“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” and reduce vehicle miles traveled, we recommend the implementation of a TDM ordinance, as an alternative to requiring car parking.
If you have any questions, please contact project coordinator Anthony Higgins, at [email protected] and refer to GTS# 07-LA-2021-03682.
Sincerely,
Miya Edmonson
IGR/CEQA Branch Chief
cc: State Clearinghouse
November 30, 2020
Mayor James Gazeley
City of Lomita
24300 Narbonne Avenue
Lomita, CA 90717
Dear Mayor Gazeley,
We are writing on behalf of Abundant Housing LA regarding Lomita’s upcoming 6th Cycle housing element update. Abundant Housing LA is a pro-housing education and advocacy organization working to help solve Southern California’s housing crisis. We support efforts to reform zoning codes and expand housing production, which are needed to reduce rents, improve access to jobs and transit, strengthen the local economy and job market, and combat segregation. We have a large and growing membership base throughout Los Angeles County.
California has a statewide housing shortage of nearly 3.5 million homes, and has the highest poverty rate in the nation after accounting for housing costs. Households at all levels of income face a historically high rent burden. Exclusionary zoning and longstanding constraints on denser housing have led to an undersupply of medium and high density housing near jobs and transit.
This contributes to high rents and displacement of households.
Over the past few years, new state laws (e.g. AB 686 (2018), SB 166 (2017), AB 1397 (2017), SB 828 (2018), SB 35 (2017), etc.) have strengthened the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which sets a housing growth target for individual jurisdictions and requires jurisdictions to update their housing elements in order to achieve these targets.
These changes to state law have led to historically high jurisdiction-level housing growth targets in the upcoming 6th Cycle Housing Element Planning Cycle, and have empowered the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to enforce appropriately high standards for housing element updates. We are encouraged that Lomita was given a target of 827 new homes, of which 361 must be affordable to lower-income households.
As jurisdictions start the housing element update process, AHLA seeks to provide guidance on how jurisdictions should fulfill both the letter and the spirit of housing element law. Unfortunately, some jurisdictions are already seeking to skirt their obligation to sufficiently plan to meet their housing needs. AHLA will scrutinize jurisdictions’ housing elements, submit comments to HCD as needed, and collaborate closely with nonprofits that bring legal action against jurisdictions that fail to comply with state housing laws.
Of course, AHLA recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic devastation have made it more difficult for jurisdictions to meet ambitious RHNA targets. But the pandemic has made it even more critical than ever for jurisdictions to solve the region’s housing crisis and 1 encourage economic recovery. We seek to collaborate with you and your team on policy efforts to achieve the RHNA goals.
To that end, we have published a memo, Requirements and Best Practices for Housing Element Updates: The Site Inventory, explaining the key legal requirements, as well as HCD and AHLA’s recommended best practices, for housing element updates. Additionally, this checklist provides a summary of our core policy recommendations. We respectfully encourage you to incorporate the concepts detailed in these documents into Lomita’s housing element update.
As your team begins to develop Lomita’s housing element update, we would like to draw particular attention to four critical components of the site inventory analysis:
1. Incorporating an estimate of the likelihood of development and the net new units if developed of inventory sites
2. Using an HCD-recommended “safe harbor” methodology for forecasting future ADU production
3. Prioritizing high-opportunity census tracts and well-resourced areas (e.g. near transit, jobs, schools, parks, etc.) when selecting sites for lower-income housing opportunities, in order to affirmatively further fair housing
4. Including the HCD-recommended buffer of at least 15-30% extra capacity in the site inventory, in order to avoid violating the No Net Loss requirement Component #1: Housing elements should estimate and report both the likelihood of development and the net new units if developed of inventory sites.
Just because jurisdictions zone for more housing doesn’t mean that the housing will actually be built. The economic cycle, uncertainty of market conditions, the current usage of nonvacant sites, and land use regulations all influence the extent to which rezoned parcels are built to their maximum theoretical capacity.
A parcel’s maximum theoretical capacity is not the same as its realistic capacity. To draw a parallel to college admissions, when UCLA wants 2,000 students in its incoming class, they admit 4,000 students. Similarly, to achieve housing production targets, jurisdictions must increase zoned capacity well above the target number of new homes.
An accurate assessment of site capacity is necessary in order for the housing element to achieve sufficient housing production. The site capacity estimate should account for the following two factors:
● What is the likelihood that the site will be developed during the planning period? ● If the site were to be developed during the planning period, how many net new units of housing are likely to be built on it?
2 These are the likelihood of development and net new units if developed factors, as 1 2 required by HCD guidelines. The portion of the jurisdiction’s RHNA target that a site will realistically accommodate during the planning period is:
(likelihood of development) x (net new units if developed) = realistic capacity.
