives and promote development of accessory dwelling units for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Review could include exploring and pursuing available state funding, fee reductions, pre-approved plans, and homeowner/applicant assistance tools. Amendments to the Zoning Code will be completed in 2023.
With respect to single-room occupancy units, the city.
67 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
To address the housing needs of extremely low-income households, the cityCity will identify and meet with nonprofit builders who specialize in building housing for extremely low-income households and supportive housing. This effort is design to:
• Build a long-term partnership in development,
• Gain access to specialized funding sources, including applying for funding sources that support deeper targeting,
• Identify the range of local resources and assistance needed to facilitate the development of housing for extremely low-income households, and
• Promote a variety of housing types, including higher density, multifamily supportive, single room occupancy, and shared housing.
As part of this effort, the cityCity will develop an action plan with its nonprofit partners to develop housing for extremely low-income households. Activities include assisting with site identification and acquisition, local financial resources, assisting and streamlining entitlements and providing concessions and incentives.
2.8 OVERCROWDING AND OVERPAYMENT
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Overcrowding
Overcrowding its typically defined as more than one person per room, based on the Census Bureau’s definition of “room,” which excludes bathrooms, porches, balconies, foyers, halls, or half-rooms. Severe overcrowding occurs when there are more than 1.5 persons per room.
Overcrowding can result when there are not enough adequately sized units within a community, or when high housing cost relative to income forces too many individuals or families to share housing. Overcrowding can also accelerate deterioration of the housing stock.
In Cudahy, 93 owner-occupied and 1,518 renter-occupied households had more than 1.0 occupants per room, which meets the ACS definition for overcrowding. 7 owner-occupied households and 346 renter-occupied households had more than 1.5 occupants per room, which meets the ACS definition for severe overcrowding. Chart 2.15 identifies crowding by extent and tenure.
68 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
Chart 2.15 - Crowding by Extent and Tenure
American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year estimates.
To address overcrowding, this Housing Element will not include programs to increase density or rezone properties, in order to to increase the supply of residential units in Cudahy. This is, because the cityCity increased residential densities in 2018 as part of the comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Code updates. Table 2.10 identifies household overcrowding.
Table 2.10
Household Overcrowding
Table 2.8 Household Overcrowding
Owner Renter Total
Occupied Units 916 4733 5649
Overcrowded Units 180 1248 1428
Severely Overcrowded 83 451 534
Source: Census.gov; American Fact Finder
Overpayment
A household is overpaying for housing (or cost burdened) if it spends more than 30% of its gross income on housing. Severe housing cost burden occurs when a household pays more than 50% of its income on housing. The prevalence of overpayment varies significantly by income, tenure, household type, and household size. Of the 2,879 households overpaying in Cudahy, 448 household were severely overpaying.
Table 2.11 identifies households overpaying, Table 2.12 identifies households severely overpaying, and Table 2.13 identifies households with lower incomes overpaying.
11.8%
0.9%
31.6%
7.2% 4.9%
1.3%
15.6%
6.4%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
1.0+/room 1.5+/room 1.0+/room 1.5+/room
Owner Owner Renter Renter
Percent of Total Households
Cudahy SCAG
69 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
Table 2.11
Households Overpaying
Table 2.9 Total Households Overpaying
Households Renter Owners TOTAL
All Households 4733 916 5649
Number of Households
Overpaying
2,624 255 2,879
Percent of All Households
Overpaying
56.3% 45.2% 50.9%
Source: Census.gov; American Fact Finder
Of the 2,879 households overpaying in Cudahy, 448 household were severely overpaying.
Table 2.12
Households Severely Overpaying
Table 2.10 Total Households Severely Overpaying
Households Renter Owners TOTAL
Number of Households
Overpaying
2,624 255 2,879
Number of Households Severely
Overpaying
267 181 448
Percent of Households
Overpaying
10.2% 71% 15.5%
Source: Census.gov; American Fact Finder
In general, overpayment disproportionately affects lower income households; further, emphasizing the affordability gap between market rents and affordable housing costs for lower income households.
Table 2.13
Lower Income Households Overpaying
Table 2.11 Lower Income Households Overpaying
Households Renters Owners TOTAL
Total Households Overpaying 2,624 255 2,879
LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Lower Income Households
Overpaying (30% of Income)
1,477 115 1,592
Lower Income Households
Overpaying (50% of Income)
267 181 448
Source: Census.gov; American Fact Finder
To address overpayment, Cudahy will pursue a variety of programs to expand affordability. With a strong prevalence of overpayment/overcrowding with large family renter households, the cityCity will focus its new construction on multi-family units. The City adopted the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 2022 requiring the construction of affordable units with market rate projects. Program 29 addresses implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Program 6 includes the City’s ongoing support and sharing of Section 8 information.
70 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
2.9 “AT-RISK” HOUSING
At Risk Housing
“Assisted housing units” are defined as units with rents subsidized by federal, State, or local governmental programs. California Government Code Section 65583 requires that housing elements include an inventory of all assisted rental housing units within the local jurisdiction that are at-risk of losing subsidies, mortgage prepayment, or being converted to other uses if the expiration date of their financing program is between 2021 and 2031 (i.e., 10 years from the beginning of the housing element planning period—2021). In all, there are a total of 142 units atrisk of conversion in Cudahy.
Conversion Risk
State law requires Housing Elements provide an inventory of all assisted housing units if the expiration date of their financing program is within the next ten years of the housing element planning period. These housing units are deemed to be “at-risk” of being converted to market rate units. Additionally, HCD recommends jurisdiction assess the overall potential conversion risk of all assisted housing units. However, there is no “official” or prescribed methodology to conduct the analysis. Jurisdictions, therefore, are free to decide how to conduct the analysis by choosing a method most appropriate to their jurisdiction.
There are three general cases that can result in the conversion of public assisted units:
1. Prepayment of HUD Mortgages: Section 221(d’ (3), Section 202 and Section 236 — Section 221 (d)(3) is a privately-owned project where the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides either below market interest rate loans or marketrate loans with a subsidy to the tenants. With Section 236 assistance, HUD provides financing to the owner to reduce the costs for tenants by paying most of the interest on a market rate mortgage. Additional rental subsidy may be provided to the tenant. Section 202 assistance provides a direct loan to non-profit organizations for project development and rent subsidy for low-income elderly tenants. Section 202 provides assistance for the development of units for physically handicapped, developmentally disabled, and chronically mentally ill residents.
