Attachment B Proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Technical Appendices January 2022.pdf — Long Beach City Council, February 8, 2022 (part 1 of 3)

Appendix
“This plan needs to address homelessness,
walkability, public transit, job opportunities
near new developments, and neighborhood
protections from the effects of gentrification. ”
Long Beach Resident - Housing Element
Community Meeting
7 Attachment B
Appendix A: Public Participation Report ................................................................ A-1 Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment ...............................................................B-1 Appendix C: Site Inventory .......................................................................................... C-1 Appendix D: Housing Constraints .............................................................................D-1 Appendix E: Review of Past Accomplishments..................................................... E-1 Appendix F: Fair Housing Assessment .....................................................................F-1 Appendices to Appendix C:

Appendix C-1: Recent Entitlement & Building Permit Data to Inform PlaceType Density Assumptions ..................................................................................................... C-1-1 Appendix C-2: Market Reports Used to Support Findings that Sites Will Develop During the Planning Period .........................................................................................C-2-1 Appendix C-3: Additional Data on Inventory Sites Under PlaceType Scenario ................................................................................................................................................ C-3-1 Appendix C-4: Summary of Interviews with the Local Development Community ................................................................................................................................................ C-4-1 Appendix7
Appendix | Public Participation
A-1
January 2022
AAppendix
Appendix A: Public Participation
Report
Section A.1 Introduction
The City of Long Beach is currently in the process of
updating its Housing Element, for the planning period of 2021-2029, and aims to meet the housing needs of all Long Beach residents. The Housing Element is a chapter of the City’s General Plan that provides the City with a road map for accommodating the projected number of housing units needed to safely and affordably house existing and future residents.

A key component of the Housing Element update process
is robust public engagement to solicit information and
feedback that will inform the City’s housing context and strategies. In-person public meetings have not been
possible due to COVID-19 public assembly restrictions,
but opportunities to provide virtual feedback began in
summer 2020, including citywide virtual workshops and
telephone town halls that were open to the public and
available in both English and Spanish. A virtual open house in English and Spanish has been available on the project website, providing detailed information about the project and opportunities to provide feedback anytime. The virtual open house was developed using ArcGIS Storymaps
which allows the public access to project materials and information in a similar manner as traditionally provide in-person via information poster boards. Additionally, the City has been conducting targeted outreach with residents, businesses, affordable housing developers and advocates, homeless services providers, neighborhood associations, and property owners. Additional outreach meetings will
take place virtually in Spring 2021 and outreach efforts will continue until the Housing Element is adopted.

This report summarizes both the outreach efforts and
comments received on the project. It includes five main sections, as described below:
» Outreach Strategy: Provides an overview of the
outreach strategy throughout the key milestones of the
Housing Element Update.
» Outreach Process: Provides information on notification methods, materials developed, and summary of
outreach methods conducted. Materials prepared
during the Housing Element Update are included in the
last section of this report (Attachment 1).
» Public Participation and Outcomes: Provides
individual overviews of participation at the virtual
meetings and workshops.
» Summary of Outreach Meetings and Events: Provides
an overview of the public comments received and who
participated in the outreach efforts.
» Attachment 1: Documentation: Provides copies of the
City’s noticing materials, a copy of the digital workshop presentation, and other documents produced to
support the outreach efforts.

The goal of the outreach process is to provide an opportunity for the public to provide feedback on all components of the Housing Element. Information gathered during this
time directly inform the development of the City’s housing strategy during this planning period. Each comment (verbal and written) and experience shared by the public was taken into consideration. City staff reviewed each suggestion to determine if it is an action the City: 1) is undertaking or is planning to undertake, 2) would consider undertaking, or 3) is unable to consider during this planning period. City staff endeavored to incorporate as many suggestions in
the housing plan as possible. To support longer-term goals, such as housing affordability, the City plans to incorporate a suite of policies and programs that can comprehensively achieve these objectives. Some suggestions could not
be considered during this eight-year planning period,
typically due to local funding constraints or misalignment with other City strategies.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-2
January 2022
Appendix
A
During this outreach process, community members
emphasized that supply and access to adequate and
affordable housing continue to be one of the biggest
challenges in Long Beach. Increased housing costs
combined with stagnant wages have made it increasingly
difficult for many to find housing they can afford. The housing crisis does not impact everyone equally– both
the data and community feedback demonstrate that
lower-income households and residents of color are
disproportionately affected due to lack of financial ability and institutionalized racial discrimination. This information informed development of Goal 6: Ensure Fair and Equal
Housing Opportunity, which has the largest number of
implementing programs. Throughout the community
engagement process during the 6th Cycle Housing Element update, community members in Long Beach voiced how
these housing issues are impacting their ability to find housing, stay housed, and afford both the cost of housing and other basic needs.

Community feedback and data on housing needs in the
Long Beach community guided the development of goals,
policies and programs contained in the 6th Cycle Housing Element. Community priorities articulated in the outreach process and incorporated into the plan include the need for more housing, particularly affordable housing; the
need for housing assistance, particularly for those with the least resources; a multitude of strategies for addressing fair housing issues; more desired pathways to community ownership and empowerment; tailored housing solutions
for special needs groups; and additional anti-displacement measures and tenant protections. Each goal in the plan
reflects feedback and priorities from the community, and the policies and programs under each goal are designed to help meet each goal while incorporating specific strategies suggested by the community.

The outreach process was conducted to engage the
community through a variety of virtual events and
opportunities to provide feedback and input to shape the 6th Cycle Housing Element update. The City held multi-
lingual public meetings on different days of the week
and times of day. Strategies for reaching communities
most impacted by the housing crisis included targeted
mailers in the City’s four Language Access languages
(English, Spanish, Khmer, and Tagalog), and collaborative community capacity building activities in partnership with community-based organizations, including a youth event
for young people whose families have been impacted
by homelessness hosted in partnership with Century
Villages at Cabrillo and workshops with community-based organizations.

The top concerns and priorities expressed included:
concerns around availability and affordability of housing (Goal 1: Increase Housing Production and Goal 3:

Housing Affordability); the need for housing for different populations, including senior and mixed-income housing
(Goal 4: Housing for Special Needs Populations); the need for housing in high resource areas (Programs 1.5, 1.7, 2.3,

6.3, 6.9, 6.11; calls for increasing strategic investment opportunities for housing that prioritizes extremely
low-income residents and vulnerable populations (see
various programs specifically for extremely-low income
households); the need to create a dedicated revenue
sources to build affordable and supportive housing
(Program 3.4 new funding sources for affordable
housing) as well as community owned units (Program 6.8
Community Land Trusts); the need to provide affordable
for sale units to increase homeownership opportunities
(Program 3.3 homeownership); the need to solidify better renters’ protections (Program 5.2 tenant protections), such as a local rent control ordinance to protect tenants and keep vital housing affordable (action 7.2 rent stabilization), expand the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to apply
citywide (program 6.7 inclusionary housing expansion),
and increase eviction protection initiatives like the Right to Counsel program (program 6.5 tenant right to counsel); put anti-gentrification and anti-displacement measures in place to prevent displacement (programs 5.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6,

7.2), as well as an expressed need for a dedicated staff and resources to support the needs of renters (Program 7.2:

Dedicated Rental Housing Staff ) in the City of Long Beach.

The Housing Element has been informed by significant
public outreach and engagement, and community housing
needs and priorities are reflected in the Housing Plan. The recommendations set forth in the Housing Plan directly
correlate with the feedback heard throughout the outreach process and are a direct reflection of communities housing stories, concerns and ideas.

Appendix | Public Participation
A-3
January 2022
AAppendix
Section A.2 Outreach Strategy
Prior to conducting outreach meetings and engaging with the public, the Housing Element team (Team), consisting of City Staff and the Consultant team, developed a community engagement plan that identifies a strategic process to
facilitate optimal public engagement and outreach among diverse stakeholders, including hard-to-reach populations.

Given the COVID-19 pandemic and stay-at-home orders,
the Team shifted prioritization of traditional in-person outreach methods to virtual engagement tools, including online and telephone meetings and workshops, online
interactive presentation materials and storytelling
opportunities, and one-on-one interactions to allow
flexibility in stakeholders’ schedules. Additionally, to reach stakeholders during the pandemic, notifications were
increased to provide critical information on COVID-19 relief assistance and opportunities on how to be involved in the Housing Element Update process. Mailers were distributed during the early phase of the update process to over 25,000 households and provided in four languages of English,
Spanish, Khmer and Tagalog to ensure this process was as accessible as possible.

Since August 2020, the Team held public workshops,
community forums, focus group meetings, and key
stakeholder meetings, as well as provided online
presentation materials on the project website. Long Beach has held a total of six (6) community workshops and
forums, four (4) focus group meetings, and participated in five (5) stakeholder meetings and events, with the goal of informing the public of the Housing Element purpose, the update process, and the city’s housing needs context. These efforts were also intended to gather input on housing goals and policies and hear community concerns. The timeframe of each type of outreach activity is listed below:
» English Digital Workshop: Saturday, August 8, 2020
» Community Forum: Wednesday, August 12, 2020
» Spanish Digital Workshop: Saturday, August 15, 2020
» Community Forum: Wednesday, August 19, 2020
» Local Businesses and Institutions Focus Group Meeting:

Tuesday, October 13, 2020
» Affordable Housing Developer Focus Group Meeting:

Thursday, October 15, 2020
» Housing Advocates Focus Group Meeting: Thursday,
October 15, 2020
» Homeless Services Advisory Committee Meeting:

Wednesday, January 6, 2021
» Continuum of Care Meeting: Tuesday, January 12, 2021
» Affordable and Workforce Housing Working Group
Meeting: Thursday, February 11, 2021
» Century Villages at Cabrillo Youth Focus Group: Tuesday, March 23, 2021
» Long Beach Aging Services Collaborative Meeting:

Wednesday, April 7, 2021
» Community Meeting: Wednesday, April 28, 2021
» Community Meeting: Saturday, May 1, 2021
» Capacity Building (Underway)
Throughout this engagement effort, the Team gathered
feedback about housing needs, opportunities, constraints, and priorities for community members and key
stakeholders. The Team also solicited general comments
regarding the Housing Element Update process, the
current housing crisis, feedback on proposed goals, and related City policies and programs to successfully guide the draft Housing Element. The outreach campaign also
incorporated feedback received during other recent
housing-related discussions in Long Beach. It is important that the Housing Element goals and actions align with
other interconnected initiatives in the City, such as
Everyone Home, Everyone In, and the Racial Equity and
Reconciliation Initiative. Leveraging information gathered from these parallel efforts allows the Housing Element
to reflect a broader range of views and is as inclusive as possible.

This summary documents the outreach activities completed to support the draft Housing Element. Sample outreach
materials, including notification eblasts, postcards, billing inserts, presentations, and boards for the community
meetings are included for reference as Attachment 1, at the end of this Appendix.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-4
January 2022
Appendix
A
Section A.3 Outreach Process
As part of the outreach process, the Team developed
a stakeholder database, collateral materials, a project website, notifications, and contact methods to engage the public and provide ongoing opportunities for community
involvement and feedback.

A.3.1 Stakeholder Database
The Team developed a stakeholder database of over
200 people representing 180 organizations related to
housing advocacy, affordable housing development,
homeless services, local businesses and community-based organizations, to initiate and coordinate communication with stakeholders in Long Beach. The stakeholder database for the project consisted of community leaders and key
stakeholders, including agencies, neighborhood and
community groups, civic clubs/organizations, businesses and business groups, faith based and religious institutions, elected officials, schools and key opinion leaders and other individuals within the Long Beach and regional community.

They included interested parties from recent housing
related initiatives and policy development processes. The database has continued to grow, as additional residents and individuals sign up for notifications via the project website.

The database will be updated throughout the duration of the Housing Element Update with new contacts from the
website, stakeholder meetings, and community meetings
and any other public interface.

Figure A-1: Housing Element Update Web Page
A.3.2 Housing Element Update Web Page
The Housing Element Update website( www.longbeach.
gov/housingelementupdate) was used as an avenue for
notifying stakeholders about the meetings, providing
a resource for housing element information (meeting
presentation, fact sheet, and meeting notices), accessing comment forms, and providing contact information. The
landing page is shown in Figure A-1. The project website will be updated throughout the duration of the Housing
Element Update to post new information about key
milestones, reports, presentation materials, among other Housing Element-related items.

Appendix | Public Participation
A-5
January 2022
AAppendix
A.3.3 Presentation
The Team prepared a PowerPoint presentation for each
of the digital workshops, community forums, and focus
groups. Each presentation was tailored to the purpose
of each individual meetings, and included background
information on the Housing Element Update, the current
housing crisis, housing needs and assessment, current
Housing Element goals and related policies and programs.

A version of the presentation can be found in Attachment 1.

A.3.4 FAQs
The Team prepared a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Fact Sheet that was provided on the Housing Element Update
website and referenced in communication materials. The FAQs will be updated at key milestones during the update to provide the most current information on the Housing
Element, goals, and next steps. A copy of the FAQs can be found in Attachment 1.

A.3.5 Housing Element Update E-mail Box
Comments submitted via the Housing Element Update
email address, [email protected],
were documented for project consideration. A total of X comments were received via email.

A.3.6 Housing Element Virtual Open House
A virtual open house was developed using ArcGIS
Storymaps to provide the public with an opportunity to
use traditional meeting poster boards in an online setting.

The virtual open house provides a detailed overview of
the Housing Element, the update process, current Housing Element goals and policies, with opportunities for feedback nested throughout the virtual open house. A page from the virtual open house is shown in Figure A-2.

Figure A-2: Virtual Open House Web Page

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-6
January 2022
Appendix
A
A.3.7 Notifications
Email notices (e-blasts) were sent out prior to and after the Digital Workshops, Community Forums and Focus Group
Meetings to notify stakeholders about the availability of the virtual open house and to share their housing stories.

Utilizing the project database and LinkLB, the e-blasts reached approximately 3,200 stakeholder contacts
with known or functional email addresses. The e-blasts
announcing the Digital Workshops and Community
Forums were available in Spanish, Tagalog, and Khmer. The e-blasts provided a link to the project website and contact information.

A mailer was developed and mailed to over 25,000 targeted addresses in Long Beach areas with a high share of renters, high share of households with limited or no English
proficiency, and low median household income averages.

The mailer was available in English and Spanish and QR
codes were included for access to versions in Khmer and Tagalog. The mailer provided information on the Housing Element, upcoming community workshops and forums,
and opportunities for further involvement and feedback.

See Attachment 1.

A bill insert was mailed with the City’s utility bills to approximately 20,000 addresses in Long Beach that
provided background information on the Housing Element
Update and opportunities to access the virtual open house, how the public can share their housing story, how to access the project website and additional contact information.

See Attachment 1.

Major project updates are shared more broadly through
LinkLB, the city’s e-notification system, as well as through the project website, social media, through Council District Office newsletters, and through the Neighborhood
Resource Center listserve which reaches every
neighborhood association in the City.

Section A.4 Public Participation and
Outcomes
Due to the COVID-19 Safer at Home orders, the format for all meetings were held virtually to ensure a safe format for attendees and staff. The general format for meetings consisted of a PowerPoint presentation given by the Team, followed by opportunities for written and verbal feedback and/or discussions. Further information on the individual meetings and summaries can be found in the Summary of
Outreach Meetings and Events section. Table A-1 describes the dates, locations, and approximate attendance at
the community workshops, forums and focus groups.

Table A-2 summarizes the number of comments received
at each meeting.

Table A-1: Community Meetings
Meeting
Type Meeting Date Location # of
Attendees
English Digital
Workshop
August 8, 2020,
10AM- 12PM Zoom 36
Community
Forum
August 12,
2020, 6-7:30PM Zoom 43
Spanish
Digital
Workshop
August
15, 2020,
10AM-12PM
Zoom 7
Community
Forum
August 19,
2020, 6-7:30PM Zoom 28
Local
Businesses
and
Institutions
Focus Group
Meeting
October
15, 2020,
9-10:30AM
Zoom 2
Affordable
Housing
Developer
Focus Group
Meeting
October
15, 2020,
11AM-12:30PM
Zoom 4
Housing
Advocates
Focus Group
Meeting
October
22, 2020,
11AM-12:30PM
Zoom 8
Appendix | Public Participation
A-7
January 2022
AAppendix
Meeting
Type Meeting Date Location # of
Attendees
Homeless
Services
Advisory
Committee
Meeting
January 6,
2021, 3:30PM Virtual N/A
Continuum of
Care Meeting
January 12,
2021, 2:45PM Virtual N/A
Affordable
and
Workforce
Housing
Working
Group
Meeting
February
11, 2021,
11AM-12PM
Virtual 11
Century
Villages at
Cabrillo Youth
Focus Group
Meeting
March 23, 2021,
3PM-4PM Zoom 8
Long Beach
Aging
Services
Collaborative
Meeting
April 7, 2021,
3PM-4PM Zoom 122
Community
Meeting
April 28, 2021,
5PM-7:00PM Zoom 72
Community
Meeting
May 1, 2021,
11AM-1PM Zoom 22
Table A-1: Community Meetings (continued) Table A-2: Summary of Community Meeting Comments Meeting
Type
Meeting
Date Location
Approximate
Comments
Received
English Digital
Workshop
August 8,
2020, 10AM-
12PM
Zoom 60
Community
Forum
August
12, 2020,
6-7:30PM
Zoom 109
Spanish
Digital
Workshop
August
15, 2020,
10AM-12PM
Zoom 4
Community
Forum
August
19, 2020,
6-7:30PM
Zoom 80
Local
Businesses
and
Institutions
Focus Group
Meeting
October
15, 2020,
9-10:30AM
Zoom
Verbal
feedback
provided
Affordable
Housing
Developer
Focus Group
Meeting
October 15,
2020, 11AM-
12:30PM
Zoom
Verbal
feedback
provided
Housing
Advocates
Focus Group
Meeting
October 22,
2020, 11AM-
12:30PM
Zoom
Verbal
feedback
provided
Homeless
Services
Advisory
Committee
Meeting
January
6, 2021,
3:30PM
Virtual
Verbal
feedback
provided
Continuum of
Care Meeting
January
12, 2021,
2:45PM
Virtual
Verbal
feedback
provided
Affordable
and
Workforce
Housing
Working
Group
Meeting
February
11, 2021,
11AM-12PM
Virtual
Verbal
feedback
provided
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-8
January 2022
Appendix
A
Meeting
Type
Meeting
Date Location
Approximate
Comments
Received
Century
Villages at
Cabrillo Youth
Focus Group
Meeting
March
23, 2021,
3PM-4PM
Zoom
Verbal
feedback
provided
and 5 poll
responses
Long Beach
Aging
Services
Collaborative
Meeting
April 7,
2021,
3PM-4PM
Zoom
Verbal
feedback
provided
Community
Meeting
April 28,
2021,
5PM-7:00PM
Zoom
Verbal
feedback
provided and
96 written
comments
Community
Meeting
May 1, 2021,
11AM-1PM Zoom
Verbal
feedback
provided and
44 written
comments
Section A.5 Summary of Outreach
Meetings and Events
A.5.1 Digital Workshop #1 - English
Saturday, August 8, 2020
Zoom Webinar from 10:00am – 12:00pm
Attended by approximately 36 members of the public, the first Digital Workshop focused on presenting background information and received feedback on the state of housing in Long Beach, policies and programs, City demographics, housing needs and housing affordability, among other
items.

Overview
A formal presentation led by the Long Beach Development Services Team was followed by opportunities for the public to provide questions and comments through the webinar
Q&A and chat functions. Additionally, poll questions were implemented throughout the presentation to engage with
participants and receive input on background housing
information.

During the presentation, participants were encouraged to use the Q&A and chat functions to provide feedback on
the content presented and as a guide for discussion topics.

During the presentation written questions and comments
were directly responded to via the Q&A and chat functions.

Upon completion of the presentation, written questions
were responded to verbally by the Housing Team members
and participants were able to ask questions and provide comments verbally as well. The polls were primarily used to gain background information on attendees and help
facilitate discussions.

The questions and feedback received during the workshop are categorized below:
» Q&A Input
» Chat Input
» Poll Results
Sixty (60) questions and comments were received during
the digital workshop through the Q&A and Chat features.

The pages below illustrate the themes and input captured.

Table A-2: Summary of Community Meeting Comments
(continued)
Appendix | Public Participation
A-9
January 2022
AAppendix
Q&A Input
(41 Questions/Comments)
» Questions about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and
permitting.
» Several residents raised questions and comments about recent and potential legislation, including SB 1120, SB 743, AB 1279 and zoning changes in Long Beach.
» Many comments and questions were raised regarding
SCAG and RHNA numbers, including the increase in
housing needs, affordability needs, student housing,
SCAG requirements, among others.
» Several comments and questions included how the
City may achieve providing the additional RHNA
units through measures such as new construction,
overcrowding, and adequate city services to meet
demand.
» Residents expressed questions and concerns regarding
up-zoning and changes to single-family residential
communities to allow multi-family apartments.
» Some participants raised questions about Long Beach
residents vs. individuals that work in Long Beach, and
how the Housing Element takes that into consideration.
» Questions and comments were raised about how
parking is accommodated with increased housing
density and how is parking included in the Housing
Element Update.
» One resident raised a question regarding vacant lots, if they are being tracked and how they could be used to
promote housing.
» Comments and questions were raised about the
availability and location of affordable housing, including Downtown.
» One resident questioned how those experiencing
homelessness are included in the update.
» One resident raised concerns of gentrification with new market rate housing being developed.
» One resident questioned how segregation and income
disparity will be discussed during the meeting.
» Some residents raised outreach questions regarding the availability of materials shared during the meeting and future meetings.