In past planning cycles, the likelihood of development factor was not expressly considered; housing elements frequently assumed that most or all site inventory locations would be redeveloped to their maximum theoretical capacity. Since this generally did not happen, jurisdictions consistently fell short of their RHNA targets as a result. While Lomita achieved its 5th cycle RHNA targets for very low, low, and moderate income housing, this is because the 5th cycle RHNA goal was extremely low -- just 27 homes!
5th Cycle RHNA Targets vs. Actual Housing Production (2014-19) According to Lomita’s 5th cycle housing element, the city had theoretical capacity for roughly 290 more housing units. Through 2019, Lomita permitted 105 housing units , which equates to 3 4 140 housing units permitted by the end of the 5th cycle (assuming that the same annual permitting pace continues in 2020 and 2021). This implies that in Lomita, excess zoned capacity has a 48% likelihood of being developed (140 actual units divided by 290 theoretical units).
Lomita’s 6th cycle housing element should incorporate this likelihood of development estimate into its site inventory analysis. This would be consistent with HCD guidelines, while also 5 ensuring that enough zoned capacity is available to encourage 827 housing units to be built by the end of the 6th cycle. Assuming that zoned capacity has a 48% likelihood of being developed in the next 8 years, the housing element must allow for 1,723 units of zoned capacity in order to achieve 827 actual housing units. If Planning believes that a higher likelihood of 1 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 20
2 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 21
3 Lomita 5th Cycle Housing Element
4 HCD Annual Progress Report dataset, 2020
5 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 20
3 Income Bucket RHNA Target Homes Permitted
VLI 12 0
LI 7 9
MI 8 35
AMI 20 61
Total 47 105
development (and thus a smaller zoned capacity increase) is justified for certain parcels in the site inventory, persuasive data to support this assumption must be provided.6 Component #2: Housing element updates should use an HCD-recommended “safe harbor” methodology for forecasting future ADU production.
Local jurisdictions frequently use overly optimistic estimates of future ADU production to avoid necessary housing reform and rezoning. ADU development estimates must reflect actual on-the-ground conditions to ensure that they are realistic. Overly aggressive ADU production estimates set jurisdictions up for failure in providing the required housing for residents.
To that end, HCD has established two safe harbors for forecasting ADU production during the 6th Cycle . One option (“Option #1”) is to project forward the local trend in ADU construction 7 since January 2018. The other, for use when no other data is available (“Option #2”), assumes ADU production at five times the local rate of production prior to 2018. Jurisdictions are also permitted to include programs that aggressively promote and incentivize ADU construction.
Where no other data is available, jurisdictions may assume an average increase of five times the previous planning period construction trends prior to 2018. Jurisdictions may also use regional ADU production trends, and include programs that aggressively promote and incentivize ADU construction. Jurisdictions should clearly and explicitly state their methodology and data sources for future ADU development forecasts.
According to HCD, Lomita issued permits for 2 ADUs in 2017, 3 ADUs in 2018, and 7 ADUs in 2019. Under HCD’s “Option #1”, Lomita could take the average of the 2018 and 2019 ADU production trends, and forecast that 5 ADUs will be permitted per year during the 6th cycle. This would allow for a total 6th cycle forecast of 40 ADUs.
Under HCD’s “Option #2”, Lomita could multiply the 2017 ADU production trend by five, and forecast that 10 ADUs will be permitted per year during the 6th cycle. This would allow for a total 6th cycle forecast of 80 ADUs.
Another, more aggressive, option would take the average of the 2018 and 2019 ADU production trends, and multiply that average by five. This methodology would forecast that 25 ADUs will be permitted per year during the 6th cycle. This would allow for a total 6th cycle forecast of 200 ADUs. Abundant Housing LA does not recommend this methodology, since it is not an HCD-defined safe harbor forecasting option.
Lomita should use HCD’s Option 1 or 2 safe harbor when projecting annual ADU production. If it believes that higher ADU production forecasts are warranted, it must provide 6 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 20-21
7 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 31
4 well-grounded estimates, based on the pace of ADU production in neighboring jurisdictions, and must explain programs or policy efforts that could lead to higher ADU production.
Finally, per HCD, the housing element “should also include a monitoring program that a) tracks ADU and JADU creation and affordability levels, and b) commits to a review at the planning cycle midpoint to evaluate if production estimates are being achieved.” Lomita’s housing 8 element should commit to mid-cycle rezoning if ADU production is lower than forecasted, and its midpoint review should be linked with immediate and automatic programs to increase housing production in the second half of the RHNA cycle. AHLA’s recommended approach is to incorporate by-right density bonuses on inventory sites, which would automatically take effect mid-cycle if the ADU target is not met. The density bonus should be large enough, and apply to enough parcels, to fully make up for any ADU production shortfall.