2. Opt-outs and Expirations of Project-Based Section 8 Contracts — Section 8 is a federally funded program that provides for subsidies to the owner of a pre-qualified project for the difference between the tenant’s ability to pay and the contract rent. Opt-outs occur when the owner of the project decides to opt-out of the contract with HUD by pre-paying the remainder of the mortgage. Usually, the likelihood of opt-outs increases as the market rents exceed the contract rents.
• Clara Park Commons Senior
3. Other — Expiration of the low-income use period of various financing sources, such as Low-income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), bond financing, density bonuses, California
71 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
Housing Finance Agency (CALHFA), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) HOME and redevelopment funds. Generally, bond-financing properties expire according to a qualified project period or when the bonds mature.
• Clara Park Village
• Elizabeth Court
• Clara Court
• Live Oaks Garden
Federally Assisted “At Risk” Units
At-Risk Units includes a study of all low-income housing units, which may at some future time be lost to affordable inventory by the expiration of some type of affordability restrictions. The law requires that the analysis and study cover a ten-year period, and be divided into two periods, coinciding with updates of the housing elements. Table 2.14 provides a summary of the at-risk units.
Table 2.14
Summary of At-Risk Units
Table 2.12 Summary of At-Risk Units
Project Name Address Target
Group
Number
of Units
Type of
Assistance
Expiration
Date
Current Owner At-Risk
Clara Park Village 4805 Clara St Cudahy,
CA 90201
Elderly 49 Section 8 2037 National Church
Residents
Lower
Risk
Elizabeth Court 5225 Elizabeth St
Cudahy CA 90201
Low Income 25 Low-Income
Housing Tax
Credits
2013 Corp for Better
Housing
Higher
Risk
Clara Court 5159 Clara St Cudahy,
CA 90201
Low-Income 36 Low-Income
Housing Tax
Credits
2013 Corp for Better
Housing
Higher
Risk
Live Oaks Garden 5203 Live Oak St
Cudahy, CA 90201
Low-Income 32 Low-Income
Housing Tax
Credits
2015 Corp for Better
Housing
Higher
Risk
Clara Park
Commons
4805 Clara St Cudahy,
CA 90201
Low-Income 49 Low-Income
Housing Tax
Credits
2020 National Church
Residents of
Clara Commons
High Risk
Cudahy Gardens 4343 Elizabeth St
Cudahy, CA 90201
Low-Income 99 Low-Income
Housing Tax
Credits
2029 Housing Corp of
America
Lower
Risk
Source: City of Cudahy Community Development Department
72 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
At-Risk Units includes a study of all low-income housing units, which may at some future time be lost to affordable inventory by the expiration of some type of affordability restrictions. The law requires that the analysis and study cover a ten-year period, and be divided into two periods, coinciding with updates of the housing elements.
Based on our inventory of all assisted housing units within the cityCity, three projects were identified with having a “Higher Risk” of being converted to market rate units. The projects identified as “higher risk” are Elizabeth Court, Clara Court, and Live Oaks Gardens; all owned by Corp for Better Housing. After identification of the at-risk units the cityCity contacted the owner of the projects to inquire about the potential risk of losing these units to market rate units. The owner then indicated that they had no desire to sell their units and will be renewing their contracts to continue to provide them as affordable housing units; the CityCity will contact the owner of the project to confirm their desire not to sell their units. Furthermore, the CityCity will maintain contact with owners/management of at-risk projects and on an annual basis, confirm the status of contract renewals. As well as maintain and annually update a list of all assisted housing developments. The CityCity will notify tenants of any possible modification to contract renewals affecting the status of their affordable housing units.
Table 2.12 Summary of At-Risk Units
Project Name Address Target
Group
Number
of Units
Type of
Assistance
Expiration
Date
Current Owner At-Risk
Clara Park Village 4805 Clara St Cudahy,
CA 90201
Elderly 49 Section 8 2037 National Church
Residents
Lower
Risk
Elizabeth Court 5225 Elizabeth St
Cudahy CA 90201
Low Income 25 Low-Income
Housing Tax
Credits
2013 Corp for Better
Housing
Higher
Risk
Clara Court 5159 Clara St Cudahy,
CA 90201
Low-Income 36 Low-Income
Housing Tax
Credits
2013 Corp for Better
Housing
Higher
Risk
Live Oaks Garden 5203 Live Oak St
Cudahy, CA 90201
Low-Income 32 Low-Income
Housing Tax
Credits
2015 Corp for Better
Housing
Higher
Risk
Clara Park
Commons
4805 Clara St Cudahy,
CA 90201
Low-Income 49 Low-Income
Housing Tax
Credits
2020 National Church
Residents of
Clara Commons
High Risk
Cudahy Gardens 4343 Elizabeth St
Cudahy, CA 90201
Low-Income 99 Low-Income
Housing Tax
Credits
2029 Housing Corp of
America
Lower
Risk
Source: City of Cudahy Community Development Department
73 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
Cost Of Replacement Vs Preservation
The best ways to ensure that no assisted units convert to market rate within the planning period are either to acquire and preserve all at-risk units or to construct new housing to replace those units. Either of these methods will ensure affordable controls and price restriction are extended to at-risk households under current federal, State, and local programs. In Cudahy, the cost of preserving assisted units is estimated to be less than that required to replace the units through new construction. Land prices, land availability and construction costs are generally the limiting factors to development of new affordable housing.
To provide a cost analysis of preserving at-risk units, costs must be determined for rehabilitation, new construction, or tenant-based rental assistance.
1. Rehabilitation– The primary factors used to analyze the cost of preserving low- income housing include: acquisition, rehabilitation, and financing. Actual acquisition costs depend on several variables such as condition, size, location, existing financing, and availability of financing (governmental and market). The following (Table 2.15) are estimated per unit preservation costs for the cityCity.
Table 2.15
Rehabilitation Costs
Table 2.13 Rehabilitation Costs
Fee/Cost Type Cost Per Unit
Acquisition $266,359
Total Estimated Cost Per Unit $266,359
Source: CityCity of Cudahy Community Development Department New Construction/Replacement – New construction implies construction of a new property with the same number of units and similar amenities as the one removed from the affordable housing stock. Cost estimates were prepared by using local information and data. The construction of new housing can vary greatly depend on factors such as location, density, unit sizes, construction materials and on-site and off-site improvements. The Table 2.16following table describes new construction costs in Cudahy.
2. Table 2.16
New Construction/Replacement Costs
Table 2.14 New Construction /Replacement Costs
Fee/Cost Type Cost Per Unit
Acquisition $266,359
Construction $155,058.75
74 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
Financing/Other $55,000
Total Estimated Cost Per Unit $476,417.75
Source: CityCity of Cudahy Community Development Department *Construction cost =$150/SF * 41,349SF (SF that can potentially be lost) = $6,202,350/40 units =$155,058.75 construction cost per unit.