Chat Input
(19 Comments/Questions)
» Many comments and questions were raised regarding
SCAG and RHNA numbers, including the reasons for
the increase and the efficacy of the 30% housing cost
burden rule.
» Residents voiced concerns about affordable housing
being concentrated in downtown Long Beach as
opposed to all over the City.
» One resident questioned the percentage of residents
that work in Long Beach.
» One resident voiced concerns about the Housing
Element Update superseding the recent Land Use
Element.
» Some residents are concerned about the availability
of parking and/or the provision of car-alternative
incentives.
» Some residents are concerned that the City does
not have proper infrastructure or public service to
accommodate new growth.
» New construction should prioritize residents currently experiencing overcrowding or homelessness.
» Residents are interested in the City’s strategy to
incentivize the development of housing, especially in
light of the lack of Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
resources.
» Concerns were raised about the 5th cycle RHNA
underestimating housing needs.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-10
January 2022
Appendix
A
Poll Results
Appendix | Public Participation
A-11
January 2022
AAppendix

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-12
January 2022
Appendix
A
A.5.2 Digital Workshop #1 - Spanish
Saturday, August 15, 2020
Zoom Webinar from 10:00am – 12:00pm
Attended by approximately 7 members of the public,
the first Spanish Digital Workshop focused on presenting background information and received feedback on the
state of housing in Long Beach, policies and programs, City demographics, housing needs and housing affordability,
among other items.

During the presentation, participants were encouraged to use the Q&A and chat functions to provide feedback on
the content presented and as a guide for discussion topics.

During the presentation written questions and comments
were directly responded to via the Q&A and chat functions.

Notifications of the Digital Workshop and other meetings were distributed electronically via LinkLB, the City’s email notification system, to over 3,000 email addresses for
people who have signed up for notifications for latest news or initiatives and programs from Development Services, or for notifications related to general plan updates. The events were also promoted through a memo to the Mayor and
City Council, and through social media via Facebook events hosted and promoted by both the City and Development
Services Department’s Facebook accounts. The Spanish
language workshop was shared with community based
organizations serving the Spanish speaking community
for help spreading the word, including Latinos in Action, Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition (LBIRC), Long
Beach Community Action Partnership, Washington
Neighborhood Association, Long Beach Forward, Puente
Latino Association, LBRE, Housing Long Beach and Centro Cha. Brochures were mailed to over 25,300 addresses in
areas identified as having high housing need and high
risk related to COVID10. The mailers shared information on the Housing Element update, outreach meetings and
resources for individuals affected by COVID-19 in all four City languages of English, Spanish, Tagalog and Khmer.

The questions and feedback received during the workshop are categorized below:
» Q&A Input
» Poll Results
Four (4) questions and comments were received during the digital workshop through the Q&A and Chat features. The pages below illustrate the themes and input captured.

Q&A
(3 Questions/Comments)
» A question was raised whether new constructions home
will include parking.
» A question was voiced to provide clarity on what
increased units means, whether new buildings or
individual units.

Appendix | Public Participation
A-13
January 2022
AAppendix
Poll Results

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-14
January 2022
Appendix
A
A.5.3 Community Forum #1
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
Zoom Webinar from 6:00pm – 7:30pm
Attended by approximately 43 members of the public, the first Community Forum focused on presenting an overview of the Housing Element Update, understanding the current housing crisis and strategies for the City to address the Housing Crisis.

During the presentation, participants were encouraged to use the Q&A and chat functions to provide feedback on
the content presented and as a guide for discussion topics.

During the presentation written questions and comments
were directly responded to via the Q&A and chat functions.

The questions and feedback received during the workshop are categorized below:
» Q&A Input
» Chat Input
» Poll Results
One hundred and nine (109) questions and comments were
received during the digital workshop through the Q&A and Chat features. The pages below illustrate the themes and input captured.

Q&A Input
(52 Questions/Comments)
» Questions about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), micro- units and permitting.
» Several questions regarding density bonus, the
percentage and areas in the City where its allowed were raised.
» Some comments were raised regarding no net loss
ordinance in the City.
» Several attendees raised questions and comments
about recent and potential legislation, including SB
1120 and zoning changes in Long Beach.
» Some comments and questions were expressed
regarding community land trusts and other housing
trusts or funding source for affordable housing.
» Several comments and questions were raised in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the
need for improved code enforcement, right to counsel,
rental housing division and how to address the increase in evictions.
» Several comments were raised in relation to
transportation, parking and to not consider the mobility element in the housing element update.
» Many comments and questions were raised regarding
SCAG and RHNA numbers, including the increase in
housing needs, affordability needs, SCAG requirements
and validation, shared practices, among others.
» Some participants asked questions about vacancy rates, how they’re calculated, incentives for building on vacant lots and overcrowding affecting vacancy rates.
» Questions and comments were raised about rent and
wages, and how those are tracked by zip code and if
they are adjusted for inflation.
» Questions and comments were raised regarding
increased property taxes and other taxes to pay for
increased housing.

Appendix | Public Participation
A-15
January 2022
AAppendix
» A question was voiced about AirBnB and how that
affects the housing shortage.
» Questions were raised about how other General Plan
elements are coordinated with the Housing Element,
including the Land Use Element.
» Outreach questions were raised regarding availability of materials and future meetings.

Chat Input
57 Questions/Comments)
» Many comments and questions were raised regarding
Community Land Trusts (CLTs) and “CLRs” . Residents
suggested including CLTs in the Housing Element as a
means to increase affordable housing.
» Some residents were concerned about the lack of funds in the City’s Housing Trust Fund, its income targeting, and how it helps build affordable housing.
» Questions were raised about priority for Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADU) as means to house the homeless.
» Some residents had questions about the impacts and
requirements for micro-units, and how they fit into the RHNA.
» General concerns about how the City plans to meet the RHNA target given the economic impacts of the COVID
pandemic.
» Some participants expressed concerns regarding
density bonus and the percentage allowed.
» Some concerns were raised regarding parking included
(or excluded) with affordable housing.
» One resident asked about potential plans for north-
south bike lane infrastructure.

Poll Results
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-16
January 2022
Appendix
A
A.5.4 Community Forum #2
Wednesday, August 19, 2020
Zoom Webinar from 6:00pm-7:30pm
Attended by approximately 28 members of the public,
the second Community Forum focused on presenting
background information relevant to the Housing Element
update and the housing crisis in Long Beach and received feedback on the Housing Element Goals.

During the presentation, participants were encouraged to use the Q&A and chat functions to provide feedback on
the content presented and as a guide for discussion topics.

During the presentation written questions and comments
were directly responded to via the Q&A and chat functions.

The questions and feedback received during the workshop are categorized below:
» Q&A Input
» Chat Input
» Poll Results
Eighty (80) questions and comments were received during the digital workshop through the Q&A and Chat features.

The pages below illustrate the themes and input captured.

Q&A Input
(33 Questions/Comments)
» Questions about the long term impacts of COVID-19 in
terms of potential rezoning of commercial spaces.
» Several attendees raised questions and comments about the ratio of rental properties to owned properties and
whether or not there is legislation aiming to increase the percentage of homeowners.
» Many comments and questions were raised regarding
what defines micro-units, their requirements, and
dimensions.
» Questions regarding the definition of publicly assisted units and whether or not money from the CARES Act is
being directed towards housing in Long Beach.
» Comments suggesting community Real Estate
Investment Trusts (REITs) to assist with home ownership and the housing supply in general.
» Questions regarding dimension requirements for units
as per the California Building Codes.
» Comments and questions were raised in favor of
providing more affordable units for sale to increase the number of homeowners in Long Beach by building more
housing and increasing homeownership opportunities,
such as rent/own balances.

Chat Input
(47 Questions/Comments)
» Concerns about an influx of evictions once the COVID
moratoriums expire, especially for people of color, and the need for the right to counsel as a result.
» Suggestions that Goal 1, provide housing assistance
and preserve publicly assisted units, should prioritize extremely low income groups first.
» Several comments regarding the need for local revenue to build affordable and supportive housing as well as
community owned units.

Appendix | Public Participation
A-17
January 2022
AAppendix
» Some residents suggested Community Land Trusts
and other cooperative ownership models in addition
to tenant protections for permanent affordable,
community-owned units.
» Suggestion to use a bond measure as a local source of revenue for affordable and supportive housing.
» Several residents suggested to convert excess
commercial spaces and unused parking lots into
affordable residential units.
» Several general outreach suggestions to have other
answers for the polls besides Yes/No.
» Comments suggesting that redlining maps and
race-based deed restrictions in Long Beach should be
produced to illustrate the effects on systemic racism on the Long Beach community, especially in terms of rent
burden, zoning, etc.
» Several comments supporting the increased production
of condominium buildings.
» Several residents stated that there needs to be more
homeownership opportunities in Long Beach as a result
of renter stabilization and additional job opportunities. » Questions about the definition of a “publicly assisted unit” .
» One resident voiced the need for additional programs
like the Century Village at Cabrillo.
» Residents suggested several ordinances to protect and preserve affordable housing.
» Some residents suggested all Long Beach residents have a right to counsel.
» Several suggestions for the City of Long Beach to create a rental housing division.

Poll Results
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-18
January 2022
Appendix
A

Appendix | Public Participation
A-19
January 2022
AAppendix
A.5.5 Focus Group #1 – Local Businesses and
Institutions
Tuesday, October 13, 2020
Zoom Webinar from 9:00am – 10:30am
The focus group was attended by two representatives from the City’s business community.

The focus group meeting included a brief presentation
on the Housing Element Update and process and was
followed by a discussion with the Team. The discussion was focused on understanding housing impacts, opportunities and priorities for businesses and business leaders in Long Beach.

Overview
A brief presentation led by the Consultant Team was
followed by a discussion between the attendees and the
Team. Attendees were asked specific questions and given ample time to provide thorough answers and follow-up
questions and answers.

Notifications of the focus group meeting were distributed to key stakeholders in the City’s email database. The email blasts were distributed twice to approximately 30 email addresses.

The attendees were asked six (6) questions and provided the feedback outlined below.

The following key takeaways were received from the focus group meeting:
» Expressed the need for housing for different populations, including senior housing, and mixed-income housing.

Additionally, voiced the need for housing built closer
to jobs for less commute times and promoting public
transit options.
» Would like to see more single units in larger unit
developments with more amenities, especially with
remote working likely to continue after the COVID-19
pandemic.
» Temporary housing for contract workers should be
considered in the Housing Element. Additionally, remote working should be considered in the Housing Element,
especially for younger populations.
» Concerns regarding availability and affordability for Seniors, especially homes with amenities for Seniors.
» Homelessness should be a top priority for the City
and would like to see more policies and concepts for
homeless housing, including mental health services,
motel conversion and partnering with other agencies.
» The City should prioritize Long Beach residents
and business opportunities when considering new
developments.

A.5.6 Focus Group #2 – Affordable Housing
Developers
Thursday, October 15, 2020
Zoom Webinar from 9:00am – 10:30am
The focus group was attended by four representative of
affordable housing developers, including:
» Habitat for Humanity Greater Los Angeles
» Abundant Housing
» LINC Housing
The focus group meeting included a brief presentation
on the Housing Element Update and process and was
followed by a discussion with the Team. The discussion was focused on understanding housing impacts, opportunities and priorities for Affordable Housing Developers in Long Beach.

Overview
A brief presentation led by the consulting team was
followed by a discussion between the attendees and the
Housing Team Attendees were asked specific questions
and given ample time to provide thorough answers.

Notifications of the focus group meeting were distributed to key stakeholders in the City’s email database. The email blasts were distributed twice to approximately 20 email addresses.

The attendees were asked eleven (11) questions and
provided the feedback outlined on the next page.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-20
January 2022
Appendix
A
The following key takeaways were received from the focus group meeting:
» Questions and concerns were addressed for providing
housing for the diverse population in Long Beach
without displacing the local population. Housing
developers can help increase the housing stock by
building affordable housing.
» Concerned about barriers that deter affordable housing developers from building in high-opportunity and transit- oriented communities, including resident opposition
and ensuring requirements recommendations from the
City and State align with developers’ goals.
» Questions and concerns about policies allowing
affordable housing in high-opportunity zones and
consider rezoning and density bonuses in the Housing
Element.
» Concerns about approval processes and policies that
affect further development of affordable housing,
including challenges with financing projects due to
competition.
» Concerned about barriers to new housing or rebuilding housing developments, including differences in the City for inclusionary housing and politics, approval delays
and high permit fees. An ‘over-the-counter’ approach
may be better suited to improve approval processes.
» The Midtown Specific Plan is a good example for future development plans. The Washington neighborhood and
CNA and industrial zoning are areas being looked at for future development.
» Partnerships with faith communities and religious
institutions are being considered for future affordable housing opportunities. Adaptive reuse, including
religious institutions, is an exciting option.
» Regulatory capacity and expected units built capacity need to be kept separate and make estimates realistic.

A.5.7 Focus Group #3 – Housing Advocates
Thursday, October 15, 20200
Zoom Webinar from 9:00am – 10:30am
The focus group was attended by representatives from 8
housing advocate organizations, including:
» Long Beach Forward
» Bridge Housing
» Everyone In
» Legal Aid Foundation
» ECR Communities
» LiBRE
» Long Beach Lines for Clean Energy
» United Cambodian Community
The focus group meeting included a brief presentation on the Housing Element Update and process and was followed by a discussion with the Team. The discussion was focused on understanding underserved demographics and areas,
priorities and challenges and opportunities for Advocates in Long Beach.

Overview
A brief presentation led by the consulting team was
followed by a discussion between the attendees and the
Housing Team. Attendees were asked specific questions
and given ample time to provide thorough answers.

Notifications of the focus group meeting were distributed to key stakeholders in the City’s email database. The email blasts were distributed 3 times to approximately 50 email addresses.

The attendees were asked four (4) questions and provided the feedback outlined below.

The following key takeaways were received from the focus group meeting:
» The following underserved communities should be
considered with the Housing Element Update: west/
central/north neighborhoods, historically redlined
and racially segregated communities, low income,
communities of color, limited English proficiency
communities, historically environmental pollution and
poor air quality neighborhoods, and renters. Concerns
that there isn’t enough support for renters, especially during the pandemic.
» Most organizations in attendance focus on low income, communities of color and environmental justice.
» Concerns and questions with receiving data from public utilities to optimize utility policies and provide subsidies » Some of the top priorities for the City and Housing
Element include strategic investments for housing
that prioritizes extremely low-income residents, better renters’ protections, strategies for helping residents
move from the low-income housing to middle-income
housing, anti-gentrification and anti-displacement
measures, dedicated revenue sources for affordable
housing, affordable housing covenants with life terms,
mandated affordable housing and not just incentives
like density bonus, more supportive housing, and
increase areas in Long Beach that can accommodate
affordable housing.

Appendix | Public Participation
A-21
January 2022
AAppendix
A.5.8 Homeless Services Advisory
Committee Meeting
Wednesday, January 6, 2021
Virtual Webinar from 3:30pm
The Team provided an update on the Housing Element and
solicited feedback from members of the Homeless Services Advisory Committee (HSAC).

A brief presentation on the Housing Element Update
and process was provided and followed by a discussion
with the Team. The discussion was focused on types of
affordable housing included, funding mechanisms and
future outreach.

The following key takeaways were received from the focus group meeting:
» Tiny home villages and small lot subdivisions can
be explored to more effectively and affordably build
housing for people experiencing homelessness.
» City should consider expanding the Safe Parking
program.
» City should provide technical support for Community
Land Trusts can support the development of affordable
housing.
» City should provide building incentives for mixed-use retail and housing, specifically for locally owned
businesses.

A.5.9 Continuum of Care Meeting
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
Virtual Webinar from 2:45pm
The Team provided an update on the Housing Element and
solicited feedback from members of the Continuum of Care Board (CoC).

A brief presentation on the Housing Element Update and
process was provided and followed by a discussion with the Team. The discussion was focused on types of affordable housing options included and code enforcement.

The following key takeaways were received from the focus group meeting:
» City should continue exploring hotel/motel acquisition and conversion to affordable housing.
» To better understand underutilization of property, the City should have a list of vacant commercial spaces,
rather than just a list of vacant lots.
» Tiny home villages is a good option to efficiently provide housing.
» Safe Parking program should be open to RVs.
» The City can remove barriers to affordable housing
through building code relief (e.g., fire exits/stairs
requirements).

A.5.10 Affordable and Workforce Housing
Working Group Meeting
Thursday, February 11, 2021
Zoom Meeting from 11:00am – 12:00pm
The working group meeting was attended by approximately 11 representatives from the affordable housing and
workforce housing developer sector.

The working group meeting included a brief presentation on the Housing Element Update and policies considered
for the Housing Plan and was followed by a discussion with the City team. The discussion and feedback were focused on opportunities in location and type of affordable housing in Long Beach, revenue sources for affordable housing and policies the City should consider in the Housing Plan.

Overview
A brief presentation led by the City team was followed by an opportunity for feedback from the attendees.

Notifications of the focus group meeting were distributed to a list of key stakeholders in the City’s email database.

The emails were distributed to approximately 11 email
addresses.

The following key takeaways were received from the focus group meeting:
» City should consider expanding housing opportunity
on religious facilities and adaptive re-use of commercial land.
» There is a need for a local recurring revenue source, such as linkage fees, property tax assessments, or utility fees, to fund affordable housing.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-22
January 2022
Appendix
A
» New development should be balanced and include
incentives for workforce housing, which is attractive to major employers.
» Public land should be prioritized for housing
development.
» An affordable housing overlay can be considered in
areas of the city with very low residential densities in the underlying zones.

A.5.11 Century Villages at Cabrillo Y outh
Focus Group
Tuesday, March 23, 2021
Zoom Webinar from 3:00pm – 4:00pm
Attended by approximately eight youth residents and one adult resident from Century Villages at Cabrillo, the Team provided an update on the Housing Element and solicited feedback.

A brief presentation on the Housing Element Update,
process and poll questions were provided and followed by a discussion with the Team. The discussion, questions and presentation were focused on addressing housing needs
for younger generations in Long Beach and community
needs and services. Additionally, the presentation was
tailored to provide educational information on housing, the housing element and how youth and young adults can
contribute to the City’s housing processes.

The following key takeaways were received from the focus group meeting:
» The most important issues from the youth group are
the fairness of housing and employment opportunities
available in Long Beach.
» The maintenance of housing, especially for those that are experiencing chronic homelessness and mental
illness, needs to be supported by services, such as food delivery and mental health services.

A.5.12 Long Beach Aging Services Collab-
orative Meeting
Wednesday, April 7, 2021
Zoom Meeting from 3:00pm – 4:00pm
The working group meeting was attended by approximately 122 representatives within the Long Beach community
representing community organizations, housing advocates, aging services, affordable housing developers, agencies and institutions, among others.

The working group meeting included a brief presentation on the Housing Element Update and process and was
followed by a discussion with the City team. The discussion and feedback was focused on potential opportunities for additional affordable housing, senior housing and housing in general.

Overview
A brief presentation led by the City team was followed by an opportunity for feedback from the attendees.

Notifications of the focus group meeting were distributed to a list of key stakeholders in the City’s email database.

The emails were distributed to approximately 122 email
addresses.

The following key takeaways were received from the focus group meeting:
» The City could consider an affordable housing
development specifically for LGBTQ populations.
» “Green” housing units should be incentivized near
transportation.
» Familial wealth can be built through increased pathways for homeownership.
» Cohousing is a good model for affordable housing, as
seniors do not require as much space.
» Universal design standards for senior housing should be implemented.
» The City should commit to an ongoing revenue source
to fund community ownership of land.

Appendix | Public Participation
A-23
January 2022
AAppendix
A.5.13 Community Meeting #1
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
Zoom Webinar from 5:00pm – 7:00pm
Attended by approximately 72 members of the public, the community meeting focused on presenting an overview of
the Housing Element Update, understanding the current
housing crisis, and policies and strategies for the City to include in the Housing Plan.

Overview
The City team gave a formal presentation on the Housing Element Update and implemented poll questions
throughout the presentation to engage with participants and receive input on background housing information.

During the presentation, participants were encouraged to use the chat functions to provide feedback on the content presented.

The presentation was followed by a breakout session
where participants were split up into smaller groups and given an opportunity to answer a series of housing-related questions prepared by the City as well as provide any
additional feedback.

Each breakout room had an assigned notetaker and
facilitator that gathered feedback from the group for
approximately forty-five minutes. Upon closing the
breakout rooms, participants re-joined the general
meeting where facilitators shared their group’s feedback summary with the larger group. Additionally, one of the breakout rooms was facilitated and discussed in Spanish with approximately 10 community members.