Component #3: Housing elements must prioritize high-opportunity census tracts and well-resourced areas (e.g. near transit, jobs, schools, parks, etc.) when selecting sites for lower-income housing opportunities, in order to affirmatively further fair housing.
AB 686 (2018) requires housing element updates to “affirmatively further fair housing”, which is defined as “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and fosters inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.”
In our region, housing policy and land use regulations were once used to exclude members of minority groups. Redlining and restrictive covenants, which restricted where Black Americans could live, were once commonplace in Lomita and throughout Los Angeles County. Thankfully, Lomita is much more welcoming today; in fact, 31% of the city’s population is Latino and 17% is Asian-American. However, exclusion continues on the basis of income: the median home sale 9 price in Lomita was $617,000 in 2018 , and 50% of the city’s renters are “rent-burdened” (i.e. 10 they spend more than 30% of their income on rent) . High housing costs place a 11 disproportionate burden on lower-income communities of color, and have the effect of excluding them from the city altogether.
Jurisdictions must address this issue by accommodating the lower-income RHNA targets in a way that conforms with AFFH requirements. HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook offers recommendations for how jurisdictions should accomplish this. HCD is likely to require jurisdictions to distribute lower-income housing opportunities throughout the jurisdiction, and recommends that jurisdictions first identify development potential for lower-income housing in high-opportunity neighborhoods . 12 8 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 31
9 American Community Survey, 2014-18
10 SCAG Pre-Certified Local Housing Data, Lomita
11 American Community Survey, 2014-18
12 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 3
5 Given that single-family, exclusionary zoning predominates in Lomita’s high-opportunity census tracts (as defined in the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map), rezoning is required in order to accommodate the RHNA targets for lower-income households. Additionally, focusing rezoning in single-family zoned areas will expand housing opportunities while minimizing the impact on existing renters in multifamily-zoned areas.
In order to fairly distribute housing opportunities citywide, Lomita should develop a quantitative methodology for scoring neighborhoods, based on factors like housing costs, median income, access to transit, access to jobs, access to schools, and environmental quality. Neighborhoods that score higher on these dimensions should be allocated higher housing growth targets, and rezoning should be based on these neighborhood-level housing growth targets.
Finally, Lomita should identify funding sources, public resources, and density bonus programs to maximize the likelihood that housing projects with below market-rate units are actually built.
Local measures like a real estate transfer tax and congestion pricing could help generate new funding to support affordable housing production and preservation.
Component #4: Housing elements should include the HCD-recommended buffer of at least 15-30% extra capacity in the site inventory, in order to avoid violating the No Net Loss requirement.
SB 166 (2017) requires adequate sites to be maintained at all times throughout the planning period to accommodate the remaining RHNA target by each income category. This means that 13 if a jurisdiction approves a development on a parcel listed in the site inventory that will have fewer units (either in total or at a given income level) than the number of units (either in total or at a given income level) anticipated in the site inventory, then the jurisdiction must identify and make available enough sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA target for each income category.14
If additional sites with adequate zoned capacity don’t exist, then the jurisdiction must rezone enough sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA target within 180 days. If the jurisdiction fails to accomplish this rezoning in the required period, then the consequences will include decertification of the housing element and potential state legal action.
To ensure that adequate housing capacity at all income levels exists in the housing element through the 6th Cycle, HCD recommends that “the jurisdiction create a buffer in the housing element inventory of at least 15-30% more capacity than required, especially for capacity to accommodate the lower income RHNA.” Lomita should “overshoot” on total site capacity 15 13 HCD No Net Loss Law Memo, pg. 1
14 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 22
15 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 22
6 for each income level, in order to ensure that the City’s RHNA target is achieved at all income levels.
The City of Lomita has an obligation to sufficiently plan to meet current and future residents’ housing needs. The housing element update affords Lomita, and the broader Southern California region, the chance to take bold action on lowering housing costs, reducing car dependency, strengthening the local economy, and guaranteeing access to opportunity for Californians of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. We urge you and your colleagues to fully embrace this opportunity to transform Lomita for the better.
Finally, it is worth noting that state law imposes penalties on jurisdictions that fail to adopt a compliant 6th cycle housing element update by October 15, 2021. On that date, noncompliant jurisdictions will forfeit the right to deny residential projects on the basis of local zoning, so long as projects include at least a 20% set-aside for below market-rate units . Jurisdictions that want 16 to maintain local control over new development should therefore plan to adopt a compliant housing element update on time.
We would be glad to engage with your office and with the Planning Department throughout the housing element update process. We look forward to a productive and collaborative working relationship with the City of Lomita on this critical effort. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
16 California Government Code 65589.5(d)(5)
7 Leonora Camner
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
Anthony Dedousis
Director of Policy and Research
Abundant Housing LA
This page is intentionally left blank.