The rehabilitation of existing units instead of new construction is the most cost-effective approach towards the preservation of at-risk units.
Qualified Entities
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) keeps a current list of all the qualified entities across the State. A “qualified entity” is a nonprofit or for-profit organization or individual that agrees to maintain the long-term affordability of housing projects.
Efforts by the CityCity to retain low-income housing must be able to draw upon two basic types of preservation resources: organizational and financial. Qualified, non-profit entities need to be made aware of the future possibilities of units becoming at risk. Groups with whom the CityCity has an ongoing association are the logical entities for future participation. The qualified entities that HCD list for (Los Angeles County) are listed below:
Table 2.17
Organizations
Table 2.15 Organizations
1. A Community of Friends 28. Jamboree Housing Corporation
2. Abbey Road Inc. 29. Keller & Company
3. Access Community Housing, Inc. 30. Korean Youth & Community Center, Inc. (KYCC)
4. Affordable Homes 31. Latin American Civic Assoc.
5. Affordable Housing People 32. Long Beach Affordable Housing Coalition, Inc
6. Century Housing Corporation 33. Los Angeles Center for Affordable Tenant Housing
7. Century Pacific Equity Corporation 34. Los Angeles Community Design Center
8. CityCity Housing Real Estate Services 35. Los Angeles Housing Department/ Policy Planning Unit
9. CityCity of Pomona Housing Authority 36. Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc.
10. Coalition for Economic Survival 37. Los Angeles Low Income Housing Corp. (LALIH)
11. Community Partnership Dev. Corp 38. LTSC Community Development Corporation
12. Community Rehabilitation Services, Inc 39. Many Mansions, Inc.
13. CSI Support & Development Services 40. Menorah Housing Foundation
14. DML & Associates Foundation 41. Nehemiah Progressive Housing Dev. Corp.
15. Doty-Burton Associates 42. Nexus for Affordable Housing
16. Eden Housing, Inc. 43. Orange Housing Development Corporation
17. FAME Housing Corporation 44. PICO UNION HOUSING CORPORATION
18. Foundation for Quality Housing 45. Poker Flats LLC
19. Opportunities, Inc. 46. ROEM Development Corporation
20. Francis R. Hardy, Jr. 47. Shelter For The Homeless
21. Hart Community Homes 48. Skid Row Housing Trust
22. Hollywood Community Housing Corp. 49. Southern California Housing Development Corp
23. Home and Community 50. Southern California Presbyterian Homes
24. Hope - Net 51. The East Los Angeles Community Union (TELACU)
25. Housing Authority of the CityCity of Los Angeles 52. The Long Beach Housing Development Co.
26. Housing Corporation of America 53. West Hollywood Community Housing Corp.
27. Irvine Housing Opportunities 54. Winnetka King, LLC Source: http://hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/tech/presrv/
75 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
2.10 OPPORTUNITY FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
Opportunity for Energy Conservation
Under State law, the Housing Element must include an analysis of the opportunities for energy conservation in residential development (Government Code Section 65583 (a)(7)). Planning for energy conservation is important for several reasons, but mainly because of the environmental costs and financial costs involved in energy use. This section of the report will discuss both factors briefly before moving on to discuss CityCity programs and strategies to reduce energy use.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as Greenhouse Gases (GHG). GHG are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. GHG emissions that are produced both by natural and industrial processes include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20).
The accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere regulates the earth's temperature. Without these natural GHG, the Earth's surface would be about 61°F cooler. However, emissions from fossil fuel combustion by humans have elevated the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere to above natural levels. Scientific evidence indicates a correlation between increasing global temperatures/climate change over the past century and human induced levels of GHG. These and other environmental changes have potentially negative environmental, economic, and social consequences around the globe.
The California Natural Resources Agency is presently developing the State's Climate Adaptation Strategy. Currently, there are no federal standards for GHG emissions and federal regulations have not been promulgated. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the harm associated with climate change are serious and well recognized, that the EPA must regulate GHG as pollutants, and unless the agency determines that GHG do not contribute to climate change, it must promulgate regulations for GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. To date, 12 states, including California, have set State GHG emission targets. The passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, promulgated the California target to achieve reductions in GHG to 1990 GHG emission levels by the year 2020. The environmental impact report (EIR) includes an evaluation of the existing greenhouse gas emissions within the planning area, those anticipated local greenhouse gas emissions anticipated at build-out under the implementation of the General Plan’s land use policy, and those estimated greenhouse gas emissions for 1990.
Utility Costs
In addition to reducing GHG emissions, planning for energy conservation can reduce utility and maintenance costs, which in turn, leads to housing affordability. This is particularly important to lower income households with less disposable income to pay for utilities. Depending on the age
76 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
and condition of the home and the number and type of appliances, energy costs can represent more than 25 percent of overall monthly housing costs. As such, the incorporation of energy saving features, energy saving materials and efficient systems in new as well as remodeled homes is an important consideration.
In the past 20 years, rapidly increasing energy costs have contributed to the deterioration of housing affordability. Since 1970, energy costs to consumers have increased over 100 percent above the price of inflation. More recently, crude oil prices have increased to over 40 dollars a barrel. It is therefore prudent for cityCity government like Cudahy to find ways and means to reduce energy consumption to reduce energy costs.
Energy Conservation
The CityCity shall consider the energy efficiency of new equipment when it purchases replacement equipment and shall purchase low energy replacements whenever feasible.
Through the CityCity's development review process, new construction shall be required to demonstrate that energy conservation measures beyond those required by Title 24 have been incorporated whenever feasible. To assist developers in knowing what options and special grants are available, the CityCity shall work with the Southern California Edison Company and the Southern California Gas Company to identify new low-cost construction, heating and appliance techniques and equipment that can result in substantial energy and cost savings for future tenants and owners. The CityCity shall make information and utility company contacts available to all applicants for building permits. The cityCity will utilize its Development Review Process to encourage the use of low-polluting building materials in new construction. It will also utilize the Development Review Process to assure that the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic and hazardous pollutants, as well as dust and odors is minimized or, where feasible, eliminated. The cityCity will revise its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines to ensure uniform assessment of air quality impacts of projects and will incorporate the SCAQMD significance thresholds in these Guidelines or into EIR's and negative declarations prepared pursuant to these Guidelines.