Notifications of the Community Meeting were distributed electronically via LinkLB, the City’s email notification system, to over 3,000 email addresses for people who have signed up for notifications for latest news or initiatives and programs from Development Services, or for notifications related to general plan updates. The events were also
promoted through a memo to the Mayor and City Council,
and through social media via Facebook events hosted and promoted by both the City and Development Services
Department’s Facebook accounts. The meetings were
advertised in all four City languages of English, Spanish, Tagalog and Khmer.

The questions and feedback received during the workshop are categorized below:
• Chat Input
• Poll Results
• Breakout Rooms Summary
Chat Input
(96 Comments/Questions)
» Comments about what residents love about Long
Beach – diversity, parks, proximity to ocean and sense
of community.
» Comments about housing needs – more affordable
housing, quality of housing and less high-density
housing.
» Comments raised about eviction concerns, racist
housing practices and extremely high rent prices that
eat up more than half of a salary.
» Need for low-income housing that is accessible to
people without legal status or insurance.
» Concerns about landlords blaming tenants for rodent
infestations and dilapidated buildings where landlords
refuse to make improvements or force tenants to pay for them.
» Requests to end single family zoning, rent stabilization at mobile home parks to prevent space rent gouging,
and regulations to limit predatory landlords from taking advantage of tenants.
» Some concerns were raised regarding parking included
(or excluded) with affordable housing.
» Comments disputing RHNA data reporting accuracy.
» Concern that AB1482 is not a permanent solution.
» Concerns about SB9 and SB10.
» Specific questions:
– How do we make sure the bonuses don’t all go to
market rate builders?
– Why does the City continue to remove the
affordability element from units downtown?
– Shouldn’t housing be affordable instead of resorting
to “micro-units”?
– How will the City’s planning and building departments handle increased housing demand?
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-24
January 2022
Appendix
A
Breakout Rooms Summary

1. We reviewed data and information related to housing
needs in LB during the first portion of this meeting.

Are there additional housing needs that should be
considered for this plan?
– General consensus that there is a need for more
senior housing as well as senior housing protections.
– Participants identified a need for renter protections to avoid evictions and subsequent higher rents.
– The rental market is highly competitive and rent
prices are significantly higher, making it difficult to find affordable housing in Long Beach, especially
with the income requirements.
– Unequal distribution of open space and buildings
across Long Beach.
– Concerns about neighborhood conservation and
building preservation efforts.

2. Has anyone looked for housing in LB recently? Can you share how that experience was and how you found
your housing?
– Gentrification/expensive residential units developed
at the expense of the rest of the city; hard to find
somewhere that feels safe and comfortable with
open space.
– You must be ready and the first in line if you put in an application because it’s a very competitive market.
– Difficulty finding pet-friendly housing.

3. Would anyone like to share about either their personal housing situation or any friends or family’s housing
situations in LB that you think we should consider as
we work on the housing plan? (follow up if they need
more prompting: How does housing impact people’s
lives? Are the housing needs of everyone you know
being met?)
– Friend who is a social worker and can barely afford
her place in LB; would like to take care of her mother
but can’t afford a larger space to share with her;
makes aging in place and keeping families together
very difficult.
– New development, redistricting, and rezoning has
raised prices of affordable housing. These disparities
have grown tremendously in the last 3-5 years, and
especially now since COVID-19.
– A resident expressed that when there is a non-urgent
fix in the apartment, the landlord raises their rent or tells them that they must pay for it.
– One resident is currently looking for an apartment
but does not have a paystub that is more than 3x the
rent. She pays $1550 for a one-bedroom apartment
and the owner does not want to fix the apartment
without raising the price.
– Resident contacted the code enforcement
department when her bathroom ceiling fell through
and they told her they don’t have enough staff to
make a visit. The manager fixed it in the end, but he
raised the rent price by $100.

4. What is the most important housing issue to you, your family, and/or your community?
– Housing the homeless.
– Allocate new housing to people with low income.
– Preventing developers from creating development
monopolies.
– Prioritizing neighborhood improvements and
community spaces.

5. What should be prioritized for the housing element?
– Keeping people house and meeting goals for each
housing population.
– Supporting tenants to become homeowners.
– How to prevent homelessness and help the homeless.
– RHNA numbers should be reassessed for accuracy.
– Build and preserve where it makes sense.

6. Where is more housing need in the City?
– Eastside of Long Beach

7. Are there any suggestions for how to increase housing production to meet the community need?
– Use of decommissioned cruise ships docked in Long
Beach for residential space.
– Up-zoning lots that are single family to allow for
possibility of creating more housing (building
duplexes and multifamily units).
– Converting commercial spaces to residential or
adding residential space to a commercial space; more
creative approaches aside from up-zoning.
– County has established design guidelines examples
for new housing and infrastructures that can be
considered.
– Manage the infrastructural component related
to housing development, including utilities and
materials.
– SB9 & SB10 – Legislation coming from the State that
needs to be closely watched.

Appendix | Public Participation
A-25
January 2022
AAppendix
Poll Results

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-26
January 2022
Appendix
A

Appendix | Public Participation
A-27
January 2022
AAppendix

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-28
January 2022
Appendix
A

Appendix | Public Participation
A-29
January 2022
AAppendix

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-30
January 2022
Appendix
A

Appendix | Public Participation
A-31
January 2022
AAppendix
A.5.14 Community Meeting #2
Saturday, May 1, 2021
Zoom Webinar from 11:00am – 1:00pm
Attended by approximately 22 members of the public, the community meeting focused on presenting an overview of
the Housing Element Update, understanding the current
housing crisis, and policies and strategies for the City to include in the Housing Plan. This meeting was held on a Saturday morning to provide an opportunity consistent
with community members varying schedules.

During the presentation, participants were encouraged to use the chat functions to provide feedback on the content presented.

The presentation was followed by a breakout session where participants were split up into two breakout sessions, one facilitated in English and one facilitated in Spanish, and given an opportunity to answer a series of housing-related questions prepared by the City as well as provide any
additional feedback.

Each breakout room had an assigned notetaker and
facilitator that gathered feedback from the group for
approximately forty-five minutes. Upon closing the
breakout rooms, participants re-joined the general meeting where facilitators shared their group’s feedback summary with the larger group.

The questions and feedback received during the workshop are categorized below:
» Chat Input
» Poll Results
» Breakout Rooms Summary
Chat Input
(44 Comments/Questions)
» Comments about what residents love about Long Beach
– proximity to job, walkability, access to shopping and schools.
» Comments about why housing is important – stability,
growing families, safety, investment, saving, a place to live, plan, play, dream.
» Request for affordable housing on the westside.
» Request for free housing for low-income college
students.
» Concerns about extremely high housing costs and
housing equity.
» Request for City to look beyond exclusionary zoning
and take a more hands on approach to housing,
whether that’s a “housing first” approach for unhoused
individuals, or piloting communal/new kinds of public
housing.
» Request for workforce training centers or community
centers with housing development units.

Breakout Rooms Summary

1. Are there additional housing needs that should be
considered for this plan?
– Senior, assisted living opportunities and open up
single living housing.
– Example in OC of single living/senior living with
access to transit.
– Multi-level housing that’s cost effective.
– Housing for families.
– Community service housing.

2. Has anyone looked for housing in LB recently? Can you share how that experience was and how you found
your housing?
– Challenge to find affordable housing in LB like
everywhere else in SoCal.
– Challenge for residents with fixed income to find
housing.
– Lack of parking for apartment buildings.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-32
January 2022
Appendix
A

4. What is the most important housing issue to you, your family, and/or your community?
– Homeless community.
– Walkability/public transit.
– Job opportunities closer to housing. Protect
neighborhoods from changing drastically.

5. What should be prioritized for the housing element?
– More social services: childcare facilities/schools .
– Workforce training centers near housing
developments.
– Combination housing/workforce structures such as
micro apartments.
– Grocery stores and other resources near housing
developments.

Poll Results
A.5.15 Capacity Building (Underway)
The City has partnered with United Cambodian
Communities and Long Beach Forward who are
collaborating with other community-based organizations
on developing a unique partnership to help organize
further outreach and reach historically underserved and multi-lingual communities. The collaboration has led to multi-lingual, accessible summaries of the draft plan and housing crisis, a multi-lingual resource guide for housing assistance found on the Housing Element webpage, the
development of an accessible executive summary of the
plan, capacity building trainings and a community event held on September 29th at which community members
learned more about the history of housing issues and
policies in Long Beach as well as the Housing Element.

There were approximately 100 participants who joined
the virtual event thanks to these community-based
organizations, and attendees shared their personal stories of how the housing crisis has and continues to impact
them, their families and their communities. Personal
stories touched on the impacts of overcrowding, including on young people’s mental health and ability to do well in school; the impact of evictions; displacement and threat of displacement; and the need for the City to provide more resources and housing assistance for those in greatest
need. This feedback helped inform revisions to the draft plan which strengthen programs related to the above-
mentioned topics, including strengthened of Tenant
Right to Counsel (Program 6.5), strengthening of tenant protection (Program 5.2), more resources for Community
Land Trusts (Program 6.8) and stronger anti-displacement requirements (Program 6.4).

Appendix | Public Participation
A-33
January 2022
AAppendix

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-34
January 2022
Appendix
A

Appendix | Public Participation
A-35
January 2022
AAppendix

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-36
January 2022
Appendix
A

Appendix | Public Participation
A-37
January 2022
AAppendix

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-38
January 2022
Appendix
A
Section A.6 Attachment 1:

Documentation
A.6.1 E-Blast Notification
Subject: The City of Long Beach Upcoming Housing
Engagement Opportunities
Subtitle: The Future of Housing in Long Beach Depends on Your Input
The City of Long Beach is updating its Housing Element and needs your help. The Housing Element sets goals, policies and programs to ensure that the City can meet the housing needs of all Long Beach residents and households over the next eight years, as required by state law.

The Housing Element provides the City with a roadmap
for accommodating the more than 26,000 units needed
to adequately house existing and future City residents
through the year 2029 and guides future decisions that
impact housing. In the current housing and economic
climate, a major focus of the Housing Element will be on:
» Removing barriers to housing production to offset
current housing shortages,
» Addressing homelessness and displacement, and
» Ensuring the availability and fair distribution of
affordable housing throughout the City.

The upcoming cycle, the 6th Cycle of the Housing Element (2021-2029) is required to be adopted by City Council and submitted to the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) for approval by Fall 2021.

You can view the current Housing Element, the 5th cycle, here.

Make yourself heard!
This is your chance to share your experience and ensure that Long Beach plans for the housing needs of all of its residents. Due to COVID-19, we’ve changed the way in
which we go about conducting public meetings and have
come up with alternative ways for you to participate in the process.

Please join us for any of the upcoming virtual community meetings.

English Digital Housing Element Workshop
Saturday, August 8, 2020
10:00 AM to 12:00 PM
Link to Join Webinar on Computer or Zoom App:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82613771879
If you would like to attend by telephone only, please dial the number listed below at the start of the meeting.

Dial-In Number: (346) 248-7799
Webinar ID: 826 1377 1879#
Spanish Digital Housing Element Workshop
Saturday, August 15, 2020
10:00 AM to 12:00 PM
Link to Join Webinar on Computer or Zoom App:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81035751166
If you would like to attend by telephone only, please dial the number listed below at the start of the meeting.

Dial-In Number: (346) 248 7799
Webinar ID: 810 3575 1166#

Community Forum #1: Understanding The Housing
Crisis in Long Beach
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
6:00 to 7:30 PM
Webinar Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84273333941
Community Forum #2: What is the Housing Element and
How Can It Help Address the Housing Shortage?
Wednesday, August 19, 2020
6:00 to 7:30 PM
Webinar Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87191068776
Appendix | Public Participation
A-39
January 2022
AAppendix
The meetings will include a presentation and Q&A portion.

If you have questions at any point during the meeting, you can use the “Raise Hand” function on Zoom or press *9 on your phone. For the Q&A, you will have the option type in questions you may have for the presenters. We recommend you join via the Zoom app or on a desktop so you can
participate in the Q&A more easily.

You can find more information on how to participate in
the meeting as well as the meeting rules on our website:
longbeach.gov/housingelementupdate. For additional
language interpretation, please call (562) 570-6194 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.

Thank you and stay safe.

CALL: (562) 570-6194
E-MAIL: [email protected]
WEB: longbeach.gov/housingelementupdate
FACEBOOK: “Like” the Development Services Facebook
page
TWITTER: Follow us on Twitter @LongBeachBuilds
INSTAGRAM: Follow us in Instagram @LongBeachBuilds
This information is available in alternative format by
request at (562) 570-3807.

A.6.2 Flyer
The Future of Housing in Long Beach Depends on Your
Input
The City of Long Beach is updating its Housing Element and needs your help. The Housing Element sets goals, policies and programs to ensure that the City can meet the housing needs of all Long Beach residents and households over the next eight years, as required by state law.

Please join us for any of the upcoming virtual community meetings.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-40
January 2022
Appendix
A
English Digital Housing Element Workshop #1
Saturday, August 8, 2020
10:00 AM to 12:00 PM
Link to Join Webinar on Computer or Zoom App:
tinyurl.com/y82d53fz
If you would like to attend by telephone only, please dial the number listed below at the start of the meeting.

Dial-In Number: (346) 248-7799
Webinar ID: 826 1377 1879#
Community Forum #1: Understanding The Housing
Crisis in Long Beach
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
6:00 to 7:30 PM
Webinar Link: tinyurl.com/y77dpbsl
Spanish Digital Housing Element Workshop #1
Saturday, August 15, 2020
10:00 AM to 12:00 PM
Link to Join Webinar on Computer or Zoom App:
tinyurl.com/yb94okft
If you would like to attend by telephone only, please dial the number listed below at the start of the meeting.

Dial-In Number: (346) 248-7799
Webinar ID: 810 3575 1166#
Community Forum #2: What is the Housing Element and
How Can It Help Address the Housing Shortage?
Wednesday, August 19, 2020
6:00 to 7: 30 PM
Webinar Link: tinyurl.com/y77q4s62
You can find more information on how to participate in
the meeting as well as the meeting rules on our website:
longbeach.gov/housingelementupdate. For additional
language interpretation, please call (562) 570-6194 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.

A.6.3 Mailer: English and Spanish

Appendix | Public Participation
A-41
January 2022
AAppendix

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-42
January 2022
Appendix
A
A.6.4 Copy of Mailer: Khmer

Appendix | Public Participation
A-43
January 2022
AAppendix

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-44
January 2022
Appendix
A
A.6.5 Mailer: Tagalog

Appendix | Public Participation
A-45
January 2022
AAppendix

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-46
January 2022
Appendix
A
A.6.6 Bill Insert

Appendix | Public Participation
A-47
January 2022
AAppendix
A.6.7 Social Media Posts
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-48
January 2022
Appendix
A
A.6.8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Appendix | Public Participation
A-49
January 2022
AAppendix

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-50
January 2022
Appendix
A

Appendix | Public Participation
A-51
January 2022
AAppendix

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-52
January 2022
Appendix
A
A.6.9 Community Forum Presentation (Sample)

Appendix | Public Participation
A-53
January 2022
AAppendix

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-54
January 2022
Appendix
A

Appendix | Public Participation
A-55
January 2022
AAppendix

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-56
January 2022
Appendix
A

Appendix | Public Participation
A-57
January 2022
AAppendix

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
A-58
January 2022
Appendix
A
This page left intentionally blank
Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-1
BAppendix
January 2022
Appendix B: Housing Needs
Assessment
Section B.1 Background
The Housing Needs Assessment for the Housing Element
analyzes important population and housing characteristics to identify the City’s specific housing needs. This evaluation also serves as the basis for the City’s goals, policies and programs detailed in the Housing Plan that will be
implemented over the 2021-2029 planning period of the
Housing Element.

Important characteristics to consider include:
» Demographic characteristics including of age, race/
ethnicity and employment
» Household type, age and income
» Special housing needs present in the community
» Housing type, cost, condition and affordability; and
» Evaluation of the City’s share of the region’s housing needs
The events of 2020 underscored both the urgency and
inequities related housing need nationally and in Long
Beach. Prior to the COVID19 pandemic, housing was
already considered the most influential social determinant of health in Long Beach. Housing became even more critical of a health issue as it related to housing affordability for already struggling populations and the tens of thousands in the City who lost their jobs due to the pandemic.

Housing quality was important as people spent more time at home, particularly for children and older adults who are the most vulnerable to poor air quality and health dangers associated with heat waves. The issue of household
overcrowding turned out to be a significant vulnerability factor for community spread of COVID19 in Long Beach and across the country. Due to the housing crisis, overcrowding impacts more than 12% of all households in Long Beach,
but it is most predominant in Long Beach neighborhoods
with the least access to parks and open space, and the
worst environmental health indicators, creating a situation where overcrowded households also have the least access to safe spaces to spend time outdoors.

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, was killed by four Minneapolis Police Officers. The incident was captured on video for the world to see. Across the
nation, including in Long Beach, people took to the
streets in public outcry to condemn the violence and
racial inequities that have systematically and historically impacted Black people. In June 2020, the Long Beach
City Council engaged in a conversation about racism as a public health crisis, the need to restore public trust in City government, and how to reconcile the enormous gap in
the experiences and health outcomes of impacted and
vulnerable people with current City policies, especially the Black community. During the listening process conducted in the summer of 2020 to inform the Long Beach
Framework for Reconciliation, Long Beach community
members expressed outrage over inequities causally
related to the City’s land use system, including from lack of access to quality and affordable housing, well-paying jobs, environmentally safe neighborhoods, and healthy food.

The community survey conducted as part of that process
actually found that “housing discrimination/redlining” was the top way in which people in Long Beach who responded to the survey have experienced racism.

The socioeconomic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic
further illustrate the existing inequalities. Health is impacted by various social determinants, including barriers to quality housing and education, lack of safe places to recreate, and high pollution levels. Due to these factors, communities of color are more likely to have underlying health conditions that increase their risk of contracting a severe case of the virus. For example, in Los Angeles County in December 2020, Black residents were nearly
twice as likely to be hospitalized after contracting the virus than White residents. Many Latino residents are employed in the service industry as essential workers, where they are not only at higher risk of exposure to the virus, but also more vulnerable to layoffs and lost wages due to business closures. In Los Angeles County in December 2020, Latino residents were more than twice as likely to contract the virus and three times as likely to be hospitalized after contracting the virus as White residents.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-2
Appendix
B
January 2022
Much of the data in the following section illustrates the disparities in income, unemployment, and access to
housing and opportunities based on race and ethnicity in Long Beach. These trends are perpetuated as households
with low incomes are unable to move into high opportunity areas with better jobs access and better schools due to the lack of affordable housing in these areas.

The events of 2020 and subsequent national and local
policy discussions have made clear that racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities have far-reaching impacts, from access to affordable housing and jobs to health outcomes.

Equitable access to housing for all communities, particularly communities of color, must be a key consideration in the development of this Housing Element. To that end, the
goal of the analysis within this section is to clarify the type and extent of housing needs of residents in Long Beach
to inform the goals, policies and programs detailed in
the Housing Plan to be implemented over the 2021-2029
planning period.

Section B.2 Population Characteristics
Population characteristics affect the type and amount of housing need in a community. Issues such as population growth, age characteristics, race/ethnicity and employment trends combine to influence the type of housing needed
and ability to afford housing. This section details the various population characteristics affecting housing needs.

B.2.1 Population Trends
Currently, the City of Long Beach is the seventh largest city in the State of California. The past seventy years have seen extensive growth, with population increasing from
approximately 250,000 persons in 1950 to over 472,000
by 2020. Over this period, Long Beach has experienced
several cycles of growth – each bringing with it changes in population characteristics that affect housing need.

Table B-1 summarizes population changes in Long Beach
since 1950.

Long Beach experienced significant population growth
during the World War II era, driven by wartime jobs
associated with the military and port. This growth
continued in the 1950s and 1960s, as many who had
located in Long Beach to support the war effort decided to stay permanently. Economic and population growth
was further stimulated by the emergence of the aerospace and defense industries in Long Beach. As a result, the City’s population increased significantly, from approximately
251,000 in 1950 to a peak of 344,000 by 1960 – a total of 37 percent over the decade. This unprecedented growth led to significant suburban development and City annexation of areas such as Los Altos in East Long Beach. It also led to the long-term use of temporary worker housing as permanent
housing as housing growth struggled to keep pace with
population growth.

The 1960s and 1970s were characterized by more modest
population growth. Population increased approximately
five percent over two decades, rising from 344,000 in
1960 to 361,000 persons by 1980. This period of stability was related to the emergence of suburban communities
around the City, the relocation of the navy, the decline in federal contracts for the aerospace industry, and the economic decline of the downtown. Without job growth,
housing demand and population growth was minimal.

The 1980s signaled a return of rapid population growth.

From 1980 to 1990, population increased 19 percent
from 361,000 to 429,000. In particular, between 1984 and 1988, the City’s population increased 2.5 percent annually – growing more than the previous 24-year period (1960-
1984). Several factors contributed to the population growth during this time. Employment growth, particularly in the defense and aerospace sector, drew many new residents
to the City. The City also saw a significant increase in immigration from Southeast Asia, Mexico, Central America, and South America. Additionally, inexpensive new housing production (the so-called “cracker box” developments)
not only provided housing for the City’s new residents but drew even more households to the City. An increase family formation also contributed to the decade’s rapid growth.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-3
BAppendix
January 2022
The population boom of the 1980s eventually slowed.

Significant federal cutbacks in defense budgets, the
shutting down of shipbuilding and naval facilities, and reduction in the aerospace workforce downsized the
defense industry in Long Beach occurred in the 1990’s.

Meanwhile, a local real estate market decline in the 1990s coupled with economic restructuring also reduced housing demand. As a result, housing construction and population growth slowed considerably during the 1990s.

The City’s population increased by less than one percent between 2000 and 2010, reflecting a relatively stagnant economy between 2006 and 2010. Population growth
has remained relatively flat since 2010, with an estimated population of 466,776 in 2019, representing an increase of one percent.

Although the share of the City’s foreign born population has declined since 1980s, this population still makes up a significant portion of the City’s residents. The 2015-2019 American Community Survey estimates that 117,414
Long Beach residents were foreign born, comprising
approximately 25 percent of the population. Additionally, it has been estimated that approximately 26 percent
of immigrants (30,775 persons) residing in Long Beach
are were undocumented in 2016. 1 Recent immigrants,
who often have limited resources, can face difficulties in acquiring adequate housing. The undocumented
population faces further barriers to affordable housing as they are ineligible for key federal programs, such
as Housing Choice Vouchers. American Community
Survey estimates that 117,414 Long Beach residents were foreign born, comprising approximately 25 percent of
the population. Additionally, it has been estimated that approximately 26 percent of immigrants (30,775 persons) residing in Long Beach are were undocumented in 2016.

Recent immigrants, who often have limited resources,
can face difficulties in acquiring adequate housing. The undocumented population faces further barriers to
affordable housing as they are ineligible for key federal programs, such as Housing Choice Vouchers.

Table B-1: Population Growth in Long Beach
Y ear Population Change % Change
1950 250,767 -- --
1960 344,168 93,401 37%
1970 358,633 14,465 4%
1980 361,334 2,701 < 1%
1990 429,433 68,099 19%
2000 461,522 32,089 7%
2010 462,257 735 < 1%
2019 466,776 4,519 1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1950-2010 Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019.
1City of Long Beach and New American Economy. “New Americans in Long Beach” , 2016.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-4
Appendix
B
January 2022
B.2.2 Age Characteristics
Housing demand is affected by the age characteristics of residents in a community. Different age groups are often distinguished by important differences in lifestyle, family type, housing preferences and income levels. Because the community’s housing needs change over time, this section analyzes changes in the age distribution of Long Beach
residents and how these changes affect housing need.

Table B-2 summarizes the age characteristics of the City’s population from 1990 through 2019.

As illustrated in Table B-2, the City’s population under age 18 has been in slow decline since 2000, from 29 percent of the population in 2000 to 23 percent of the population in 2018.

Long Beach’s share of college age (18-24 years) residents has remained relatively stable, hovering between 11 and 13 percent of the total population. The City’s middle age population (ages 45-64) has increased steadily, comprising 15 percent of the population in 1990 and 25 percent of the population in 2019. The proportion of senior residents in the City declined in the 1990s; however, the number of
senior residents began to increase in the early 2000s, with a sharper increase occurring over the last decade. Given the City’s large number of middle age residents, Long Beach’s senior population will likely continue to grow significantly over the coming decade.

Table B-2: Age Characteristics
Age
Groups
1990 2000 2010 2019
Persons Percent Persons Percent Persons Percent Persons Percent < 5 37,669 9% 38,587 8% 32,474 7% 30,438 7%
5-17 71,798 17% 96,052 21% 82,669 18% 73,998 16%
18-24 57,199 13% 50,158 11% 54,163 12% 48,263 10%
25-44 153,939 36% 151,884 33% 140,910 30% 145,299 31%
45-64 62,365 15% 82,939 18% 109,206 24% 115,467 25%
65+ 46,463 11% 41,902 9% 42,835 9% 53,311 11%
Total 429,433 100% 461,522 100% 462,257 100% 466,776 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 1990-2010, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-5
BAppendix
January 2022
B.2.3 Race and Ethnicity
Currently, Long Beach is considered to be one of the most racially and ethnically diverse major cities in the United States. During the 1970s and 1980s, Long Beach was an
important destination for thousands of immigrants fleeing wars and political turmoil in Southeast Asia, especially from Cambodia, Vietnam and the Philippines, along with those from various Latin American countries. During the 1980s, the City’s foreign-born population doubled to over 100,000 persons, with the majority of the immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America. As shown in Figure B-1, this marked the beginning of the City’s transformation to being a multi-racial and multi-ethnic community.

Figure B-1 displays the racial/ethnic composition of Long Beach’s population from 1980 through 2017. Since 1980, the White population declined from 68 percent to 28
percent of the population in 2017. During that same time frame, the Hispanic population has nearly quadrupled and comprised 43 percent of the City’s total population by
2017. The proportion of the City’s population that is Asian or Pacific Islander saw the most significant increase in the 1980s, consistent with the immigration trends discussed above. The proportion of Asian and Pacific Islander
residents has remained stable over the last two decades at 14 percent.

The proportion of Black residents peaked at 14 percent in 2000. However, since 2000 the proportion of Black residents has reduced to 12 percent of the population in 2017.

As Asian and Latino residents have continued to move
into the City, they have become the largest populations neighborhoods in central Long Beach where the Black
population had been the largest in the past. The City’s Black population has relocated to North Long Beach and
other neighboring cities such as Paramount, Lakewood,
and Compton, as well as other suburbs such as the Inland Empire and Antelope Valley.2
Figure B-1: Races and Ethnicities of Long Beach
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980-2010 Census; Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., National Equity Atlas 2Norman, Alex and Hollie, Lydia. “The State of Black Long Beach: A Call to Action for a Black Agenda” , Long Beach, CA, 2013.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-6
Appendix
B
January 2022
Concentrations of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Long
Beach
While Long Beach as a whole is an ethnically diverse
community, it remains a very segregated city, and both
White residents and non-White residents tend to be
concentrated geographically. Areas with concentrations of minority residents may have different needs, particularly in areas where recent immigrants tend to reside.

Figure B-2 maps the percent of non-white residents by
census tract within the City of Long Beach. As shown on the map, there are 37 census tracts within the City with populations that are over 90 percent non-white, comprising over one-third of the City’s census tracts. The areas with the highest concentrations of non-whites are located in North Long Beach, Central Long Beach north of Downtown, and
the Westside.

Although Hispanic residents have always been present
in Long Beach, during the 1990s this group became the
City’s largest racial/ethnic community (See Figure B-1 ).

During this time the Hispanic population grew significantly throughout the, including the Gateway cities South LA,
in addition to Long Beach. The migrants to Long Beach
in the 1990s were typically linguistically isolated young families who were able to find housing in many of the
same Long Beach neighborhoods that had housed the
city’s Cambodian and Black population. As the number
of Hispanics within Long Beach has continued to increase since the 1990s, the Hispanic population of the city has increased in other areas in addition to Central Long Beach, particularly Wrigley, the Westside, and North Long Beach.

The Black community in Long Beach was historically
restricted to the areas northeast of Downtown in the
vicinity of the Pacific Coast campus of the Long Beach City College at the intersection of the Pacific Coast Highway and Alamitos, in the part of Long Beach that was formerly redlined as documented through FHA maps. Since this
area was one housing mainly lower income households in
the mid-1970s, it soon accommodated many impoverished
Cambodians beginning to arrive in the City. According
to “Roots/Raíces” , a report on the dynamic of Hispanic immigrants settling in the historically African American area of South LA, many Black families began to move out of these neighborhoods during the 1980s and 1990s in
response to excessive/militarized policing and safety and security issues in these areas, opening housing for other populations to move in. 3 However, housing options for Black households continued to be limited by the lasting effects of redlining and other discriminatory housing
policies, coupled with lower access to jobs (as illustrated by higher rates of unemployment and lower incomes), and higher rental rates. Many Black households relocated to neighboring cities as previously discussed.

Long Beach’s ethnically Filipino population traditionally settled in the West Side near the naval facilities. As ethnic Filipino residents acculturated and become more affluent, the population increasingly located across the Los Angeles River into the Wrigley neighborhood. The City’s highest concentration of ethnic Cambodians has historically
been at the Anaheim/Cherry Avenue corridors. More
recently, the ethnic Cambodian population has also begun relocating to apartments in North Long Beach.

As shown in Figure B-2, areas of high White concentration remain in much of East Long Beach. Discriminatory housing policies and housing market practices such as redlining historically excluded communities of color from these
areas and though these policies and practices are now
illegal, the effects are still apparent. This area is the highest resourced area within the City, with the best schools, best access to jobs, and least pollution burden, according to the City’s Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Residents of high opportunity areas such as East Long Beach continue to
benefit from better access to education, jobs, and quality housing. With little affordable housing available in East Long Beach, and resistance to the development of new
affordable housing in the area, communities of color are effectively kept from accessing these benefits. Further discussion on this topic can be found in the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing section of this assessment, as well as in the City’s AFH.
3 Pastor, Manuel; Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette; Sanchez-Lopez, Alejandro; Stephens, Pamela; Carter, Vanessa; and Thompson-Hernandez, Walter. “Roots/ Raíces: Latino Engagement, Place Identities, and Shared Futures in South Los Angeles” , USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, 2016.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-7
BAppendix
January 2022
Figure B-2: Percent Non-White Population by Census Tract, 2018

Percentage Non-White Constraints Analysis
0 0.5 1
Miles
VERSION: DRAFTDATE: 6/15/2021 SCALE: 1 to 85,000
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table DP05
81% or more
61% to 80%
41% - 60%
Up to 40% Census Tracts
City Boundary
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-8
Appendix
B
January 2022
B.2.4 Employment Market
Employment is an important factor in determining access to housing. Higher paying jobs allow households greater choice in housing while lower income can severely limit a household’s housing options.

The Long Beach-Los Angeles metropolitan region, like
other metropolitan areas across the southland, underwent significant economic changes during the 1990s. Military base closures, defense industry layoffs, a slowdown in the manufacturing and construction sectors and rising levels of unemployment characterized the regional economy
through the early 1990s. During the Great Recession of the late 2000s, the City’s unemployment rate peaked at

13.6 percent in 2010, according to the State Economic
Development Department.

Figure B-3 shows unemployment rates for the City of Long Beach from 2010 to 2019. Unemployment rates declined
steadily after the 2010 Great Recession peak. Between 2017 and 2019, the City’s unemployment rate remained under
five percent.

Figure B-3: Unemployment Rates, 2010-2019
Source: California Economic Development Department
Figure B-4 illustrates unemployment rates by race and
Hispanic or Latino origin. As shown, rates of unemployment are consistently higher for Long Beach residents that are Black or of Hispanic/Latino origin. Unemployment also
tends to be higher among residents that identify as “some other race” . Higher unemployment rates among these
groups may also create additional roadblocks in finding affordable housing due to lack of consistent income.

Overall, unemployment was lowest among the White
population, with the exception of 2018 when the lowest
unemployment rate was among Asian residents.

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, unemployment rates in
the City have skyrocketed in 2020. The unemployment rate increased from a low of 4.6 percent in January and February to a peak of 21.0 percent in May 2020, according to the California Economic Development Department. Since the
peak in May, unemployment rates have dropped slightly
(17.2 percent in August); however, the long-term impact of the pandemic on employment is still unknown.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-9
BAppendix
January 2022
Figure B-4: Unemployment by Race/Ethnicity (2015-2019)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 (1-year Estimates) Table B-3 shows the types of jobs held by Long Beach
residents in 2000, 2010, and 2019. As shown, the proportion of residents employed in each occupational category has not changed significantly since 2000. There has been a
slight increase in the proportion of residents employed in Management and Business occupations from 34 percent
in 2010 to 37 percent in 2019. The proportion of Service occupations has also increased, from 16 percent in 2000 to 21 percent in 2019. Between 2010 and 2019, the only
occupational category that experience a decrease was
Sales and Office occupations. Sales and Office occupations comprised 27 percent of employment in 2010 and 20
percent in 2019.

The total number of residents employed in service
occupations has risen dramatically (66 percent) since 2000.

Employment in Management and Business Occupations
has also risen significantly (33 percent increase since 2000). The steady increase of both these occupational
types is evidence that Long Beach exhibits an increasingly bifurcated economy with one segment of the population
in higher paying management occupations while an
increasing segment of the population remains in lower
wage service jobs with fewer benefits and opportunities for upward mobility. This increase in residents in lower wage service occupations may indicate a need for additional
affordable housing units in the future.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-10
Appendix
B
January 2022
Table B-3: Employment Profile
Occupation of
Residents
2000 2010 2019 % Change
Persons Percent Persons Percent Persons Percent 2000-
2010
2010-
2019
Business/
Management 65,060 34% 72,851 34% 86,623 37% 12% 19%
Sales/Office 51,516 27% 57,549 27% 46,678 20% 12% -19%
Service
Occupations 30,019 16% 41,174 19% 49,233 21% 37% 20%
Production/
Transportation 27,967 15% 27,511 13% 32,167 14% -2% 17% Natural
Resources/
Construction/
Maintenance
14,649 8% 16,435 8% 16,925 7% 12% 3%
Farming/
Forestry/
Fishing
276 0.1% 594 0.3% 723 0.3% 115% 22%
Total 189,487 100% 215,520 100% 231,626 100% 14% 7%
Notes:

1. Farming/Forestry/Fishing is a subcategory of Natural Resources/Construction/Maintenance

2. Total = Civilian employed population 16 years and over Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 (5-year Estimates) Change in Employment Base
Table B-4 details the changes in Long Beach’s employment base between 2000 and 2019. Employment base refers
to the industries that provide jobs within the City. Over this time period, the manufacturing, wholesale trade,
and information sectors declined. While the retail sector experienced significant growth between 2000 and 2010,
retail sector jobs experienced a six percent decline between 2010 and 2019. The arts/ entertainment/recreation sector experienced the a 61 percent increase between 2000 and
2019. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining sector also experience growth (72 percent increase);
however, this sector only makes up 1 percent of the total.

Jobs in the transportation and warehousing sector also
increased in number (48 percent increase between 2000
and 2019). Between 2010 and 2019, the City added a net total of 16,106 jobs (7 percent increase).

In 2019, the education/health/social services sector made up the largest proportion of Long Beach’s economy,
employing 23 percent of the City’s labor force. Professional/ scientific/management jobs made up 13 percent of the
labor force, followed by arts/entertainment/recreation at 11 percent, manufacturing at 10 percent, and retail trade at 9 percent.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-11
BAppendix
January 2022
Table B-4: Change in Employment Levels
Employment Sector 2000 2010 2019
Percent
Change
2000-2010
Percent
Change
2010-2019
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and
mining
748 1,020 1,288 36% 26%
Construction 9,627 11,573 12,297 20% 6%
Manufacturing 27,248 24,797 22,366 -9% -10%
Wholesale trade 8,675 8,142 6,459 -6% -21%
Retail trade 19,445 23,210 21,907 19% -6%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 12,578 14,651 18,664 16% 27% Information 6,173 5,189 5,520 -16% 6%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and
rental and leasing
11,246 12,781 12,815 14% 0%
Professional, scientific, and management,
and administrative and waste management
services
20,240 25,169 29,975 24% 19%
Educational services, and health care and
social assistance
39,982 46,826 52,773 17% 13%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and
accommodation and food services
16,272 22,547 26,131 39% 16%
Other services, except public administration 10,192 11,605 11,682 14% 1% Public administration 7,061 8,010 9,749 13% 22%
Total 189,487 215,520 231,626 14% 7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 (5-year Estimates) According to the California Employment Development Department Local Long-Term Employment Projections, the Los Angeles/Long Beach/Glendale Metropolitan Statistical Area is projected to see a ten percent growth in jobs between 2016 and 2026, according to the most recent data available. However, the highest increases are projected to be for personal care and service occupations (30 percent increase), food preparation and serving occupations (21 percent increase), and healthcare support occupations (21 percent increase). These are generally lower wage occupations with median annual wages ranging from $24,851 to $32,833, according to the Employment Development Department.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-12
Appendix
B
January 2022
Section B.3 Household Characteristics
Household composition, income, and other characteristics determine the type of housing needed by residents. The
following sections discuss household and housing stock
characteristics affecting housing needs in Long Beach, as well as the housing problems experienced by the City’s
residents.

B.3.1 Household Type
A household is defined as all persons living in a housing unit. Families are a subset of households and include
those persons living together that are related by blood, marriage, or adoption. A single person living alone is also a household, but a household does not include
persons in group quarters or dormitories. Other nonfamily households are unrelated people residing in the same
dwelling unit, such as roommates and two families sharing housing arrangements.

According to the 2015-2019 American Community
Survey, there are 166,813 households residing in Long
Beach. Table B-5 displays Long Beach households by
type. The majority of households in Long Beach have
a single householder (53 percent). This includes single householders who live alone (which comprise 31 percent
of total households), as well as single householders living with children or others. Married couple households make up 38 percent of the total, while other cohabiting couples make up 9 percent of total households. It is also important to note that 31 percent of all households contained one or more person under the age of 18.

Table B-5: Households by Type (2015-2019)
Household Type Number of
Households
Percent
of Total
Households
Married Couple Family 63,720 38%
With own children 27,853 17%
Cohabiting Couple
Household 14,567 9%
With own children 4,828 3%
Single Householder, no
spouse/partner present 88,526 53%
With own children 12,360 7%
Householder Living
Alone 51,639 31%
Householder Living Alone
(65+) 13,798 8%
Total Households 166,813 100%
Table B-6 illustrates the changes in household type from 2000 to 2018. There has only been a 2 percent increase
in total households since 2000. The proportion of family households has remained relatively unchanged since
2000. However, the distribution of family households did change noticeably between 2000 and 2018. Since 2000,
the proportion of families with children decreased by 20 percent, while the proportion of families without children increased by 25 percent. Some evidence attributes the
decline in the proportion of families with children to the rising costs of housing, stagnant or decreasing wages,
and lack of sufficient access. The number of single-person households has also increased, with an 11 percent increase between 2010 and 2018. While the number of non-family
households increased significantly between 2000 and 2010 (17 percent), it decreased by 12 percent between 2010 and 2018.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-13
BAppendix
January 2022
Table B-6: Changes in Household Type
Household
Type
2000 2010 2018 % Change
Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent 2000- 2010
2010-
2018
Families 99,663 61% 99,229 61% 99,152 60% 0% 0%
With children 57,080 35% 50,794 31% 45,797 28% -11% -10% With no
children 42,583 26% 48,435 30% 53,355 32% 14% 10%
Singles 48,207 30% 46,536 28% 51,673 31% -3% 11%
Other
non-families 15,218 9% 17,766 11% 15,635 9% 17% -12%
Total
Households 163,088 100% 163,531 100% 166,460 100% 0% 2% Average
Household Size 2.7 persons 2.8 persons 2.76 persons -- -- Note: The household types are categorized has changed with the 2015-2019 ACS. Therefore, 2014-2018 ACS data is utilized in this table in order to provide a direct comparison to past years.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2014-2018 (5-year Estimates) B.3.2 Household Size
Another important housing characteristic affecting housing need is household size⁴. The average household size has changed little since 2000, from 2.7 persons in 2000 to 2.74 persons in 2019 (2019 ACS 1-year estimates). The average family size in the City has also remained relatively stagnant (3.52 persons in both 2010 and 2019). The City’s average household size and family size are smaller than that of LA County as a whole, which had an average household size
of 2.96 and average family size of 3.63 (per the 2019 ACS).

Recent Census Bureau data does not divide household and family size by race/ethnicity; however, 2010 Census data shows that household and family size varies widely by racial/ ethnic group ( Table B-7 ). In 2010, Hispanic households had the largest household size (3.73) and family size (4.16), followed by Asian households and families.
⁴ A household is an occupied housing unit and includes all persons residing in that unit. A household can consist of a single person, a family, multiple families, unrelated individuals living together, and any combination of these groups.

Table B-7: Household Size and Family Size by Race/Ethnicity (2010)
Total White Black Asian Hispanic
Average
Household
Size

2.78 2.08 2.50 3.20 3.73
Average
Family Size 3.52 2.80 3.20 3.80 4.16
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census
These differences in household and family size suggest
that housing needs and issues vary by race and ethnicity.

For instance, a high proportion of large Asian and Hispanic households may indicate that overcrowding or cost burden are issues for those communities.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-14
Appendix
B
January 2022
B.3.3 Household Income
Household income is the most important factor affecting housing opportunity, determining a family’s ability to
afford a place to live, and to balance housing costs with basic necessities of life. Income levels can vary considerably among households, based upon tenure, household type,
location of residence, and race/ethnicity among other
factors.

According to the 2015-2019 ACS, households in Long Beach earned a median household income of $63,017 – below the $68,044 median household income for Los Angeles County.

The median family income in Long Beach ($72,206) was
also below the County’s family median income of $76,673.