CityCitywide Strategies
The cityCity works to promote energy conservation in a number of ways. The Cudahy General Plan provides policy direction under which cityCity regulations, programs, and projects work in unison to ensure land use, transportation, and other aspects of CityCity operations conform to energy conservation goals. Especially for housing development, the issue of energy conservation is addressed at two levels: for new construction and rehabilitation of existing structures.
2.4 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
77 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
This portion of the Housing Needs Analysis is focused on assessing the state of fair housing in the City of Cudahy, in keeping with AB 686. California jurisdictions are required to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) through meaningful actions “that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity for all groups protected by state and federal law by:
i. Replacing segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patterns ii. Transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity (without displacement)
iii. Fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws iv. Note: meaningful actions include actions that will promote fair housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income tenants and tenants of affordable housing, including subsidized housing.” (Government Code 8899.50 (a)(1))
This analysis analyzes five housing issue areas:
1. Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity
2. Segregation and integration
3. Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty
4. Access to opportunity
5. Disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015.
Under state law, affirmatively furthering fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.”
AB 686 requires the City, and all jurisdictions in the state, to complete three major requirements as part of the housing element update:
• Conduct an Assessment of Fair Housing that includes a summary of fair housing issues, an analysis of available federal, state, and local data knowledge to identify patterns of segregation or other barriers to fair housing, and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues.
• Prepare the Housing Element Land Inventory and identification of sites through the lens of affirmatively furthering fair housing.
• Include a program in the Housing Element that affirmatively furthers fair housing and promotes housing opportunities throughout the community for protected classes and addresses contributing factors identified in the AFH (applies to Housing Elements beginning January 1, 2019).
Outreach
78 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
The Housing Element was prepared with public outreach and participation to the extent permissible under the restrictions of Covid 19. All public outreach activities and materials, verbal, written, zoom meetings, and participation at community events are provided in both English and Spanish. To ensure the broadest community involvement, particularly among low-income and special needs groups, the City used several strategies, including public workshops, public hearings, focused stakeholder meeting, dedicated website, article in the City’s monthly newsletter, and community survey. Additional information on the outreach efforts is discussed in more detail in Section 1.6 Public Outreach of this Housing Element.
The City held a public workshop in August 2021, a stakeholder meeting in August 2021, Planning Commission public hearing in January 2022, and two City Council public hearings, one in February 2022 and one in March 2022. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all public workshops, hearings, and stake holder meeting were held virtually, which enabled community members and interested parties to attend regardless of their location. The City established a format that provided the option to call in the meeting from a landline or cell phone to participate regardless of their access to the internet to view the meeting live. The power point presentations and meeting recordings were posted on the City’s website following the workshop and public hearings.
The City conducted a virtual meeting to engage with service providers, community organizations, and local businesses. The purpose of the meeting was to solicit direct feedback on housing needs, barriers to fair and affordable housing, and opportunities for development from all community groups, not just those who are able to attend the public workshop and public hearings. The participants included several interested parties including the owner of a local bakery, a residential developer, a representative from the East Yard Communities for Economic Justice, a local school principal, and an executive from a utility company.
Additional efforts to engage the community in the preparation of the Housing Element included an article in the City’s monthly newsletter and a Housing Element community survey. The Housing Element Community Survey was conducted to engage the community at the beginning of the Housing Element update process, to provide input, and to be a part of the preparation of the update. The questions were formulated to get an understanding of who was participating in the survey, identification of the housing issues facing the City, and options to address the housing issues. Interested parties could complete the Survey online, at the City’s website. To further efforts to reach as many citizens as possible, hard copies of the survey were provided at all City facilities including: the Senior Center, City Hall, Parks & Recreation facilities, National Night Out, and Food Distribution events. Through the Housing Element Community Survey, the following two housing issues were identified as concerns of residents: the need for more affordable housing and homelessness in Cudahy.
Additionally, in 2021 the City distributed a community survey regarding the potential adoption of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. While most of the survey did not pertain to fair housing issues, a couple of the survey’s questions revealed concerns of residents related to AFFH issues.
79 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
These concerns include a need for affordable housing in Cudahy, a need to rehabilitate existing housing in Cudahy, and a need to integrate affordable housing throughout the City to create mixed income neighborhoods.
The City understands the concerns of residents identified through the two community surveys.
Through the programs of this Housing Element, the City addresses the community’s housing concerns.
Generally, residents expressed a great need for affordable housing in Cudahy. This Element includes several programs addressing the production of affordable housing in the City. Through Program 29 (Implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Program), the City shall begin implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Program to include a requirement that all residential and mixed-use projects throughout the City with a residential component include affordable housing units. With Program 5 (Affordable Housing Incentives), the City commits to encouraging the development of affordable housing units in Cudahy. The City will accomplish this by conducting outreach to developers (both market rate and affordable), streamlining the permit process to low-income and senior housing projects, streamlining environmental review for eligible Inclusionary Housing projects, providing technical assistance to affordable housing developers, and providing developers with a list of affordable housing financing sources. In Program 31 (Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee), a Committee of the City Council will study adoption of rent stabilization and tenant protection ordinances for the City of Cudahy. The City has currently enacted a rent increase moratorium on multifamily housing, through April 2023 to give the Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee time to complete its study and for the City Council to take appropriate action.
A series of programs in this Housing Element address the need to rehabilitate housing. Through Program 8 (Housing Maintenance and Conservation) of the City will continue the program for the maintenance and conservation of the existing housing stock through the sixth cycle. Program 8 specifically targets the conservation of older housing units which are in good condition to maintain the units as affordable housing options. Through Program 13 (Code Enforcement) the City shall continue code enforcement each year of the sixth cycle, focusing on property maintenance, substandard units, and illegal garage conversions. Program 23 (Housing Conditions Survey) of this Element shall conduct a survey in 2023 to identify the number of units in need to rehabilitation and replacement. Lastly, the Element’s Program 32 (First Time Homebuyers) will promote homeownership in the City, which should improve conditions of housing in Cudahy as owner occupied units are more likely to well-maintained as owners wish to maintain the value of their investment.
Residents also identified homelessness in the City as a key concern. This Element includes several programs addressing homelessness. Through Program 9 (Hotel and Motel Resources) the City shall preserve 160 hotel and motel rooms as an emergency housing resource for homeless residents. To encourage the use of hotels by "homeless" individuals, the City continuously works with hotel managers on making rooms available for emergency/transitional housing and makes
80 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
community service agencies in the area aware of the facilities. With Program 11 (Emergency, Transitional, and Supportive Housing) the City is committed to prioritizing funding and other available incentives for projects that provide housing for homeless and extremely low-income residents whenever possible. Through Program 24 (Low Barrier Navigation Centers) the City shall review the City’s mixed use and non-residential zones that permit multifamily residential uses and amend the permitted uses sections of the appropriate zone districts to include low barrier navigation centers, in compliance with statutory requirements. Lastly, Program 17 (Food Distribution) and Program 18 (Homeless Assistance) both provide City assistance to homeless residents in the form of free meals and referrals to service providers.