Analyzing median household income by geographic area
provides important information about where the need for affordable housing may be the most critical.

Figure B-5 maps the median household income by Census
Tract in the City. As shown on the map, areas with the lowest median household income are concentrated on the West
side of the City, in Central Long Beach, near Downtown, as well as in North Long Beach.

Table B-8 indicates the proportion of Long Beach residents who work in various occupations and the median income
associated with those occupations for Long Beach and
Los Angeles County. It should be noted that a significant proportion of Long Beach residents (20 percent) are
employed in Service Occupations, which has the lowest
median income ($21,495) of all the occupation groups.

Table B-8: Occupation and Wage Comparison
Occupation # LB Residents
Employed
Percent LB
Residents
Employed
Median
Annual
Earnings –
Long Beach
Median
Annual
Earnings –
LA County
Management, Business, Science, and Arts
Occupations 86,623 37.4% $63,543 $63,886
Service Occupations 46,678 20.2% $21,495 $21,450
Sales and Office Occupations 49,233 21.3% $31,950 $31,615 Natural Resources, Construction, and
Maintenance Occupations 16,925 7.3% $37,489 $32,859
Production, Transportation, and Material Moving
Occupations 32,167 13.9% $30,515 $27,213
Total 231,626 100.00% $37,095 $36,039
Note: Civilian employed population 16 years and over.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019, 5-year estimates.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-15
BAppendix
January 2022
Figure B-5: Median Household Income by Census Tract
Housing Element Update 6th Cycle
Long Beach, CA
Median Household Income
by Census Tract
0 0.5 1
Miles VERSION: FINALDATE: 6/17/2021 SCALE: 1 to 90,000
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table S1901
$100,001 or more
$35,451 - $59,100
$59,101 - $100,000
Up to $35,450
No Data
Census Tracts
0 0.5 1
Miles
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-16
Appendix
B
January 2022
To facilitate the analysis of income distribution among households in communities, the State Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) groups
households into categories by income. Income categories are determined as a percentage of the Area Median Income (AMI) and then adjusted for household size in the following manner:
» Extremely Low Income - less than 30 percent of the AMI » Very Low Income - between 31 and 50 percent of the
AMI
» Low Income - between 51 and 80 percent of the AMI
» Moderate Income - between 81 and 120 percent of the
AMI
» Above Moderate Income - greater than 120 percent of
the AMI
Collectively, extremely low, very low, and low income
households are referred to as lower income households (up to 80 percent AMI).

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) tabulates information on the number of households belonging to each of the income categories in the
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, although it should be noted that HUD’s definitions vary slightly from HCD’s definitions described above. As shown in Table B-9, between 2013 and 2017, approximately 52
percent of the City’s households earned lower incomes
(80 percent or less of the AMI), while 48 percent earned moderate or above moderate incomes (over 80 percent
of the AMI). Extremely low income households (earning
up to 30 percent of AMI) represented about 20 percent
of households in Long Beach. This income group is most susceptible to changes in economic conditions and at risk of becoming homeless with loss of income or employment.

Addressing the housing needs for this group also requires the deepest level of subsidies.

Table B-9: Income Distribution
Income
Group
Number of
Long Beach
Households
Percent
of Total
Long Beach
Households
Percent
of Total
Los
Angeles
County
Extremely Low
30% or less of
AMI
32,590 20% 19%
Very Low
31 to 50% of
AMI
24,055 15% 15%
Low
51 to 80% of
AMI
28,575 17% 18%
Median
81 to 100% of
AMI
17,495 11% 9%
Moderate and
Above
Over 100% of
AMI
62,285 38% 39%
Total 165,000 100% 100%
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), based on 2013-2017 ACS
Household Income by Race/Ethnicity
Although aggregate information on income levels is useful for looking at trends over time or comparing income
levels for different jurisdictions, income levels can vary significantly by other factors, including household type, size, and race/ethnicity.

Race/ethnicity is a characteristic that is often linked to housing need because income often varies by race/
ethnicity, as do homeownership trends, due to racially
discriminatory policies, practices and systems such as
redlining, criminalization, and hiring practices. As shown in Table B-10, Whites had the lowest proportion of lower income households (39 percent). By contrast, Hispanics (64 percent) and Blacks (61 percent) were much more likely to be lower income. Because lower income households have
less income for housing, tradeoffs in expenditures to afford other living essentials may result in a greater incidence of overpayment and/or overcrowding for these households as well as greater vulnerability to substandard or precarious Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-17
BAppendix
January 2022
housing conditions. According to the CHAS data, minority (Native American, Black, and Hispanic) households are
disproportionately represented in the extremely low
income group, compared to White households in Long
Beach. Permanent affordable housing, housing choice
vouchers, and homeless prevention programs are key
B.3.4 Special Needs Groups
Certain segments of the population have greater difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due to special
circumstances. Special circumstances may be related to
one’s employment and income, family characteristics,
ability status, and household characteristics among
others. As a result, certain groups within Long Beach
may experience a higher prevalence of lower income,
overpayment, overcrowding, or other housing problems.

City strategies in addressing the housing needs of
extremely low income households. For example, the City is pursuing Project Homekey funding to provide permanent
supportive housing for the homeless and at-risk homeless.

This program will benefit primarily extremely low income households in the City.

Table B-10: Income by Household Race/Ethnicity
Income Level White Hispanic Black
Asian/
Pacific
Islander
American
Indian/
Alaska
Native
Mixed/
Other Total
Extremely Low
30% or less of AMI 14% 23% 28% 19% 34% 16% 20%
Very Low
31 to 50% of AMI 11% 20% 14% 12% 9% 13% 15%
Low
51 to 80% of AMI 14% 20% 19% 17% 15% 21% 17%
Median
81 to 100% of AMI 10% 12% 11% 10% 3% 9% 11%
Moderate and Above
Over 100% of AMI 51% 24% 28% 41% 39% 41% 38%
Total Households 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note: HUD income categories differ from HCD.

Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017 ACS.

These “special needs” households, as they are defined by HCD, include large households, seniors, single-parent
households, persons with disabilities, people living in poverty, farmworkers, and the homeless. Because Long
Beach is home to two City Colleges and a State University, the City also hosts a large number of college students.

Table B-11 summarizes the special needs groups in Long
Beach.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-18
Appendix
B
January 2022
Table B-11: Special Needs Populations
Special Needs Groups
Number of
Households/
Persons
Owners Renters Percent
of Total
Households/
Persons
Number Percent Number Percent
Large Households 20.587 8,356 41% 12,231 59% 12%
Households with at Least One Senior
(person age 65 or older) 37,967 -- -- -- -- 23%
Senior-Headed Households 31,150 19,630 63% 11,520 37% 19% Senior Living Alone 13,798 6,873 50% 6,925 50% 8%
Single-Parent Households 12,360 -- -- -- -- 7%
Female-Headed Households with
Children 10,117 -- -- -- -- 6%
Persons with Disabilities 47,306 -- -- -- -- 10%
Families below Poverty Level 12,239 1,750 14% 10,478 86% 12% Persons below Poverty Level 77,396 -- -- -- -- 17%
Farmworkers (persons) 723 -- -- -- -- .31%
Homeless 1,894 -- -- -- -- 0.4%
College Students 45,847 -- -- -- -- 10%
Notes:

1. -- = Data not available.

2. -- = Farmworkers = all persons with farming, fishing, and forestry occupations.

Sources:
a. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019 5-year Estimates b. City of Long Beach, Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2020 Homeless Count. ⁵Source: Solari, C. D., & Mare, R. D. (2012). Housing crowding effects on children’s wellbeing. Social science research, 41(2), 464–476. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.09.012
Large Households
Large households consist of five or more persons. These households are considered a special needs population
due to the limited availability of affordable adequately sized housing for this group. The lack of large units is especially evident among rental units in Long Beach.

Large households often live in overcrowded conditions,
due to both the lack of large enough units and insufficient income to afford available units of adequate size. Los Angeles researchers found that “several dimensions of
children’s wellbeing suffer when exposed to crowded
living conditions even after controlling for socioeconomic status. The negative effects on children raised in crowded homes can persist throughout life, affecting their future socioeconomic status and adult wellbeing. ”⁵
According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey,
approximately 20,587 large households reside in Long
Beach, representing 12 percent of all households in the City. Of these large households, the majority (59 percent) are renters. Census data further documents the mismatch between the demand for larger rental units and the City’s supply of these units. Approximately 2,307 rental units in Long Beach contain four or more bedrooms. The City,
however, is home to 12,231 large renter-households. This imbalance between supply and demand may contribute to
overcrowding for large renter-households.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-19
BAppendix
January 2022
Resources Available
Large households in Long Beach can benefit from a range of services provided by the City and local agencies. The City’s Department of Health and Human Services operates the Center for Families and Youth, which offers a variety of family support programs, including job training/
employment, developmental services, housing assistance, and child care. In addition, the Central Facilities Center serves the community by providing childcare services
and public health services. The Center also links residents directly to a range of services offered by local nonprofit agencies. These services include counseling, education, youth programming and nutritional and health services.

Elderly and Frail Elderly
In 2019, approximately 11 percent of Long Beach residents were over age 65, and about 19 percent of all households were headed by seniors. Almost two-thirds of senior-
headed households owned their homes (63 percent) while
one-third (37 percent) rented their homes. Approximately 26 percent of the City’s elderly live alone and about 34 percent of elderly residents in Long Beach suffer from at least one disability.

The elderly have a number of special needs including
housing, transportation, health care, and other services.

Housing is a particular concern due to the fact that many of the elderly are on fixed incomes. As housing expenses rise, they may have less money available for medical costs and other vital services.

Resources Available
As shown later in Table B-20 Long Beach is home to
31 senior housing projects, providing more than 3,400
affordable units to lower income seniors.

The special needs of seniors can be met through a range of services, including congregate care, rent subsides, shared housing, and housing rehabilitation assistance. According to Community Care Licensing Division records, 49 licensed residential care facilities for the elderly are located in Long Beach with a total capacity to serve 2,126 persons. Twelve adult day care facilities (with a total capacity to serve 427 persons) and 44 adult residential facilities (with a total capacity to serve 463 persons) are also located in the City.

Single-Parent Households
Single-parent households often require special
consideration and assistance as a result of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care and other supportive services. According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, there were 12,360 single-
parent households in Long Beach, representing 7 percent of all households.

Single-mother households, in particular, tend to have
lower incomes, and as a result have a greater need for
affordable housing and childcare. In 2019, there were
10,117 female-headed households with children in Long
Beach. Of those households, approximately 34 percent
lived in poverty. Without access to affordable housing, many of these households may be at risk of becoming
homeless. Affordable housing with childcare centers, or in close proximity to schools, public transportation and recreation facilities can address the critical needs of lower- income single-parent families.

Another vulnerable sub-group of single-parent families
are “subfamilies” with children, which is defined as single parents/grandparents with children who live with another family. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, Long Beach had 5,572 mother-child subfamilies and 1,604 father-child
subfamilies. Many subfamilies double up with other
families in living arrangements to save income for basic necessities. In some cases, subfamilies double up to share child-rearing responsibilities.

Resources Available
Single-parent households in Long Beach can benefit from a range of services accessible to residents. The City’s Department of Health and Human Services operates the
Center for Families and Youth, which offers a variety of family support programs, including job training/employment,
developmental services, housing assistance, and child
care. The Central Facilities Center serves the community by providing childcare and public health services and by linking residents directly to services offered by other local nonprofit agencies.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-20
Appendix
B
January 2022
Persons with Disabilities (including Development
Disabilities)
Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities may prevent a person from working, restrict one’s mobility, or make it difficult to care for oneself. Thus, persons with disabilities often have special housing needs related to limited earning capacity, a lack of accessible and affordable housing, and higher health costs associated with a
disability. An additional segment of residents suffer from disabilities that require living in an institutional setting.

Because of these conditions, persons with disabilities have special housing needs.

According to 2015-219 ACS data, approximately 10
percent of Long Beach residents suffered from at least
one disability (47,306 persons) ( Table B-12). The ACS also tallied the number of disabilities by type for residents with one or more disabilities. Among the disabilities tallied, ambulatory difficulties were most prevalent (51 percent), while cognitive (40 percent) and independent living (39 percent) difficulties were also common. Approximately
34 percent of seniors have one or more disabilities, with ambulatory difficulties impacting 67 percent of seniors with disabilities. Additionally, 49 percent of seniors with one or Table B-12: Disability Status (2015-2019)
Disability Type Persons with
Disability Percent of Total Persons with Disability,
Age 65+
Percent of
Total
With a hearing difficulty 11,615 24.6% 6,647 36.1%
With a vision difficulty 10,628 22.5% 4,256 23.1%
With a cognitive difficulty 18,876 39.9% 5,208 28.3%
With an ambulatory difficulty 24,262 51.3% 12,251 66.6% With a self-care difficulty 12,171 25.7% 5,762 31.3%
With an independent living
difficulty 18,541 39.2% 8,992 48.9%
Total persons with disabilities 47,306 100.% 18,391 100% Note: Persons may have multiple disabilities
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019 5-year Estimates Persons with Developmental Disabilities
State law requires that the Housing Element discuss
the housing needs of persons with developmental
disabilities. As defined by the Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, “developmental disability” means “a disability that originates before an individual attains age 18 years, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. As defined by the Director of Developmental Services, in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction, this term shall include intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term shall also include disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with an intellectual disability, but shall not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature. ”
Many developmentally disabled individuals need a
combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-21
BAppendix
January 2022
According to the State’s Department of Developmental
Services, as of June 2019, there were 11,345 individuals with developmental disabilities residing in Long Beach.

Approximately one-third of these individuals were residing in a private home with their parent of guardian and almost 40 percent of persons with developmental disabilities were under the age of 18.

Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment.

More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most
severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist
before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

Resources Available
Many disabled persons receive Social Security Income
(SSI) assistance, however, benefit payments are well below the level necessary to afford market rate apartments in the Long Beach community. In order to assist with this need, the City provides a number of affordable housing
opportunities for persons with disabilities. There are
currently 23 affordable housing developments in the City that have units specifically set aside for disabled persons.

In addition, the City has a number of residential care
facilities that provide supportive housing and services to persons with disabilities. According to the California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division, there are 15 adult day care facilities, 62 adult residential facilities, and 49 residential care facilities for the elderly located in Long Beach.

Residents Living Below the Poverty Level
The Census Bureau defines poverty thresholds at the
national level. Poverty thresholds are based on annual
income and take into account family size and number of
related children. While poverty thresholds are updated
annually to account for inflation, they are set at the
national level and do not vary geographically. For 2019, poverty thresholds ranged from $12,261 for an individual living alone to $56,895 for a large family. Families
with incomes below the poverty level, typically those
households with extremely low and very low incomes, are at greatest risk of becoming homeless and typically require special programs to assist them in meeting their rent and mortgage obligations so as to not become homeless. The 2015-2019 ACS found that 12.3 percent of Long Beach
families were living below the poverty level, equating to a total of 16.8 percent of the population. These households need assistance with housing subsidies, utility allowances and other living expense subsidies, as well as supportive services.

Resources Available
Most affordable housing programs in the City will
benefit persons living in poverty. Additionally, the City’s Department of Health and Human Services operates
the Center for Families and Youth, which offers a variety of family support programs, including job training/
employment, developmental services, housing assistance, and child care. In addition, the Central Facilities Center serves the community by providing childcare services
and public health services. The Center also links residents directly to a range of services offered by local nonprofit agencies. These services include counseling, education, youth programming and nutritional and health services.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-22
Appendix
B
January 2022
Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose
primary incomes are earned through permanent or
seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farm laborers work in the fields, processing plants, or support activities on a generally year-round basis. When workload increases
during harvest periods, the labor force is supplemented by seasonal labor, often supplied by a labor contractor. For some crops, farms may employ migrant workers, defined
as those whose travel distance to work prevents them from returning to their primary residence every evening.

The City of Long Beach is a fully urbanized and built-out community. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, only 723
Long Beach residents were employed in the farming,
fishing, and forestry occupations, representing less than one percent of the City’s residents in 2019. No other data is available on the number of farmworkers in the City.

The City has no agriculturally designated land. Therefore, no special programs are warranted for this group in Long Beach. Regionally, Los Angeles County had 413 farms with hired labor, employing about 3,266 farmworkers in 2017, according to the USDA 2017 Census of Agriculture. Among the 413 farms, only 22 farms employed migrant workers
(estimated at 365 workers). Also, overall, 1,517 farmworkers worked seasonally for fewer than 150 days a year.

Students
College students in a community can affect housing
demand and housing costs. Although students represent
a temporary housing need, the heightened demand for
rentals around colleges can impact the housing market with higher rent levels, particularly when there is not a sufficient supply of rental housing. A large student population is also associated with higher mobility and turnover rates.

The 2015-2019 ACS reported that Long Beach had 45,847
residents who were college students, some attending
college in Long Beach, some attending college elsewhere.

Long Beach is home to two public (two-year) city colleges and a public university with large student populations. The city colleges are estimated to have approximately 24,500 full and part-time students attending classes. In keeping with the intent of the community college system to serve local needs, approximately 60 percent of these students are part-time, many of whom are younger persons living with parents. Thereby, the housing need of city college students is not necessarily considered significant.

However, Long Beach is also home to the nationally
renowned California State University. Current enrollment is estimated at approximately 39,360 full-time and part-time students. CSULB is an urban commuter campus with only
about 2,400 beds in 20 on-campus residence halls. Most
students live in the surrounding communities and commute to campus. Research completed in 2019 as part of the
California State University Basic Needs Initiative found that

12.5 percent of students attending CSULB had experienced homelessness in the previous 12 months. Statewide, 10.9 percent of students in the CSULB system had experienced homelessness in the past 12 months, indicating that the need for affordable housing for students is more acute in Long Beach.

It is also important to note that because students typically are lower-income and occupy rental units, they influence the overall demand for apartments in the Long Beach and surrounding communities. However, for purposes of many
housing programs and public subsidies, students do not
typically qualify as low income.

Resources Available
Housing programs that expand affordable rental housing
opportunities and improve housing conditions will benefit students in general. Furthermore, new State law provides density bonus incentives for student housing meeting
certain criteria.

CSULB also operates the Basic Needs Program as a
resource for students that are experiencing food insecurity, homelessness, and other crisis situations. The program
connects students with the Beach Pantry (perishable and non-perishable items specifically for CSULB students),
small emergency grants, emergency meal assistance, and
other programs.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-23
BAppendix
January 2022
People Experiencing Homelessness
State law (Section 65583(a)(7)) mandates that Housing
Elements address the special needs of people experiencing homelessness. “Homeless” as defined by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
means:
» An individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence;
» An individual or family with a primary nighttime
residence that is a public or private place not
designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping
accommodation for human beings, including a car,
park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground;
» An individual or family living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide
temporary living arrangements (including hotels and
motels paid for by Federal, State, or local government
programs for low-income individuals or by charitable
organizations, congregate shelters, and transitional
housing);
» An individual who resided in a shelter or place not meant for human habitation and who is exiting an institution
where he or she temporarily resided;
» An individual or family who-
– Will imminently lose their housing, including housing they own, rent, or live in without paying rent, are
sharing with others, and rooms in hotels or motels
not paid for by Federal, State, or local government
programs for low-income individuals or by charitable
organizations, as evidenced by-
◊ A court order resulting from an eviction action
that notifies the individual or family that they must
leave within 14 days;
◊ The individual or family having a primary nighttime
residence that is a room in a hotel or motel and
where they lack the resources necessary to reside
there for more than 14 days; or
◊ Credible evidence indicating that the owner or
renter of the housing will not allow the individual
or family to stay for more than 14 days, and any
oral statement from an individual or family seeking
homeless assistance that is found to be credible
– Has no subsequent residence identified; and
– Lacks the resources or support networks needed to
obtain other permanent housing;
» Unaccompanied youth and homeless families with
children and youth defined as homeless under other
Federal statutes who-
– have experienced a long term period without living
independently in permanent housing,
– have experienced persistent instability as measured
by frequent moves over such period, and
– can be expected to continue in such status for
an extended period of time because of chronic
disabilities, chronic physical health or mental health
conditions, substance addiction, histories of domestic
violence or childhood abuse, the presence of a child
or youth with a disability, or multiple barriers to
employment.
– Any individual or family who is fleeing, or is
attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, stalking, or other dangerous
or life-threatening conditions in the individual’s or
family’s current housing situation, including where
the health and safety of children are jeopardized, and
who have no other residence and lack the resources
or support networks to obtain other permanent
housing.

This definition does not include persons living
in substandard housing, (unless it has been officially condemned); persons living in overcrowded housing
(for example, doubled up with others), persons being
discharged from mental health facilities (unless the person was homeless when entering and is considered to be
homeless at discharge), or persons who may be at risk of homelessness (for example, living temporarily with family or friends.)
⁶ Source: California State University, Comprehensive Study of College Student Basic Needs, April 2019.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-24
Appendix
B
January 2022
The size, diversity and geographic location in a major
population center have made Long Beach a service hub
to people experiencing homelessness. The City of Long
Beach, Department of Health and Human Services had
been conducting homeless enumerations biennially;
however, the City began conducting the homeless count
annually beginning in 2019:
» 2009 – 3,909 people
» 2011 – 4,290 people
» 2013 – 4,387 people
» 2015 – 2,345 people
» 2017 – 1,863 people
» 2019 – 1,894 people
» 2020 – 2,034 people
This process of quantifying the homeless population has provided important data to comprehensively understand
the demographics of Long Beach people experiencing
homelessness. This data has been used to evaluate existing service availability and determine gaps in resources
citywide.

Among the 2020 homeless, 1,582 persons (78 percent) were unsheltered. Homelessness affects all people, regardless of household size, age, race or ethnicity. However, one factor that seems to have remained constant is that the great majority of people experiencing homelessness are
single adults (87 percent in 2020). Table B-13 indicates the percent of people experiencing homelessness by race and ethnicity. According to the 2020 survey, the largest proportion of people experiencing homelessness are
white (51 percent), followed by Black/African American (38 percent). 32 percent of people experiencing homelessness identified as Hispanic or Latino. Males account for 72
percent of the homeless population, females account for 27 percent, less than 1 percent are transgender, and less than 1 percent are gender non-conforming.

Table B-13: Homelessness by Race and Ethnicity
Percent of Total
Race
White 50.8%
Black/African American 37.9%
Asian or Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander 6.3%
American Indian/Alaska Native 1.9%
Multiple Races Reported or
Other 3.0%
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 32%
Non Hispanic or Latino 68%
Source: City of Long Beach, Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2020 Homeless Count.

Table B-14 summarizes the continuum of care gap analysis.

Based on the current inventory of housing available to
serve the homeless, the gap analysis documents an unmet need of 1,437 beds for individuals and 143 beds for families experiencing homelessness.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-25
BAppendix
January 2022
Table B-14: Continuum of Care Gaps Analysis - Homeless Population and Subpopulations Sheltered Unsheltered Total
Part 1: Homeless Population

1. Homeless Individuals 329 1,437 1,766
2a. Homeless Families with Children
(Total Number of Persons in these
Households)
120 143 263
Total Persons
452
(249 Emergency/203
Transitional)
1,582 2,034
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations

1. Chronically Homeless 80 585 665

2. Severely Mentally Ill 148 351 499

3. Substance Use Disorder 116 444 560

4. Veterans 99 76 175

5. Adults with HIV/AIDs 27 31 58

6. Victims of Domestic Violence 124 217 341

7. Unaccompanied Youth (Ages 18-24
without parent or guardian) 3 2 5
Source: City of Long Beach, Dept. of Health and Human Services, 202 Homeless Count.

Resources Available
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-26
Appendix
B
January 2022
Homeless persons are distinguished by a range of health needs. About a third suffer from mental illness and it is estimated that at least half of homeless persons suffer from some type of substance abuse problem. Homeless people
also experience a range of medical conditions associated with the rigors of living on the street. Addressing the range of services needed by homeless persons requires a comprehensive strategy.

The City’s Department of Health and Human Services
established a Continuum of Care (CoC) Program to assist homeless people to exit the streets, become stable and
achieve self-sufficiency to the maximum extent possible.

Following is a description of the stages in the CoC Program. » Outreach/Assessment – The City has established an
outreach and assessment program to reconnect a
homeless person to public benefits, rent assistance,
employment counseling, health care and other support
services. The City’s Multi-Service Center is the entry point into the Continuum of Care. The Health Department,
Los Angeles County Mental Health Association, and
Boys Town Long Beach provide outreach for different
groups of the homeless population.
» Emergency Shelter – Long Beach provides emergency
shelter beds for homeless persons and one year-round
program for single homeless males. Hotel and motel
vouchers are provided for persons living with HIV/AIDS
and tuberculosis.

» Transitional Housing – Transitional housing is the second phase of the program, where clients are provided a
more structured environment. Clients are linked to
rehabilitative services, such as substance abuse, mental health, employment, counseling and life-skills training to prepare them for transition to service-enriched
housing or more independent settings.
» Supportive Services – Long Beach offers an array of
supportive services for the homeless to ease their
transition into shelter. These include mental health and substance treatment, job and life-skills training, medical care, childcare and transportation services. The City has also developed a Standard of Care to standardize case
management services for homeless people citywide.
» Permanent Housing – This phase is designed to
transition homeless persons into permanent housing
with childcare, drug treatment, job training and other
supportive skills needed to reintegrate into community
life.

Residents experiencing homelessness can utilize services offered at the City’s Multi-Service Center for the Homeless (MSC), including outreach, intake and assessment, referrals to shelters and other social service programs. The City distributes a Pocket Guide Resource Directory to residents that details agencies that offer services to individuals and families in the Long Beach area. Additionally, the City maintains a weekly schedule of meal, food bank, and
clothing services offered by providers throughout the City.

The Villages at Cabrillo is a residential community
established to break the cycle of homelessness. As a
nonprofit affiliate of Century Housing, Century Villages at Cabrillo (CVC) is the community development organization that owns, develops, and manages this unique campus.

The Villages at Cabrillo provides short-term and permanent housing to more than 2,000 people annually, including
nearly 1,000 veterans. More than 96 percent of the residents in permanent housing at CVC reached the one-year
Housing Stability milestone in 2019.

CVC features a collaboration with nonprofit and
government agencies that collectively provides residents with safe, affordable housing and access to the skills, tools, and services needed to establish self-sufficiency. CVC’s supportive housing paradigm consists of emergency
shelter, transitional housing, and permanent housing
all complemented with wrap around social services.

This “continuum of care” approach encourages formerly
homeless individuals and families to move progressively through various levels of housing and increasing
independence.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-27
BAppendix
January 2022
Section B.4 Housing Stock
Characteristics
The characteristics and condition of Long Beach’s
housing stock, combined with household characteristics
discussed earlier, affect the wellbeing of residents. This section begins with an examination of the gap between
housing production and need in the region and the City
of Long Beach, followed by an evaluation of local housing characteristics - including: housing stock changes and types, tenure and vacancy rates, age and condition, and housing costs.

B.4.1 Housing Growth
Table B-15 below compares housing growth to population
growth by decade. Since 1990, population has increased
by 10 percent while the number of housing units has
increased by only four percent. (Note: this comparison uses CA Department of Finance data while other population
and housing analyses use Census data.) Historically, new housing construction peaked in the 1950s. Since then, the number of units constructed each decade has declined
steadily as the City is built out and new development is limited to infill sites.

Table B-15: Population vs. Housing
Percent of
Total Housing Units
1990 429,321 170,355
2000 461,522 171,632
2010 462,257 176,032
2020 472,052 177,783
Unit Change:
1990 - 2020 + 42,731 + 7,428
Percent Change:
1990 - 2020
+ 10% + 4%
Source: CA Department of Finance Table E-5 for 2020, Table E-8 for 1990, 2000, and 2010
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-28
Appendix
B
January 2022
B.4.2 Housing Type
A certain level of diversity in the housing stock is
an important factor in ensuring adequate housing
opportunity for all Long Beach residents. A diverse housing stock helps ensure that all households, regardless of their income, age, and/or family size, have the opportunity to find housing that is best suited to their lifestyle needs. This section briefly details the housing stock characteristics in Long Beach.

The ACS documented a total of 175,869 housing units
in Long Beach in 2019. Since 2010, housing growth has
shifted towards multi-family units and away from single- family units. From 2010 to 2019, the number of multi-family units increased from 89,028 units to 95,607 units, while the number of single-family units decreased from 84,362 units to 77,798 units. The majority of single-family units are detached units (90 percent). Multi-family complexes containing five or more units comprise the majority of
multi-family units (75 percent). The number of mobile
home and other unit types has stayed relatively constant since 2000.

Table B-16: Housing Type (2000-2019)
Unit Type
2000 2010 2019
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent
Single-Family (SF) Detached 69,014 40% 74,257 42% 70,123 40% SF Attached 10,093 6% 10,105 6% 7,675 4%
Total Single-Family 79,107 46% 84,362 48% 77,798 44%
2 to 4 Units 23,286 14% 21,610 12% 23,821 14%
5 or more Units 66,637 39% 67,418 38% 71,786 41%
Total Multi-Family 90,023 53% 89,028 51% 95,607 55%
Mobile Homes & Other 2,529 1% 2,342 1% 2,464 1%
Total Housing Units 171,659 100% 175,732 100% 175,869 100% Total Occupied 163,088 95% 161,893 92% 166,813 95%
Owner-Occupied 66,928 41% 68,437 39% 66,459 40%
Renter-Occupied 96,160 59% 93,456 53% 100,354 60%
Vacant 8,544 5% 13,839 8% 9,056 5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2006-2010, 2015-2019, 5-year Estimates.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-29
BAppendix
January 2022
Figure B-6: Predominant Housing Typology
Housing Element Update 6th Cycle
Long Beach, CA
Housing Type
by Census Tract
0 0.5 1
Miles VERSION: FINALDATE: 6/17/2021 SCALE: 1 to 90,000
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table DP04
High-Density Multifamily Attached
Medium-Density Multifamily Attached
Low-Density Multifamily Attached
Single Family Detached
No Data
Census Tracts
0 0.5 1
Miles
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-30
Appendix
B
January 2022
B.4.3 Housing Tenure and Vacancy
The tenure of housing refers to whether a housing unit is owned, rented, or vacant. Tenure is an important indicator of wellbeing in a community because it reflects the cost of housing and the ability of residents to own or rent a unit.

Moreover, tenure often affects several other aspects of the local housing market, including turnover rates and overall housing costs.

Citywide, 60 percent of households rent their home;
however, tenure varies significantly by race/ethnicity.

Figure B-7 shows that people of color are statistically more likely to be renters. The renter rate for Non-Hispanic White households is 46 percent, the lowest of all groups represented. Black households have the highest renter
rate at 76 percent. Hispanic or Latino households and
households identifying as “Some other race” also have
high renter rates (71 percent for both categories).

Homeownership rates can be predicted by race not only in Long Beach but throughout the Country, due to the legacy and continued impact of racially discriminatory policies, practices and systems such as redlining and exclusionary zoning practices.

Figure B-7: Renter Rates by Race/Ethnicity
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019, 5-year Estimates Figure B-8 maps the percent of renter occupied housing
units by census tract. As shown, the highest levels of renter occupancy occur in the areas north and east of downtown, along the Anaheim St. corridor and in North Long Beach, which are predominantly lower-income communities of
color. The highest rates of owner occupancy are in the east side of the City, between the airport and El Dorado Park.

Residential vacancy rates are a good indicator of how well the current supply of housing is meeting the demand for various types of units. A certain number of vacant housing units are needed in any community to moderate the cost of housing, allow for sufficient housing choices, and provide an incentive for landlords and owners to maintain their housing. Vacancy rates of five to six percent for rental units and two to three percent for ownership units are generally considered healthy.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-31
BAppendix
January 2022
Figure B-8: Renter-Occupied Housing by Census Tract
Housing Element Update 6th Cycle
Long Beach, CA
Percentage Renter Occupied
by Census Tract
0 0.5 1
Miles VERSION: FINALDATE: 6/17/2021 SCALE: 1 to 90,000
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table DP04
81% or more
61% - 80%
41% - 60%
21% - 40%
Up to 20%
No Data
Census Tracts
0 0.5 1
Miles
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-32
Appendix
B
January 2022
Figure B-9 Renter Occupied Housing
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2010-2019, 1-year Estimates As shown in Figure B-9, vacancy rates have fallen below healthy levels since the 2008 recession. However, as of 2019, the rental vacancy rate was nearing a healthy rate of 5 percent, at 4.6 percent. This is an increase from a low of 2.8 percent in 2016. At 0.4 percent in 2019, the ownership vacancy rate was at its lowest point since 2010. A low vacancy rate indicates that there are too few units to meet the demand for housing by both renters and homebuyers, resulting in higher rental and home prices.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-33
BAppendix
January 2022
B.4.4 Housing Age and Condition
The age of a community’s housing stock can be an indicator of overall housing conditions. If not well maintained, housing can deteriorate and depress property values,
discourage reinvestment, and negatively affect the quality of life in a neighborhood. Typically, housing over 30 years in age is likely to have rehabilitation needs that may
include new plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work and other repairs. If not well maintained, housing over 50 years in age may require total building replacement.

Figure B-10 summarizes the age distribution of Long
Beach’s occupied housing stock by tenure. The largest
proportion of housing units, regardless of tenure, were constructed in the decade following World War II (1950- 1959) at 23 percent (29 percent of all owner-occupied units and 19 percent of all renter occupied units). 88 percent of owner-occupied units are more than 50 years old and 81
percent of renter-occupied units are over 50 years old. As described above, this indicates that a significant proportion of the Long Beach housing stock is likely to need substantial rehabilitation or needs to be replaced. The prevalence of housing built prior to 1978 is also of concern because of lead-based paint hazards, discussed in greater detail later in this section.

Given the advanced age of the majority of Long Beach’s
housing stock and the dangers of sub-standard housing,
there is a significant need for continued code enforcement, property maintenance and housing rehabilitation
programs to stem housing deterioration. Additionally,
overcrowding can lead to faster deterioration of housing.

Given the high rates of overcrowding in Long Beach, which are concentrated in areas of the City with the oldest housing stock, safety and health issues related to the advanced age of housing stock are even more urgent.

The vast majority, approximately 97 percent of both
the City’s rental units and owner-occupied units, were
constructed prior to 1990 and are more than 30 years old.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019, 5-year Estimates Figure B-10: Housing Units by Year Built
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-34
Appendix
B
January 2022
While a Citywide survey of housing stock conditions is not available, information from the City’s Code Enforcement program provides a good indicator of the extent of housing deterioration. During FY 2020 (October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020, the City had opened 4,382 code enforcement cases ( Table B-17). The majority of these were for property maintenance issues such as abandoned vehicles, deteriorated paint or roof covering, broken windows, overgrown vegetation, or other similar maintenance issues not directly related to the structural condition of the unit. Less than one percent was for unpermitted construction, with a similarly low proportion for substandard buildings.

Table B-17: Code Enforcement Case Statistics (FY 2020) FY 2020 10-1-2019 TO 9-30-2020
Case type Classification Open Close Active
Abandoned Vehicle Abatement -
CEAV Property Maintenance 2 1 0
Administrative Citation - CEAC Property Maintenance 3,060 2,839 864 CE Multi Housing Citation - CEPH &
CEHC Property Maintenance 1,112 1,301 263
Vacant Building Monitoring - CEVB Property Maintenance 16 27 13 Weed Abatement - CEWA Property Maintenance 150 164 21
Open and Accessible -CEOA Substandard Building 20 27 4
Substandard Building - CESB Substandard Building 1 1 3
Summary Abatement - CESA Substandard Building 2 2 1
Violations NO CASE TYPE Unpermitted Construction Garage Conversion - CEGC Unpermitted Construction 19 25 4 Total 4,382 4,387 1,173
Source: City of Long Beach
B.4.5 Housing Costs and Affordability
The cost of housing is directly related to the extent of housing problems in a community. If housing costs are relatively high in comparison to household income, there will be a correspondingly higher prevalence of overpayment and
overcrowding. This section summarizes costs for housing in Long Beach and evaluates the affordability of the City’s housing stock to low and moderate-income households.

Ownership Costs
Home values for single-family houses and condominiums
within the 11 Long Beach zip codes are presented in
Table B-18 and Table B-19 . Home values presented
are based on the Zillow Home Value Index, a smoothed
seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range within each zip code.

Home values increased significantly for all Long Beach zip codes during the previous planning period. For single-
family houses, home value increases in Long Beach zip
codes ranged from 22 percent to 39 percent between 2013 and 2017. Between 2017 and 2020, values for single-family houses increased between 11 percent and 31 percent,
depending on zip code. The increase in condominium
values has been similarly dramatic since 2013, with even more significant increases in values in some zip codes.

Condo values increased between 12 percent and 51
percent from 2013 to 2017. While increases were somewhat less pronounced during the second half of the planning
period, they were still significant, ranging from 11 percent to 28 percent.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-35
BAppendix
January 2022
It should be noted that while values have increased in all zip codes, the largest percent increases have been in the zip codes have generally been the most affordable. This includes the 90802, 90813, 90805, and 90810 zip codes
(Downtown, Central Long Beach, North Long Beach, and
the Westside). Proportionately, home values in East Long Beach (90803 and 90815) have increased less. For example, the single-family house value in Downtown (90802)
increased 79 percent from 2013 to 2020, compared to 37
percent in Belmont Shore (90803). Similarly, condo values in the Westside (90810) increased almost 94 percent from 2013 to 2020, while increasing 28 percent in Belmont Shore (90803).

Long Beach Zip
Code
September 2013
Home Value
September 2017
Home Value
September 2020
Home Value
Percent Change
2013-2017
Percent Change
2017-2020
90802 $281,771 $386,301 $504,922 37.1% 30.7%
90803 $866,105 $1,065,006 $1,185,581 23.0% 11.3%
90804 $437,704 $534,845 $629,833 22.2% 17.8%
90805 $327,534 $437,006 $524,925 33.4% 20.1%
90806 $387,592 $510,068 $598,460 31.6% 17.3%
90807 $529,232 $645,896 $734,181 22.0% 13.7%
90808 $538,880 $665,071 $746,754 23.4% 12.3%
90810 $334,198 $439,174 $533,797 31.4% 21.5%
90813 $305,748 $423,599 $535,179 38.5% 26.3%
90814 $557,383 $750,562 $943,800 34.7% 25.7%
90815 $555,798 $675,250 $769,174 21.5% 13.9%
Source: Zillow Housing Data, 2021.

Table B-18: Long Beach Home Values - Single Family Residences Based on the Zillow Home Value Index, the value of a typical home in Long Beach (including single family residences and condos in all zip codes) in September 2020 was $640,284.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-36
Appendix
B
January 2022
Long Beach Zip
Code
September 2013
Condo Value
September 2017
Condo Value
September 2020
Condo Value
Percent Change
2013-2017
Percent Change
2017-2020
90802 $255,674 $353,716 $422,647 38.3% 19.5%
90803 $509,068 $571,534 $649,167 12.3% 13.6%
90804 $239,996 $331,385 $388,026 38.1% 17.1%
90805 $181,895 $249,262 $317,154 37.0% 27.2%
90806 $286,611 $378,094 $442,362 31.9% 17.0%
90807 $233,963 $329,757 $400,545 40.9% 21.5%
90808 $332,603 $407,092 $450,917 22.4% 10.8%
90810 $181,295 $237,715 $350,874 51.0% 28.2%
90813 $209,232 $303,932 $376,227 45.3% 23.8%
90814 $301,360 $383,652 $458,028 27.3% 19.4%
90815 $298,338 $381,210 $434,905 27.8% 14.1%
Source: Zillow Housing Data, 2021.

Rental Costs
Rental listings from Zillow were reviewed during November 2020. As presented in Table B-20, rental costs advertised on Zillow ranged from $1,000 for a studio apartment to $16,000 for a five-bedroom single-family house. The documented median rent for all available units was $1,895 per month. The majority of rentals in the City are one-bedroom and two-bedroom units, comprising 73 percent of available units. Only 12 percent of available units had three or more bedrooms.

Additionally, the median cost of a three-bedroom unit is approximately 34 percent more than a two-bedroom unit. These factors indicate that affordable, appropriately sized rental housing may be difficult to obtain for large households.

Table B-20: Median Market Rents by Number of Bedrooms
Number of
Bedrooms Available Units Minimum Rent Maximum Rent Median Rent 0 96 $1,000 $3,250 $1,295
1 255 $1,075 $3,100 $1,675
2 239 $1,295 $3,265 $2,095
3 68 $1,650 $7,500 $2,800
4+ 15 $2,600 $16,000 $3,825
Total 673 $1,000 $16,000 $1,895
Source: Zillow Rental Listings, Accessed November 11, 2020 Table B-19: Long Beach Home Values - Condominiums
Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-37
BAppendix
January 2022
B.4.6 Housing Affordability
The costs of home ownership and renting can be compared to a household’s ability to pay for housing to determine the general affordability of a community’s housing
stock. The federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) conducts annual household income
surveys nationwide to determine a household’s eligibility for federal housing assistance. Based on this survey, HCD developed income limits that can be used to determine
the maximum price that could be affordable to households in the upper range of their respective income category.

Households in the lower end of each category can afford less by comparison than those at the upper end. Table B-21 illustrates maximum affordable mortgage payments and
rents for various household sizes in Los Angeles County earning the top end of their respective income categories.

For homeownership, Table B-21 assumes a 30-year
mortgage at a three-percent interest rate and a ten percent down payment. When the affordable home prices shown in
Table B-21 are compared with the home and condominium
values listed in Table B-18 , it is evident that ownership housing is beyond the financial reach of lower income
households and even moderate income households.

Larger low and moderate income households may be
able to purchase a condominium, but finding adequately
sized affordable housing still poses a challenge for these households. Rental housing is generally unaffordable for extremely low and very low income households, based on
the median market rents presented in Table B-20. There
are available one and two bedroom units affordable for
low and moderate income households; however larger
units tend to be priced too high to be affordable even for moderate income households.