Additionally, for the purpose of this AFFH analysis, the City conducted outreach in the form of a set of questions to various stakeholders, including supportive services City staff and supportive service organizations to which the City refers residents (including The Whole Child, Jovenes, PATH and SHARE Housing). The City and consultant obtained answers to the AFFH questions from the City’s Supportive Services Coordinator along with Jovenes’ SPA 7 Regional Coordinator. Through Program 15, City will continue to conduct annual outreach starting in 2023 to stakeholders in an effort to obtain information regarding affirmatively furthering fair housing in Cudahy. As the City receives feedback from stakeholders, the City will annually examine and implement changes to City policies that might address and alleviate fair housing issues. Throughout this AFFH analysis, the local data and knowledge gained from the City’s Supportive Services Coordinator and Jovenes’ SPA 7 Regional Coordinator will be included where applicable.
The City maintains a distribution list of stakeholder organizations, interested private citizens and public agencies, posts public information on the City’s website and at the physical location of the meetings, and issues press releases. The venues for the public meetings were ADA accessible and served by public transportation. The City also advertised meetings, public hearings, and availability of the Housing Element in the City’s monthly newsletter. The main concerns expressed by the community were the City’s ability to provide the units identified in the RHNA for the various household income categories, provide more affordable housing, increase opportunities for homeownership, provide more diverse housing opportunities, housing for homeless individuals, and residential properties are not being maintained.
The Housing Element was prepared with public outreach and participation to the extent permissible under the restrictions of Covid 19. All public outreach activities and materials, verbal, written, zoom meetings, and participation at community events are provided in both English and Spanish. To ensure the broadest community involvement, particularly among low-income and special needs groups, the City used several strategies, including public workshops, public hearings, focused stakeholder meeting, dedicated website, article in the City’s monthly newsletter, and community survey. Additional information on the outreach efforts is discussed in more detail in Section 1.6 Public Outreach of this Housing Element.
The City held a public workshop in August, a stake holder meeting in August, Planning Commission public hearing in January, and two City Council public hearings, one in February and
81 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
one in March. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all public workshops, hearings, and stake holder meeting were held virtually, which enabled community members and interested parties to attend regardless of their location. The City established a format that provided the option to call in the meeting from a landline or cell phone to participate regardless of their access to the internet to view the meeting live. The power point presentations and meeting recordings were posted on the City’s website following the workshop and public hearings.
The City conducted a virtual meeting to engage with service providers, community organizations, and local businesses. The purpose of the meeting was to solicit direct feedback on housing needs, barriers to fair and affordable housing, and opportunities for development from all community groups, not just those who are able to attend the public workshop and public hearings. The participants included several interested parties including the owner of a local bakery, a residential developer, a representative from the East Yard Communities for Economic Justice, a local school principal, and an executive from a utility company.
Additional efforts to engage the community in the preparation of the Housing Element included an article in the City’s monthly newsletter and a community survey. The Community Survey was conducted to engage the community at the beginning of the Housing Element update process, to provide input, and to be a part of the preparation of the update. The questions were formulated to get an understanding of who was participating in the survey, identification of the housing issues facing the City, and options to address the housing issues. Interested parties could complete the Survey online, at the City’s website. To further efforts to reach as many citizens as possible, hard copies of the survey were provided at all City facilities including: the Senior Center, City Hall, Parks & Recreation facilities, National Night Out, and Food Distribution events.
The City maintains a distribution list of stakeholder organizations, interested private citizens and public agencies, posts public information on the City’s website and at the physical location of the meetings, and issues press releases. The venues for the public meetings were ADA accessible and served by public transportation. The City also advertised meetings, public hearings, and availability of the Housing Element in the City’s monthly newsletter. The main concerns expressed by the community were the City’s ability to provide the units identified in the RHNA for the various household income categories, provide more affordable housing, increase opportunities for homeownership, provide more diverse housing opportunities, housing for homeless individuals, and residential properties are not being maintained.
82 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity
The City of Cudahy’s Supportive Service Coordinator provided information on fair housing complaints the City receives. The Coordinator found that typical fair housing complaints received by the City revolved around either rent increases or substandard housing conditions. For substandard complaints the Coordinator stated these complaints occur because homeowners will not make repairs for renters or the owner requests that the renter pay for repairs. The Coordinator estimates that the City receives around 156 fair housing complaints per year. The Supportive Services Coordinator found that the majority of fair housing complainants are low income, and some are seniors. No specific neighborhood was found to be the origin of a disproportionate number of fair housing complaints. Additionally, HCD’s AFFH viewer indicates that Cudahy has a low incidence of fair housing related cases, 0.04 cases per 1,000 residents from 2013-2021.
One reason for the low number of fair housing complaints in Cudahy is the ethnic homogeneity of the community, which provides less opportunities for housing discrimination. Another reason may be the high level of non-English speakers and persons with low educational level who are not aware of fair housing protections. Cudahy has a large immigrant population, and according to local sources, a large undocumented immigrant population. Cudahy continues to provide City services in English and Spanish and will continue this practice through Program 15 Public Participation. According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS), 7,190 persons (30% of the population) are foreign born and have not been naturalized as U.S. citizens. A large proportion of these people may have no legal status in the country and may be afraid to file complaints against landlords, realtors, or other people in positions of power.
The City enforces fair housing and complies with fair housing laws and regulation through a twofold process: review of City policies and code for compliance with State law and referring fair housing complaints to appropriate agencies. The City will continue to review the Zoning Code to ensure compliance with fair housing law, and continue to examine land use policies, permitting practices, and building codes to comply with state and federal fair housing laws through Program 28 (Zoning Code Review).
In addition to assessing fair housing issues related to development standards, fair housing issues can also include discriminatory behaviors by landlords such as refusal to grant reasonable accommodation requests, not allowing service animals, discrimination against familial status, sex, religion, or other protected class, and more. The City manages a Citizens Complaint Log on the Cities website https://www.Cityofcudahy.com/FormCenter/Public-Safety-Services6/Complaint-Violation-Reporting-Form-48 The “other” category on the log can be used to file fair housing complaints. The City reviews the complaints and refers the complaint to the appropriate City Department or service agency. The City would refer any complaints, depending on the nature of the complaint to one or more of the following service agencies: the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the Fair Housing Foundation, the State Department of Consumer Affairs, and the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles. The City will continue Program 16 (Fair
83 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
Housing) which includes posting and providing fair housing information in the City, including proactive dissemination of information and complaint contact information The number of fair housing complaints is small and are no discernable patterns when it comes to the impacts on protected characteristics and geographic trends. The entirety of Cudahy is predominantly occupied by lower-income Latino families.