Table B-21: Estimated Affordable Housing Price by Income and Household Size (2020) Income
Category
Annual
Income
Affordable
Monthly
Housing
Costs
Renter
Utilities
Ownership
Utilities
Taxes/
Insurance
Affordable Prices
Rent Home Price
Extremely Low Income
1-Person $23,700 $593 $122 $135 $207 $471 $65,919
2-Person $27,050 $676 $117 $146 $237 $559 $77,367
3-Person $30,450 $761 $139 $175 $266 $622 $84,285
4-Person $33,800 $845 $167 $217 $296 $678 $87,562
5-Person $36,550 $914 $195 $256 $320 $719 $89,061
Very Low
1-Person $39,450 $986 $122 $135 $345 $864 $133,370
2-Person $45,050 $1,126 $117 $146 $394 $1,009 $154,453
3-Person $50,700 $1,268 $139 $175 $444 $1,129 $171,007
4-Person $56,300 $1,408 $167 $217 $493 $1,241 $183,921
5-Person $60,850 $1,521 $195 $256 $532 $1,326 $193,128
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-38
Appendix
B
January 2022
Income
Category
Annual
Income
Affordable
Monthly
Housing
Costs
Renter
Utilities
Ownership
Utilities
Taxes/
Insurance
Affordable Prices
Rent Home Price
Low Income
1-Person $63,100 $1,578 $122 $135 $552 $1,456 $234,653
2-Person $72,100 $1,803 $117 $146 $631 $1,686 $270,297
3-Person $81,100 $2,028 $139 $175 $710 $1,889 $301,198
4-Person $90,100 $2,253 $167 $217 $788 $2,086 $328,672
5-Person $97,350 $2,434 $195 $256 $852 $2,239 $349,443
Medium Income
1-Person $54,100 $1,353 $122 $135 $473 $1,231 $196,109
2-Person $61,850 $1,546 $117 $146 $541 $1,429 $226,401
3-Person $69,550 $1,739 $139 $175 $609 $1,600 $251,734
4-Person $77,300 $1,933 $167 $217 $676 $1,766 $273,855
5-Person $83,500 $2,088 $195 $256 $731 $1,893 $290,129
Moderate Income
1-Person $64,900 $1,623 $122 $135 $568 $1,501 $242,361
2-Person $74,200 $1,855 $117 $146 $649 $1,738 $279,290
3-Person $83,500 $2,088 $139 $175 $731 $1,949 $311,476
4-Person $92,750 $2,319 $167 $217 $812 $2,152 $340,021
5-Person $100,150 $2,504 $195 $256 $876 $2,309 $361,434 Note: In 2013, the State of California passed the Hold Harmless Policy as a result of the discontinuation of HUD’s long-standing Hold Harmless Policy in 2009. The purpose of the Hold Harmless Policy is to not allow decreases to county area median income and household size income limit figures. This policy therefore, allows more low and moderate income households to qualify for housing programs. With the area median income being developed by HUD, which repealed the Hold Harmless policy, a unique situation often occurs whereby the low income limits exceed the median income levels.

Assumptions: 2020 HCD income limits; 30.0% gross household income as affordable housing cost; 35.0% of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance; 5.0% downpayment; and 4.0% interest rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage loan. Utilities based on Housing Authority of the City of Long Beach, Utility Allowance Schedules for Standard Single-Family and Multi-Family, 2020.

Sources: HCD (2020); Housing Authority of the City of Long Beach; and Veronica Tam and Associates (2020).

Table B-22: Estimated Affordable Housing Price by Income and Household Size (2020) (continued) Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-39
BAppendix
January 2022
To afford a home in Long Beach valued at $640,284 (based on the Zillow Home Value Index discussed previously), a household income of $126,358 would be needed, based
on the assumptions utilized in Table B-22 . Renting an
apartment at the median rent of $1,895 per month ( Table B-20) requires an annual household income of $90,960.

According to the 2015-2019 ACS, approximately 70 percent of Long Beach households earn less than $100,000 per
year; therefore, over 70 percent (over 117,000 households) cannot afford to purchase a house in Long Beach. With 57 percent of households earning less than $75,000 annually, at least 95,000 Long Beach households cannot afford a
market rate apartment at the median rent.

Figure B-11 shows these incomes compared with the
2019 median annual earnings in Long Beach for various
occupational categories. For residents earning incomes near or below the median income levels indicated,
both rental and ownership housing is unaffordable
without pooling multiple incomes, which often results
in overcrowding and unhealthy housing conditions.

Extremely low income households, in particular, have very limited housing options in the open market.

Figure B-11: Income Needed to Afford Housing Compared with Median Income by Occupation Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019, 5-year estimates; Veronica Tam and Associates, 2020 Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-40
Appendix
B
January 2022
Section B.5 Inventory of Affordable
Housing
The City of Long Beach works to provide a range of
affordable housing opportunities in the community,
through new construction and substantial rehabilitation of rental housing, and assistance to first-time homebuyers and rehabilitation assistance to existing homeowners.

B.5.1 Ownership Housing
Through the City’s residential rehabilitation and homebuyer assistance programs, the City has deed restrictions on more than 1,000 single-family and mobile home units. These
homes are scattered throughout the City.

B.5.2 Rental Housing
State law requires the City to identify, analyze, and propose programs to preserve existing multi-family rental units that are currently restricted to low income housing use and
that will become unrestricted and possibly be lost as low income housing (i.e., “units at risk” or “at-risk units”). State law requires the following:
» An inventory of rent-restricted low income housing
projects in the City and their potential for conversion; » An analysis of the costs of preserving and/or replacing the units at risk and a comparison of these costs;
» An analysis of the organizational and financial resources available for preserving and/or replacing the units “at risk”; and
» Programs for preserving the at-risk units.

The following discussion satisfies the first three
requirements of State law listed above pertaining to the potential conversion of assisted housing units into market rate housing between October 15, 2021, and October
15, 2031. The Housing Plan section includes a program
for preserving the at-risk units, which meets the final requirement of State law.

Long Beach has a sizable stock of publicly assisted rental housing. This housing stock includes all multi-family rental units assisted under federal, state, and local programs, including HUD, state/local bond programs, and density
bonus housing units. Assisted rental projects include both new construction, as well as rehabilitation projects with affordability covenants. A total of 5,456 publicly assisted multi-family units are located in the City. Table B-23
summarizes multi-family projects in Long Beach, which are rent restricted as affordable to lower-income households.

From time to time, restricted units lose their affordability controls and revert to non-low-income use due to
expiration of subsidy contracts and/or affordability
covenants. For example, projects receiving City assistance, primarily through HOME and Former Redevelopment
Set-Aside funds, carry long-term affordability covenants of 30-55 years. However, many of the HUD-assisted projects have much shorter affordability controls and may be at risk of conversion to market-rate housing due to the expiration of Section 8 contracts.

During the ten-year at-risk housing analysis period,
Overall, 22 projects totaling 2,089 affordable units may be considered at risk. The projects are primarily at risk of becoming market-rate housing due to the potential
expiration of the Section 8 contracts. These contracts are project based – attached to the specific project – rather than vouchers, which move with the individual tenant.

Project-based Section 8 contracts can be renewed for up to 20 years. Renewals are subject to annual appropriations by Congress. For this reason, projects with Section 8 contracts are considered at risk of losing their affordability annually.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-41
BAppendix
January 2022
Table B-23: Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing Developments Project Name and Address Tenant Type Affordable &
Total Units Funding Source(s) Expiration of Affordability At-Risk
American Gold Star Manor
3021 Goldstar S 139 of 348 Section 8
5/1/2015
(Current & Overall)
Nonprofit Owned
Belmeno Manor
2441 Belmont D 6 of 6 Section 811
8/31/2020
(Current & Overall)
Nonprofit Owned
Casa Corazon
408 Elm Avenue S/D 24 of 24
Section 8 7/31/2020
(Current & Overall)
Section 202/811/162
LBCIC
9/1/2034
Nonprofit Owned
Merit Hall Apts.
1035 Lewis Ave S/D 19 of 20
Section 811 9/2/2020 (Current)
9/2/2021 (Overall)
LBCIC Nonprofit Owned
Northpointe Apartment
Homes
5441 Paramount
S/F
167 of 528 Section 8 8/31/2020 (Current)
8/31/2032 (Overall)
526 of 528 City of Long Beach 1/1/2032
Pacific Coast Plaza &Villa
690-700 E. PCH F 50 of 50 Section 8 12/31/2020 (Current) 12/31/2020 (Overall)
Plymouth West
240 Chestnut S 137 of 196
Section 8 12/31/2020 (Current)
12/31/2039 (Overall)
Section 202 Nonprofit Owned
Beach-Wood Apts.
475 W. 5th St.
505 W. 6th Street
Non-elderly
Disabled 44 of 45
Section 8 7/31/2021 (Current)
7/31/2037 (Overall)
Section 202 Nonprofit Owned
Casitas Del Mar I-IV
- 1324 Hellman Ave.
- 1030 Olive St.
- 1430 E. 17th St.
- 851 MLK Blvd.

F 12 of 12 Section 8
1/27/2021
(Current &Overall)
Non Profit Owned
Covenant Manor
600 E 4th Street
S/
Mobility
Disabled
100 of 100
Section 8 2/28/2021 (Current)
2/28/2034 (Overall)
Section 202 Nonprofit Owned
Long Beach Manor
2209-11 Clark Street D 6 of 6 Section 811
1/31/2021
(Current & Overall)
Nonprofit Owned
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-42
Appendix
B
January 2022
Project Name and Address Tenant Type Affordable &
Total Units Funding Source(s) Expiration of Affordability Lutheran Towers
2340 4th Street S/D 92 of 93
Section 8 1/3/2021 (Current)
Section 202/811
1/3/2034 (Overall)
Nonprofit Owned
New Hope Home
1150 New York St. S 140 of 140 Section 8 LMSA
5/31/2021 (Current)
5/31/2031 (Overall)
Nonprofit Owned
Park Pacific Towers
714 Pacific Ave. S/D 157 of 183 Section 8 LMSA
3/31/2021 (Current)
3/21/2023 (Overall)
Nonprofit Owned
Providence Gardens
1011 Pine Avenue S 157 of 200 Section 8 LMSA
6/30/2021 (Current)
6/30/2031 (Overall)
Nonprofit Owned
Seamist Tower
1451 Atlantic Blvd. S/D 74 of 75
Section 8 2/28/2021 (Current)
2/28/2035 (Overall)
Section 202
LBCIC Non Profit Owned
St. Mary's Tower
1100 Atlantic S/D 148 of 148
Section 8 6/30/2021 (Current)
6/30/2036 (Overall)
Section 207/223(f ) Nonprofit Owned
Atlantic Apts
814 Atlantic Ave. D 13 of 13 HOME 12/23/2023
Sara's Apts.
240 W. 7th D 29 of 29 HOME 12/23/2023
Brethen Manor
3333 Pacific Place S 295 of 296 Section 202 2024
Nonprofit owned
Northside Apts.
128-30 E. 8th F 47 of 47 LBAHC / CHFA 2030
Lois Apartments
321 W. 7th St. S 24 of 24 LBCIC 1/25/2031
Nonprofit Owned
Not At-Risk
Springdale West I, II, & III
2095 W. Spring St F 364 of 410 Section 8 LMSA 7/31/2037 (Current &Overall)
Federation Tower
3799 E. Willow St. S 50 of 50
Section 8 4/30/2039
(Current & Overall)
Section 202 Nonprofit Owned
Seagate Village
1450 Locust S/D 44 of 44 Tax Credit 2050
Table B-23: Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing Developments (continued) Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-43
BAppendix
January 2022
Project Name and Address Tenant Type Affordable &
Total Units Funding Source(s) Expiration of Affordability Cambridge Place
421 W. 33rd St F 24 of 24 LBAHC / Tax Credit 2050
Beechwood Terr.
1117 Elm Ave F 25 of 25 LBAHC / Tax Credit 2050
Grisham Community
Housing
11 W. 49th St. #B
F 94 of 96 LBCIC /Tax Credit 12/1/2057
Pacific City Lights Apts.
1601 Pacific Ave F 41 of 42 HOME / Tax Credit 11/9/2059 Alamitos Apartments
1034 Alamitos Avenue F 30 of 30 HOME 1/1/2061
Artesia Courts Apartments
3281-3283 Artesia Blvd. F 36 of 36 HOME 1/1/2061
Cedar Court Apartments –
North
1855, 1865, & 1895 Cedar Ave
F 16 of 16
HOME / Tax Credits
/ Multi-Family
Revenue Bond
1/1/2061
Cedar Court Apartments –
South
1843-1849 Cedar Ave.

F 16 of 16
HOME / Tax Credits
/ Multi-Family
Revenue Bond
1/1/2061
Linden Garden Court Apts.
6371 Linden / 531 E. 64th St, F 24 of 24 HOME 1/1/2061
Ocean Gate Apts
1070 Martin Luther King Jr.

Ave.

F 20 of 20 HOME 1/1/2061
Orange Ave. Apts.
1000 Orange Ave. F 19 of 19 HOME 1/1/2061
Ocean Breeze Senior Apts.
854 Martin Luther King Blvd. S 16 of 16 HOME 1/1/2061
Valentine Garden Apts.
6185, 6191, 6195 Linden Ave. F 18 of 18 HOME 1/1/2061
Cerritos Court Apartments
842-858 Cerritos Ave. F 12 of 12 HOME 1/1/2061
Seabreeze Apts.
745 Alamitos Ave. S 44 of 44 HOME / Density
Bonus 1/1/2061
Elm Ave. Apts.
530 Elm Ave. D 16 of 17 Tax Credit 1/1/2063
Menorah Senior Housing
575 E. Vernon S 65 of 66 Section 202
1/31/2064 (Current &
Overall)
Nonprofit Owned
Table B-23: Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing Developments (continued) Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-44
Appendix
B
January 2022
Project Name and Address Tenant Type Affordable &
Total Units Funding Source(s) Expiration of Affordability Long Beach and Burnett
Apartments
2355 Long Beach Blvd.

F 36 of 46 LBCIC / Tax Credit 1/1/2064
Villages at Cabrillo - Family
Commons
2001 River Ave.

F 80 of 81 Tax Credit
Section 8 3/31/2064
Courtyards Apartments
1027 & 1045 Redondo Ave.
1134 Stanley Ave.
350 East Esther St.

D/A 44 of 46 LBCIC 1/1/2066
The Palace
2642 East Anaheim St. Y 14 of 14 LBCIC 4/30/2067
Collage Apartments
1893-1911 Pine Ave. F 14 of 14 Set-Aside / HOME /
NSP1 1/1/2067
The Sage at Evergreen Apts
1801 E. 68th St. F 26 of 26 LBCIC / HOME 2067
The Palm at Evergreen Apts
1823 E. 68th St. F 36 of 36 LBCIC / HOME 2067
The Jasmine at Evergreen
Apts.
1528-32 Freeman
F 19 of 19 LBCIC / HOME 2067
Senior Arts Colony & The
Annex
202 E. Anaheim St.

S 198 of 200 LBCIC 7/1/2068
Ramona Park Senior
Apartments S 60 of 61 Low-Income
Housing Bond 12/2069
Belwood Arms Apartments
6301 Atlantic Ave. F 33 of 34 Low-Income
Housing Bond 6/2069
Lime Street Apartments
1060 Lime Ave. F 16 of 16
HOME / Tax Credits
/ Multi-Family
Revenue Bond /
Set-Aside
1/1/2099
Renaissance Terrace
926 Locust Ave
S/F
S
61 of 102
29 of 102
Housing Authority
Density Bonus Perpetuity
Redondo Plaza
645 Redondo S/D 40 of 59 Density Bonus Perpetuity
Magnolia Manor
1128 E. 4th St S 54 of 54 Density Bonus Perpetuity
Vintage Senior Apts.
1330 Redondo S 20 of 20 Density Bonus Perpetuity
Table B-23: Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing Developments (continued) Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-45
BAppendix
January 2022
Project Name and Address Tenant Type Affordable &
Total Units Funding Source(s) Expiration of Affordability 1542 Orizaba S 16 of 16 Density Bonus Perpetuity
City Terrace
425 E. 3rd St. S/D 93 of 98 Density Bonus Perpetuity
3485 Linden S 29 of 29 Density Bonus Perpetuity
3945 Virginia S 25 of 25 Density Bonus Perpetuity
Village Chateau
518 E. 4th St. S 28 of 28 Density Bonus Perpetuity
Carmelitos Public Housing
1000 Via Wanda S/F 713 of 713 Housing Authority Perpetuity Vistas Del Puerto Apts F/H 48 of 48 LBCIC
Las Ventanas F 101 of 101 LBCIC
AHSC
The Spark at Midtorn F/H 95 of 95 LBCIC
The Beacon S/V 160 of 160 LBCIC
Washington Homes D 1 of 1 LBCIC
Redondo Homes D 5 of 5 LBCIC
469 West Apartments H 40 of 40 LBCIC
1500 E. Anaheim F 88 of 88 LBCIC
Woodbridge Apartments F 49 of 49 LBCIC
9th Street Homes D 1 of 1 LBCIC
Sunfield Homes D 1 of 1 LBCIC
Keystone Homes D 1 of 1 LBCIC
Clark Apartments D 7of 7 LBCIC
Assisted 5,356
Total 5,692
Long Beach Community Investment Company (LBCIC), 2020;
Long Beach Affordable Housing Corporation (LBAHC), 2020; Tenant Type: S = Senior; F = Family; D = Disabled; Y = At-Risk Youth; A = Adults; H = Homeless; V = Veterans Note: Status of Section 8 contracts is based on HUD database, which is only updated periodically.

Sources: HUD Inventory of Section 8 projects, 2013; Low Income Housing Tax Credit database at www.huduser.org, 2020 Table B-23: Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing Developments (continued) Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-46
Appendix
B
January 2022
B.5.3 Preservation and Replacement
Options
Preservation or replacement of at-risk projects in Long Beach can be achieved in several ways: 1) provision of
rental assistance to tenants using other funding sources; 2) replacement or development of new assisted multi-
family housing units; and/or 3) purchase of affordability covenants. These options are described below, along
with a general cost estimate for each. The City has been successful in preserving many of the affordable housing projects, extending the affordability covenants by:
» Providing additional subsidies
» Coordinating with HUD
» Assisting in funding applications
Rental Assistance
In the unlikely event that Section 8 subsidies are no longer available or projects are converted to market-rate, a
preservation option is to provide rent subsidies using other funding sources. Table B-24 provides a general estimate of the cost of subsidizing the rents to Fair Market Rent (FMR) level. This estimate is only intended to demonstrate the magnitude of needs and does not represent a precise calculation of the costs involved.

Table B-24: Rent Subsidies Required
Unit Size/Household
Size1
Number of
Units
Fair Market
Rent2
Household
Annual
Income
Affordable
Housing
Cost⁴
Monthly
per Unit
Subsidy⁵
Total
Monthly
Subsidy
Very Low Income (50% AMI)3
1 Bedroom/
2-person household 1,813 $1,517 $45,050 $1,009 $508 $921,004 2 Bedroom/
3-person household 276 $1,956 $50,700 $1,129 $827 $228,252 Total Monthly
2,089
$1,149,256
Total Annual Subsidy $13,791,072
Assumptions:

1. Family units are assumed to be 2-bedrooms and other special needs units are assumed to be one-bedrooms

2. Fair Market Rent (FMR) is determined by HUD. These calculations use the 2020 HUD FMR for the Housing Authority of the City of Long Beach Small Area Demonstration.

3. Rents are restricted to 50% AMI in these buildings, which puts residents in the Very Low Income Category, set by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

4. The affordable housing cost is calculated based on 30% of the AMI, minus utilities for rentals.

5. The monthly subsidy covers the gap between the FMR and the affordable housing cost.

Source: Veronica Tam and Associates, 2020.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-47
BAppendix
January 2022
Construction of Replacement Units
The construction of new low income housing units as a
means of replacing currently at-risk units is an option for Long Beach. The cost of developing housing depends
upon a variety of factors including the density and size of the units (i.e. square footage and number of bedrooms), location, land costs and type of construction. Based on general assumptions for average construction costs, it
would cost approximately $300 million to construct 2,089 affordable replacement units, excluding land costs and
other soft costs (such as architecture and engineering).

Including land costs, the total costs to develop replacement units would be significantly higher.

Purchase of Affordability Covenants
Another option to preserve the affordability of at-risk projects is to provide a lump sum financial package to
maintain the projects as low-income housing, including
writing down the interest rate on or paying off the
remaining loan balance, and/or supplementing the Section 8 subsidy received with cash flow for other expenses. By providing lump sum financial assistance or an on-going
subsidy in rents or reduced mortgage interest rates, the City could ensure that some or all of the assisted units remain affordable.

Entities with Capacity to Acquire/Manage At-Risk
Projects
Described below are public and non-profit agencies that have been actively involved in housing activities in the City of Long Beach. These agencies play important roles in meeting the housing needs of the City. In particular, they are critical in the improvement of the housing stock and the preservation of at-risk housing units in Long Beach.

Long Beach Community Investment Company (LBCIC):

The LBCIC is a non-profit, public benefit corporation
created by the City of Long Beach to aid in the support, financing and development of affordable housing based
on needs identified, in part, by the Housing Element.