Within the Southeast Los Angeles Cities region, the frequency of fair housing complaints is similar to the frequency in Cudahy. The surrounding cities of Bell, Bell Gardens, Downey, South Gate, and Huntington Park feature higher frequencies of fair housing complaints that the City of Cudahy. Assessment of Fair Housing
State Government Code Section 6558(10)(A)(ii) requires the City of Cudahy to analyze areas of segregation, racially or ethically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs including displacement risk. The City of Cudahy is characteristic of a community with a high level of poverty dispersed throughout the City, with challenges for access to opportunity due to a predominate Hispanic population, low education rates, income, and high housing costs.
Patterns of IntegrationSegregation and Integration and Segregation According to HCD’s AFFH Guidance segregation “means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic status.” Integration means a condition in which there is not a concentration of any type of persons.
Race
Cudahy is a predominately Latino community with Latinos comprising 95.2% of the City’s residents. The City’s White population is 3.1% and the Black/African American population is 0.7%.
According to HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer, all Census tracts within the City feature a strong Latino majority.
The majority of Census tracts within the Southeast Los Angeles Cities region also feature a strong Latino majority. Directly surrounding the City of Cudahy, the predominance of the Latino majority is strongest. Moving South, West, and East of Cudahy the predominance of the Latino majority lessens; however, it remains significant.
History of the City of Cudahy
The reasons for this pattern are many, and stem from historical and regional factors. The City of Cudahy was incorporated in November 1960. Prior to its incorporation, the City was known as Rancho San Antonio. Rancho San Antonio was purchased by Michael Cudahy, an Irish American
84 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
meatpacking baron, in 1908. Michael Cudahy split Rancho San Antonio into one acre lots and sold them. These one acre lots were incredibly narrow, often measuring 50 to 100 feet in width and. 600 to 800 feet in depth. Interestingly, this narrow parcel typology remains prevalent in Cudahy, though on a much smaller scale. In most cases, these one acre lots were the size of a city block in most American towns. The size of these lots was optimal for small scale agriculture as well as raising chickens and horses. Up until World War II, Cudahy retained a rural feel in an increasingly urban region.
After World War II, blue collar White Americans settled in Cudahy due to its proximity to steel and automobile plants in the region. However, by the late 1970s the industrial plants closed down and the White population of Cudahy left the City. When jobs left, the White population left as the Southeast Los Angeles Cities region was generally disfavored due to its close proximity to industrial contaminants. Following this exodus of the White population, the Latino population moved into Cudahy. As noted earlier, today Cudahy features a majority Latino population.
Figure 2.18 – Redlining Map of Cudahy. Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer.
Since the City of Cudahy was only incorporated in 1960, redlining would not have been based on the City as we now recognize. Because the area was rural during the 1930’s, most of it was unclassified by the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC), except for the northwest area of the City (with a grade of Class C – “Definitely Declining”). The surrounding Southeast Los Angeles Cities region is either unclassified, or classified as either Class B – “Still Desirable” or Class C –
85 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
“Definitely Declining”, with Class C being far more prevalent. Moving further west of Cudahy, the prevalence of Class C – “Definitely Declining” and Class D – “Hazardous” areas increases.
In the decades following World War II, the White population, particularly those of means, began to decamp the Southeast Los Angeles Cities region for Orange County and other more suburban jurisdictions. During the 1970s, a large, sustained wave of immigration from Latin America began and filled in the neighborhoods in central Los Angeles County that had been abandoned by the White population. More affluent cities and neighborhoods of the metropolitan area enacted stringent zoning regulations to stop population growth and severely curtail the opportunities for residents of Cudahy and similar cities to move into attainable housing in those jurisdictions. Thus, the population of Cudahy has remained highly segregated to the present day.
Median Household Income and Poverty
The entire City of Cudahy features a medium household income (ACS 2015-2019) above $30,000 and below $50,000. There is little difference in median household income when comparing the City’s block groups. Cudahy is significantly poorer than the Los Angeles County region as a whole, with a median household income of $46,642 compared to the County at $68,044 (ACS 2015- 2019). According to 2015-2019 ACS 5-Year data, in the Southeast Los Angeles Cities region the median household income ranges from under $30,000 to $125,000. Closest to Cudahy the median household incomes are lower, ranging from under $30,000 to $87,100. As one moves further Southeast towards Downey the median household income increases, with the majority block groups featuring a median household income of over $87,100.
According to 2015-2019 ACS 5-Year data the rates of poverty within Cudahy Census tracts range from 20% to 40% of the population. The two tracts with the highest rates of poverty are located on the eastern end of the City, along the I-710. Within the Southeast Los Angeles Cities region, the cities of Bell, Bell Gardens, and Huntington Park have similar rates of poverty. However, in the cities of Downey, South Gate, and Lynwood the poverty rates are lower, ranging from under 10% to 30%. Based on the City’s high poverty rate the City has updated Program 6 (CDBG Information) which includes coordination with the County Housing Authority and the housing voucher program. The Food Distribution event is very popular and during the COVID-19 pandemic the City adjusted distribution methods to be in compliance with State and Federal regulations.
The City has included continuation of Program 17 (Food Distribution) to ensure that low-income residents receive meals and healthy choices.
Based on HUD’s Low to Moderate Income Population Census Tract Data from the AFFH Data Viewer, Census tracts in the City of Cudahy feature a population that is 61.92 to 91.17% low- and moderate-income. All but two census tracts in Cudahy feature a population which is over 75% low and moderate income. The two census tracts in the City which feature a population which is
61.92 to 75% low and moderate income are located in the northwestern corner of the City, bordering Bell and Huntington Park. Based on the same data, within the Southeast Los Angeles Cities region many cities feature similarly high concentrations of low- and moderate-income
86 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
households. However, towards the City of Downey the percent of low income and moderate populations does decline.
Demographics reveal that the majority of residents in the City of Cudahy would benefit from affordable housing development in the City. Based on information from the Los Angeles County Development Authority there are no recognized public housing buildings in the City of Cudahy.
However, eligible City residents are able to access affordable housing through the Section 8 Program. It is up to eligible residents to locate participating housing units owned by landlord who will accept Section 8 vouchers. The locations of voucher recipients are identified by Census Tract; however, tracts with 10 or fewer voucher holders are not identified. Citywide there are 168 voucher recipients. There are six Census Tracts in the City of Cudahy, and in five of the Tracts there are more than 10 voucher recipients.
The City’s efforts to increase housing opportunity and improve the quality of existing housing units and neighborhoods are therefore Citywide in nature. Within this Housing Element, programs 27 and 29 include efforts to increase housing opportunity. As part of Program 27 (State Density Bonus Law) the City commits to reviewing City’s density bonus standards and amending the Zoning Code as necessary to comply with State Density Bonus Law. State Density Bonus law would impact the entirety of the City, with no particular concentrations. Through Program 29 (Implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Program and Economic Development Strategic Plan), the City commits to implementing the Inclusionary Housing Program adopted in 2022 which will create affordable housing throughout the City, and not create concentrated areas of poverty. This Housing Element’s Program 8 (Housing Maintenance and Conservation) commits to improving the quality of existing housing units and neighborhoods. Specifically, Program 8 is an effort to conserve older housing units throughout the City which are typically more affordable housing options.
Disability
According to 2015-2019 ACS 5-Year data from HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer, all but one Census tract within the City of Cudahy contains less than 10% of residents who are disabled. The Census tract which has over 10%, 11.3% specifically, of residents who are disabled is located in the middle of the City to the North, bordering the City of Bell. Based on 2015-2019 ACS 5-Year data, the City of Cudahy’s population is approximately 7.8% disabled. Within the Southeast Los Angeles Cities region, the percent of each city’s population with a disability remained low, ranging from 0% to 20%. Census tracts with higher percentages of disabled residents only existed to the North, in and around Downtown Los Angeles.
Statute requires analysis of specialized housing needs, including housing needs for seniors.
Federal housing data define a household type as 'elderly family' if it consists of two persons with either or both age 62 or over. Of Cudahy's 396 such households, 61.9% earn less than 30% of the surrounding area income, (compared to 24.2% in the SCAG region), 82.1% earn less than 50% of the surrounding area income (compared to 30.9% in the SCAG region). According to the 2020 Census, the median age of City residents was 23.8 years of age compared to 33.7 years of age for
87 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
Los Angeles County. Currently the median age is 27, showing a shifting trend from a predominantly younger age group of 23.8 in 2000 to the current 2020 age group of 27. Program 20 (Senior Shared Housing) and Program 21 (Persons with Special Needs) are incorporated into this element to provide housing information and assistance with locating housing in the City.
Additional Programs addressing special needs include Program 9 (Hotel and Motel Resources), Program 10 (Development Standards to All Uses) (this includes development, maintenance, and improvement of Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing, and Supportive Housing), Program 11 (Emergency, Transitional and Supportive Housing), Program 16 (Fair Housing), Program 18 (Homeless Assistance), Program 19 (Disability Access), and Program 25 (Single Room Occupancy Units).
Supportive Services and Organizations
The City’s Supportive Services Coordinator assists many of Cudahy’s low income residents and senior residents. The City assists these residents in need by referring them out to service providers and other service organizations. The City refers residents out to the Department of Social Services (DPSS), People Assisting The Homeless (PATH), The Whole Child, Salvation Army, Catholic Charities of L.A., Jovenes, L.A. County Department of Mental Health, Housing Rights Center (HRC), Exodus Recovery, and Maravilla Foundation. These organizations all have different focuses in terms of the types of residents they serve, such as families, residents in need of mental health services, homeless residents, low-income residents, homeless youth, tenants, residents experiencing addiction, and more.
The Supportive Services Coordinator refers about 180 residents to social service providers and organizations per year. The Coordinator notes the most prevalent issues faced by residents who are referred out include rental arrears, utility arrears, evictions, homelessness, and mental or substance abuse issues. The majority (80%) of residents referred out to service provides are lowincome, while 10% are seniors and the other 10% are residents experiencing homelessness.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this segregation and integration analysis found that Cudahy is remarkably similar to other cities in the Southeast Los Angeles Cities region. The surrounding region is significantly less well-off compared to the larger County. Within the City of Cudahy, the only segregation and integration indicator which isolates a portion of the City is the poverty indicator, which found that the eastern portion of the City (next to the Los Angeles River and I-710) features higher rates of poverty than the rest of the City. During preparation of this Housing Element the City reviewed information pertaining to segregation. According to the American Community Survey (ACS), 22.7 percent of Cudahy’s households are experiencing poverty, compared to 7.9 percent of households in the SCAG region. Based on the City’s high poverty rate the City has updated Program 6 CDBG Information which includes coordination with the County Housing Authority and the housing voucher program. The Food Distribution event is very popular and during the COVID19 pandemic the City adjusted distribution methods to be in compliance with State and Federal regulations. The City has included continuation of Program 17 Food Distribution to ensure that low-income residents receive meals and healthy choices.
88 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
In Los Angeles County the Los Angeles County Development Authority manages public housing programs for the City of Cudahy and other Gateway cities in the region. Based on information from the Lost Angeles County Development Authority there are no recognized public housing buildings in the City of Cudahy. However, this does not preclude City residents from access to housing in the City, as the City is enrolled in the Section 8 program offered through the State of California and Los Angeles County. Housing Choice Vouchers are issued to recipients who then can find a suitable housing unit, be it a single-family home, townhome, or apartment unit.
Location of residential units with vouchers are identified by Census Tract; however, tracts with 10 or fewer voucher holders are not identified. Citywide there were 168 voucher recipients.
There are six Census Tracts in the City of Cudahy, and in five of the Tracts there are voucher recipients. The highest number of voucher recipients was 59, which represented 8.44% of the population in that Tract. Based on this information, there is no area of concentrated poverty in the City. In 2022 the City adopted an Inclusionary Housing Program to provide opportunities for affordable housing throughout the City, and not create concentrated areas of poverty.
Cudahy is a predominately Hispanic/Latino community with Hispanic/Latinos comprising 95.2% of the City’s residents. The City’s White population is 3.1% and the Black/African American population is 0.7%. Cudahy also has a large immigrant population, and according to local sources, a large undocumented immigrant population. Cudahy continues to provide City services in English and Spanish and will continue this practice through Program 15 Public Participation.
There are no ethnic concentrations in neighborhoods as the entire City has a high concentration of Hispanic/Latino citizens. Cudahy is a family community. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) data indicates that the current City of Cudahy household size is 5 persons per household. This is 32% higher than the State of California average persons per household.
Cudahy’s female headed households represent 24.5% of the City’s households (compared to
14.3% in the SCAG region); 15.8% are female-headed and with children (compared to 6.6% in the SCAG region), and 1.4% are female-headed with children under 6 (compared to 1.0% in the SCAG region). With a low vacancy rate of 2.82% families, including female headed households, face challenges finding places to live. In 2022 the City adopted an Inclusionary Housing Program requiring construction of affordable units as part of any residential and mixed use with residential component projects. Given that the City is nearly built out, limiting opportunities for new development, the City has included Program 3 Accessory Dwelling Units to encourage construction of additional housing on existing sites.
Statute requires analysis of specialized housing needs, including housing needs for seniors.
Federal housing data define a household type as 'elderly family' if it consists of two persons with either or both age 62 or over. Of Cudahy's 396 such households, 61.9% earn less than 30% of the surrounding area income, (compared to 24.2% in the SCAG region), 82.1% earn less than 50% of the surrounding area income (compared to 30.9% in the SCAG region). According to the 2020 Census, the median age of City residents was 23.8 years of age compared to 33.7 years of age for Los Angeles County. Currently the median age is 27, showing a shifting trend from a predominantly younger age group of 23.8 in 2000 to the current 2020 age group of 27. Program
89 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
20 Senior Shared Housing and Program 21 Persons with Special Needs are incorporated into this element to provide housing information and assistance with locating housing in the City.
Additional Programs include Program 9 Hotel and Motel Resources, Program 10 Development Standards to All Uses (this includes development, maintenance, and improvement of Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing, and Supportive Housing), Program 11 Emergency, Transitional and Supportive Housing, Program 16 Fair Housing, Program 18 Homeless Assistance, Program 19 Disability Access, and Program 25 Single Room Occupancy Units.
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, also known as R/ECAPs, must meet the following definitions: 1) The area must have a non-White population of 50% or more and 2) The area must have 40% or more of the population living below the federal poverty line, or those where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate in the metropolitan area, whichever is less. In the surrounding Southeast Los Angeles Cities region, the cities of Bell and Huntington Park have one and two R/ECAP tracts, respectively. The number of R/ECAP tracts increases markedly to the west, in City of Los Angeles along the I-110 freeway corridor.
Based on HUD’s R/ECAP data from HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer, no Census tract in the City of Cudahy qualifies as a racially and ethnically concentrated area of poverty. According to 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates) data, 26.2% of Cudahy residents are experiencing poverty. The poverty rate in Cudahy is significantly higher than in the County of Los Angeles, wherein 14.9% of County residents are experiencing poverty according to the same data set.
High Segregation and Poverty Tracts
Despite the absence of R/ECAPS in the City, the Fair Housing Task Force, made up of the California Tax Allocation Committee (TCAC) and HCD, has identified tracts of high segregation and poverty in Cudahy. These two tracts are located in the eastern portion of the City, closest to the I-710 freeway. Tract 5338.06 is located on the easternmost end of the City. This tract includes the right of way in Cudahy which borders the I-710 freeway, the I-710 freeway, and residential areas in the City of Bell. Therefore, since this tract does not include any residences in Cudahy, this high segregation and poverty analysis will only evaluate Tract 5343.02. Tract 5343.02 is located in the southeastern portion of the City, close to the I-710 freeway and abutting the City of South Gate.’
90 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
Figure 2.19 – High Segregation and Poverty Tracts in Cudahy. Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer.
According to high segregation and poverty measurement, the threshold for poverty is 30% of the population living below the poverty line and the location quotient is essentially a measure of the concentration of race in a small area compared to a county level. Tract 5343.02 has a Latino population with a strong majority, at 96.6%, which is common throughout the entire City. The poverty rate for this tract is 31.2%, which is the highest poverty rate for a Census tract in the City.
It also features low levels of educational attainment; it ranks the lowest of all six tracts in residents with a high school diploma or higher and in residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher.
91 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AMENDMENT
Median Household Income, Household Size, Familial Status, and Disability In most other respects, however, Tract 5343.02 resembles the City at large. It has a median household income of $49,833 which is higher than the City’s median household income of $46,642 (although much lower than the County’s median household income of $68,044). It ranks 5th among the City’s six Census tracts, in terms of the number of foreign born non-naturalized residents. Tract 5343.02 ranks 3rd among the City’s six Census tracts, in terms of the largest average household size, with an average household size of 4.46 people. This average household size is similar to the City average household size of 4.2 people and far larger than the Los Angeles County average household size of 2.99 people. In regard to female headed households (no spouse/partner present) with children, tract 5343.02 ranks third highest compared to all six City Census tracts. Tract 5343.02 ranks fifth highest in the City with 175 households with one or more persons 65 years of age and over. The high segregation and poverty tract ranks 4th out of the six tracts (1 meaning the highest percentage of disabled residents and 6 meaning the lowest percentage of disabled residents) in terms in the percentage of disabled residents among the six Census tracts in the City.
Housing Quality, Park Need
Based on a windshield survey, the condition of residential buildings within the City’s high segregation and poverty tract is similar to the condition of residential buildings in non-high segregation and poverty tracts throughout the City of Cudahy. Generally, access to parks and open spaces within the City of Cudahy is low for residents. According to the Parks Needs Assessment for the City of Cudahy there are four parks in the City: Lugo Park on the western side of the City, Clara Park in the northern central portion of the City, River Pocket Park in the far eastern portion of the City, and Cudahy Park in the southeastern corner of the City (located within high segregation and poverty tract 5343.02). These four parks amount in 19.8 park acres in the City, which amounts to 0.8 park acres per 1,000 residents in Cudahy. This 0.8 park acres to 1,000 residents ratio is extremely low compared to the County average of 3.3 park acres per 1,000 residents. However, since the City is relatively small, approximately 82% of Cudahy residents live within a half mile of a park. The countywide average is 49% of County residents living within a half mile of park.
The same Parks Needs Assessment found the park need across the City. The assessment calculates park need by taking into account park acre need, distance to parks, and population density. According to the park need map, the entire City of Cudahy features either a very high park need or high park need. The City’s one high segregation and poverty tracts features very high park need (even though this tract contains Cudahy Park), as do the areas around most of the edges of the City. The central portion of the City features high park need. Generally, within the Southeast Los Angeles Cities region park need is high and very high, while areas outside of the Southeast Los Angeles Cities region feature lower rates of park need.
Cudahy Park, located within the high segregation and poverty tract, serves as a hub for community events and activities. The park features the following amenities: a playground, basketball courts, meeting rooms, a multipurpose grass field, open space, picnic tables, a skate