The City advances money to the LBCIC from its Housing
Development Fund for the production, improvement,
or preservation of affordable housing throughout Long
Beach.

Long Beach Housing Authority: The Housing Authority
of the City of Long Beach receives funds from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
to provide Section 8 rental assistance to low income
individuals and families so that they can afford to rent decent, safe, and sanitary housing.

In addition, many nonprofit developers have expressed
interested in providing affordable housing in Los Angeles County. These include:
» Abode Communities
» Amcal
» Bridge Housing
» Century Housing Corporation
» Clifford Beers Housing
» Habitat for Humanity
» Jamboree Housing
» LINC Housing
» Mercy Housing
» Menorah Housing
» Meta Housing Corporation
» National Community Renaissance (National CORE)
The following organizations have partnered with the City in recent years to acquire and/or develop affordable housing:
» Abode Communities
» Bridge Housing Corporation
» Century Affordable Development, Inc.
» Clifford Beers Housing
» Habitat for Humanity of Greater Los Angeles
» Home Ownership for Personal Empowerment (HOPE)
» Jamboree Housing Corporation
» Linc Housing
» Mercy Housing California
» Skid Row Housing
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-48
Appendix
B
January 2022
Section B.6 Housing Problems
The SCAG data estimating the number of households at
each income level presented earlier does not provide any detail on the specific housing needs and problems faced by the City’s lower income households. The Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by
the Census Bureau for HUD, however, provides detailed
information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Long Beach. Housing problems
considered by CHAS include:
» Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom);
» Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than
one person per room);
» Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30% of gross income; or
» Severe housing cost burden, including utilities,
exceeding 50% of gross income.

B.6.1 Overcrowding
Overcrowding is a significant issue in Long Beach.

Overcrowding is defined by the State Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) as a
household with more than one person per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchen). Severe overcrowding is defined as a household with more than 1.5 persons per room.

Overcrowding typically occurs when housing costs are so high relative to income that families double-up or take on roommates or boarders to devote income to other basic
needs, such as food and medical care. The current housing crisis resulting from an inventory shortage and high costs of housing also necessitates many families or individuals to share housing arrangements, leading to potential
overcrowding.

Table B-25 indicates the level of overcrowding by tenure.

Overall, 15 percent of the renter-households and 5 percent of the owner-households in the City were considered
overcrowded. Further, 7 percent of renter households and 2 percent of owner households were severely overcrowded.

Although this information on overcrowding conditions
is not available based on income level, other data show that overcrowding disproportionally impacts low-income
households.

Table B-25: Overcrowding by Tenure (2019)
Owner Occupied Units Renter Occupied Units
Number Percent of
Total Number Percent of
Total
Not Overcrowded
(1.00 or Less Occupants/Room) 62,906 94.7% 85,682 85.4% Overcrowded

1.01 to 1.50 Occupants/Room 2,422 3.6% 8,150 8.1%

1.51 or More Occupants/Room 1,131 1.7% 6,522 6.5%
Total Units 66,459 100.0% 100,354 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019, 5-year estimates.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-49
BAppendix
January 2022
Overcrowding rates also vary significantly by race
and ethnicity as illustrated in Figure B-14 . Rates of overcrowding are significantly higher for Hispanic/
Latino households, with 24 percent of households being
overcrowded. Households categorized as “some other
race” , including American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, also experience a higher likelihood of overcrowding at 25 percent. Approximately 12 percent of Asian households in the City live in overcrowded conditions.

The desire for multi-generational living or living with extended family members can also create overcrowded
conditions due to a lack of affordable larger units within the City. Multi-generational living tends to be most common in Hispanic and Asian cultures, indicating that it may be a contributing factor in higher rates of overcrowding for these groups. As noted previously in this section, the majority of Hispanic households are renters, and there is a severe lack of larger rental units within the City. These factors, coupled with lower income levels, constraints related to immigration status, and discrimination make it difficult for multi-generational households to find appropriately sized, affordable housing.

Overcrowded situations can disproportionately impact
children, leading to the perpetuation of intergenerational social inequities. The lack of comfortable space can lead to difficulty learning and poorer quality sleep. Children in overcrowded housing are also more likely to catch an illness.

Figure B-13 illustrates overcrowding rates in the City by Census Tract. Areas with the highest rates of overcrowding are located Central Long Beach, along the Anaheim Street corridor. Wrigley and North Long Beach also had higher
levels of overcrowding. Higher rates of overcrowding
correspond with higher percentages of non-White
population as shown in Figure B-2 , consistent with the data presented in Figure B-12 illustrating that households of color experience higher rates of overcrowding.

Households of color have more limited access to jobs and are more likely to be employed in lower paid occupations (i.e., service occupations), which contribute to a lack of choice in housing and the need to pool multiple incomes to afford housing. When coupled with limited affordable housing in the City in general, and a lack of affordable housing development in predominantly white areas, such
as East Long Beach, concentrations of overcrowding result in communities of color.

The Covid-19 pandemic has created additional issues
for households living in overcrowded conditions. The
contagiousness of the disease means that it is easier for it to spread amongst households that are living in more crowded conditions. Additionally, these households may
find it difficult for one member to isolate if they get sick, due to lack of space, leading to other household members getting sick.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019, 5-year estimates.

Note: Other includes American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Figure B-12: Overcrowding Rates by Race/Ethnicity (2019)

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-50
Appendix
B
January 2022
Figure B-13: Overcrowding by Census Tract
Housing Element Update 6th Cycle
Long Beach, CA
Percentage Overcrowding
by Census Tract
0 0.5 1
Miles VERSION: FINALDATE: 6/17/2021 SCALE: 1 to 90,000
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table DP04
31% or more
21% - 30%
11% - 20%
4% - 10%
Up to 3%
No Data
Census Tracts
0 0.5 1
Miles
Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-51
BAppendix
January 2022
B.6.2 Lack of Complete Plumbing or Kitchen
Facilities
Very few households are impacted by a lack of complete
plumbing or kitchen facilities. According to CHAS data, less than one percent of owner households lacked complete
facilities and just over two percent of renter households lacked complete facilities. Where this issue exists, it likely is related to the age of the structure and lack of necessary maintenance over time.

B.6.3 Cost Burden
Most lower income households cope with housing cost
issues either by assuming a cost burden, or by occupying a smaller than needed or substandard unit. Specifically, according to CHAS data based on the 2013-2017 American
Community Survey, 83 percent of the City’s extremely low income households and 78 percent of very low income
households were housing cost burdened. Overall, 43
percent of all Long Beach households were housing cost
burdened.

Figure B-14 illustrates cost burden broken down
by income category and tenure. As shown, a higher
proportion of extremely low and very low income renter
households are cost burdened when compared to owner-
occupied households. However, a higher proportion of
owner-occupied households in the low, moderate, and
above moderate categories are impacted by cost burden.

Source: HUD Comprehensive Affordability Strategy (CHAS), based on American Community Survey (ACS), 2013-2017.

Figure B-14: Housing Cost Burden by Income and Tenure
Specifically, 85 percent of renter-households and 75
percent of owner-households in the extremely low income level were impacted by housing cost burden.

Figure B-15 look specifically at cost burden for renter households. As shown in Figure B-17 , cost burden is
highest among Black renter households; however, cost
burden impacts all renters at a similar rate, with little distinction by race/ethnicity in terms of proportion of renters burdened, although again a larger proportion of black people and people of color are renters compared to white people.

Figure B-15: Percent of Rent-Burdened Renter Households (2017)
Source: IPUMS USA, National Equity Atlas

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-52
Appendix
B
January 2022
Section B.7 Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing
In January 2019, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) into California state law. AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “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” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes.

The Bill added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element which includes the following components: a
summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the
City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities, an assessment of contributing factors, and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.

The City of Long Beach completed an Assessment of Fair
Housing (AFH) in 2017. In conducting the AFH, the City of Long Beach identified the fair housing issues that affect individual and household access to housing in the City, identified the leading contributing factors to these fair housing issues, and developed goals and milestones to
address each fair housing issue and the related contributing factors. Analysis in this section is taken primarily from the AFH.

B.7.1 Summary of Fair Housing Issues
The City of Long Beach AFH summarizes fair housing issues in Long Beach under the following key topics:
» Disproportionate Housing Needs of Protected
Classes and Lack of Affordable Housing: Minority,
elderly, and disabled households in Long Beach are
disproportionately represented in the low-income
group, which subsequently leads to a lack of housing
choice. While the City has been working to expand
the affordable housing inventory diminished funding
and limited vacant and underutilized properties with
development potential have been limiting factors, and
the needs in the community remain unmet.
» Lack of Sufficient Housing Choice Vouchers (Section
8): Almost 7,000 households in Long Beach rely on
the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program to afford
decent and adequate housing. The HCV program is in
high demand with a long waiting list of applicants. Not only do applicants have to wait a long time to receive
a voucher, once a voucher is available, it often takes
a long time to find a landlord that is willing to accept it. Voucher use is primarily concentrated in the City’s older multi-family neighborhoods. Few single-family
property owners are willing to accept vouchers.
» Need to Provide Affordable Housing Opportunities
throughout the City: The need to offer affordable
housing opportunities Citywide, rather than being
concentrated in specific neighborhoods, was a recurring theme throughout the community outreach and data
analysis process for developing the AFH. One possible
strategy is increasing density in high-opportunity areas. » Displacement: Similar to many other local communities, the City faces the dilemma of needing to improve
deteriorating neighborhoods, such as areas defined as
Racial/Ethnic Concentrated Areas of Poverty or R/ECAPs, and the unintended consequence of economically
displacing existing residents after improvements
are made. As the cost of housing continues to rise,
low-income residents, particularly low-income
renters who are predominantly communities of color,
disproportionately face displacement and threats of
displacement for the reasons described above.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-53
BAppendix
January 2022
B.7.2 Fair Housing Analysis
Patterns of Segregation and Minority Concentrations
In Long Beach, racial and economic disparities are
manifested spatially across the City, as evidenced by the segregated housing patterns in the City described below.

When assessing the location of residents by race, the areas where minority populations reside are those areas with
somewhat lower housing costs compared to other parts
of the City due to the age and quality of housing stock, historic underinvestment in neighborhoods of color, as well as disproportionately high pollution burdens. Tools such as CalEnviroScreen help identify the California communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution and the areas where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. For Long Beach, CalEnviroScreen shows how Central, West and North Long Beach experience some
of the highest cumulative burdens in California. It reveals that many areas are worse off than 95 percent of the state.

Only 2.2 miles away, neighborhoods in eastern Long Beach face a lower cumulative burden than 85 percent to 90
percent of the State.

It is no coincidence that the populations living in these areas tend to be low income persons of color. These geographic patterns exist due to socioeconomic inequality caused
by long-standing discriminatory practices in education, housing, employment, local political representation,
and access to resources. Low income persons of color
were historically excluded from neighborhoods with less environmental pollution and greater public investment
through policies and practices such as redlining and
exclusionary zoning, the impacts of which are still evident today in the high levels of housing segregation by race in Long Beach.

Therefore, one of the most pressing issues regarding
segregation in the City is the lack of access to opportunity areas and resources – including quality education,
environmental health, and employment – for residents
of color who have been historically excluded from high
opportunity areas due to lack of access to housing,
particularly affordable housing.

Dissimilarity Index
The Long Beach AFH utilized the Dissimilarity Index as a measurement of housing segregation. The index, presented in Table B-26 represents the percentage of one group that would have to move into a new neighborhood to achieve
perfect integration with another group. An index score can range in value from 0, indicating complete integration, to 100, indicating complete segregation. A value of 60
(or above) is considered very high, values of 40 or 50 are usually considered a moderate level of segregation, and values of 30 or below are considered to be fairly low. A high value indicates that the two groups tend to live in different census tracts.

In Long Beach, the dissimilarity indices reveal that the City has high to very high levels of segregation in which people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds live in relative isolation to one another. Table B-26 shows how these levels of segregation have been increasing over time.

Segregation between White and non-White groups is high
to very high for all groups, but is slightly lower between White and Asian or Pacific Islanders compared to other
non-White groups.

Table B-26: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends
Racial/Ethnic
Dissimilarity Index
City of Long Beach
1990 2000 2010
Non-White/White 52.53 57.27 57.85
Black/White 56.60 58.09 59.51
Hispanic/White 54.65 60.92 60.19
Asian or Pacific
Islander/White 51.71 52.93 53.95
Sources: AFFHT Data Table 3; Decennial Census
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-54
Appendix
B
January 2022
Segregation Trends
Researchers evaluate the degree of racial and ethnic
integration as an important measure or evidence of
fair housing opportunity. Segregation levels in the City have changed over time (since 1990). According to the
dissimilarity index values measured between 1990 and
2010, Long Beach has generally seen increases in its
concentrations of all racial/ethnic groups throughout the City (Table B-26). This may indicate increasing segregation of racial/ethnic groups in the City of Long Beach. While today, there are more minority residents residing in
historically White neighborhoods, this increase is only a result of an overall increase in minority population in the City.

Segregation by Protected Class
The following section identifies areas in the City with high levels of segregation by race/ethnicity, national origin, and LEP group. Additional analysis and documentation can be found in the City’s AFH.

Race and Ethnicity
While Long Beach as a whole is an ethnically diverse
community, patterns of ethnic concentration are present within particular areas. Concentrations of Hispanic residents are evident in numerous Long Beach neighborhoods,
including the majority of Central Long Beach, Downtown, North Long Beach, and the Westside. The majority of
neighborhoods with a concentration of Hispanic residents also exhibit concentrations of Black residents.

There is a clear pattern of concentration of White residents living in the eastern parts of the City. These eastern Census tracts with concentrations of White residents also evidence the highest for-sale housing values in Long Beach. Census data shows that the City has become increasingly diverse, from 68 percent White in 1980 to just 29 percent White
in 2010. The east side of the City is experiencing similar trends, although at a slower pace due to the generally
higher costs of housing in the area that are inaccessible to low-income communities of color which continue to suffer from the legacy and continued impacts of exclusionary and discriminatory policies and systems that are reinforced by market forces. Furthermore, turnover rates in east Long Beach neighborhoods are lower.

National Origin
According to the AFH, persons of Mexican, Guatemalan,
and Salvadoran national origin appear to be concentrated in western and central parts of the City just south of the Pacific Coast Hwy, and in North Long Beach just above 48th Street.

Limited English Proficient
Residents who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) may
face additional challenges with becoming integrated
throughout more varied areas in the City. With limited
English language abilities, they face potential barriers to employment and adequate housing, which may dictate
where they may choose or be able to settle and locate.

Residents who have the most limited abilities to read,
speak, write or understand English, are concentrated in western parts of the City, primarily north of Downtown
and Central Long Beach, and to a lesser extent North Long Beach and the Westside. Reflective of the City’s overall demographics, the majority of these individuals speak
Spanish (15 percent), Khmer (two percent), and Tagalong (one percent). All LEP residents, regardless of language spoken at home, are notably concentrate in these areas.

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-55
BAppendix
January 2022
Contributing Factors of Segregation
Table B-27 lists the contributing factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of segregation in Long Beach, as identified in the AFH.

Additional discussion, supporting data and analysis in
regards segregation and these contributing factors can be found in the City of Long Beach AFH.

Table B-27: Contributing Factors of Segregation
Contributing Factors of Segregation
√ Displacement of residents due to economic
pressures
√ Location and type of affordable housing
√ Private discrimination
√ Source of income discrimination*
* Source of income discrimination: a property owner cannot choose to reject an applicant based on where their income comes from as long as it is a lawful source (e.g., alimony, child support or other compensation). This also includes Section 8 housing subsidies.

Access to Opportunities
HUD has developed a series of indices to help inform
communities about segregation in their jurisdiction and region, as well as disparities in access to opportunity.

HUD-provided index scores are based on nationally
available data sources and assess City residents’ access to key opportunity assets in Long Beach. Table B-28 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
» Low Poverty Index: The low poverty index captures
poverty in a given neighborhood. The poverty rate is
determined at the census tract level. The higher the
score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
» School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency
index uses school-level data on the performance of
4th grade students on state exams to describe which
neighborhoods have high-performing elementary
schools nearby and which are near lower performing
elementary schools. The higher the score, the higher
the school system quality is in a neighborhood.
» Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market
engagement index provides a summary description of
the relative intensity of labor market engagement and
human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon
the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher
the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
» Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region
(i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
» Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent
family with income at 50% of the median income for
renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
» Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index
quantifies the accessibility of a given residential
neighborhood as a function of its distance to all
job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger
employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher
the index value, the better the access to employment
opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
» Environmental Health Index: The environmental
health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful
toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index
value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human
health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a
neighborhood is a census block-group.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-56
Appendix
B
January 2022
Table B-28: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity
City of
Long
Beach
Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White,
Non-
Hispanic

64.93 65.24 67.55 81.52 83.01 50.00 4.59
Black,
Non-
Hispanic

32.07 40.94 33.56 85.47 88.43 41.75 3.71
Hispanic 30.76 42.50 31.65 85.53 88.22 39.96 3.67
Asian or
Pacific
Islander,
Non-
Hispanic

41.42 47.24 39.11 83.75 85.79 43.52 3.65
Native
American,
Non-
Hispanic

42.32 49.42 46.46 84.71 87.29 44.75 4.06
Population below federal poverty line
White,
Non-
Hispanic

50.99 56.34 58.06 84.73 87.59 48.25 4.62
Black,
Non-
Hispanic

20.93 38.60 24.96 87.26 90.71 38.34 3.55
Hispanic 18.75 38.29 23.31 87.90 91.15 38.47 3.75
Asian or
Pacific
Islander,
Non-
Hispanic

29.16 45.62 32.25 87.04 89.58 40.73 4.16
Native
American,
Non-
Hispanic

23.25 40.84 26.55 87.30 90.80 46.07 4.47
Note: American Community Survey Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability.

Source: AFFHT Data Table 12; Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA

Appendix | Housing Needs Assessment
B-57
BAppendix
January 2022
Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity
This section discusses overarching patterns related
to inequitable access to opportunity and exposure to
adverse community-level factors based on race/ethnicity, national origin or family status. The City of Long Beach AFH contains a more in depth discussion of disparities in access to opportunity, including mapping of opportunity indicators.

Race/Ethnicity
In the City’s overall population, Black and Hispanic residents are the racial/ethnic groups most negatively impacted by their exposure to adverse community-level factors in Long Beach. Black and Hispanic residents experience the worst poverty rates, the worst environmental health indicators and the lowest school proficiency scores (Table B-28).

According to the AFH, in the City of Long Beach, Black and Hispanic residents disproportionately face more barriers to employment based on the neighborhoods in the City
in which they reside. Black and Hispanic residents are located in areas in Long Beach that have scored the lowest in the job proximity and labor force engagement indices.

In comparison, White residents in Long Beach generally
reside in areas with the highest index scores, representative of greater access to employment opportunities.

According to HUD’s transit trips index ( Table B-28 ), in the City of Long Beach, regardless of race/ethnicity, City residents have high transit trip index scores (between 81 and 85 points). Hispanic and Black residents have slightly higher index scores when compared to those of other race/ ethnicities, while White residents have the lowest scores.

When comparing transit trip index scores by race/ethnicity for residents below the federal poverty line, all residents have similar scores except White residents who again have the lowest index scores. This might reflect that generally White residents are less likely to use public transportation than their neighboring counterparts.

National Origin
In the City, those Long Beach foreign-born residents
originating from Mexico, the Philippines, or Cambodia
typically reside in areas with the lowest school proficiency index scores. They are also located in areas in the City that reflect the lowest job proximity index scores and therefore the least access to employment, and also generally reside in areas with low index scores for labor force engagement.

According to the AFH those of Mexican, Cambodian, and
Guatemalan national origin reside in areas that have high scores for transit trips and also for low transportation cost.

The majority of the foreign-born population found in the City of Long Beach, regardless of national origin, is located in the City’s areas with the lowest poverty index scores (highest areas of poverty). Notable also is a correlation between high concentrations of minority residents and
high levels of poverty in the City.

Familial Status
Access to proficient schools is particularly important
to a community with high proportions of families with
children. In Long Beach, families with children may be
facing additional hardships in obtaining quality education.

According to the AFH, 60 to 100 percent of households
in areas that generally received low scores in the school proficiency index (less than 50 index points) are families with children. The highest performing schools in Long
Beach are located in parts of the City with the fewest
children.

When comparing household access to employment centers
and engagement in the labor force based on familial status, large proportions of households with children reside in areas with the lowest index scores.

Census tracts with a high percentage of families with
children are also areas that receive high index scores for transit trips and high index scores for low transportation cost. This could reflect a trend that family households with children prioritize access to public transportation when locating in the City.

Families with children are heavily exposed to high poverty rates. In some tracts with the highest poverty rates, as many as 80 to 100 percent of all families in the area are families with children.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
B-58
Appendix
B
January 2022
Conclusion
The findings of the City’s Assessment of Fair Housing will play a significant role in the development of the Housing Plan for the Housing Element. The AFH clearly shows that Long Beach’s communities of color are disproportionately impacted by higher poverty rates, limited of access to
jobs, high levels of pollution, and lower quality schools, which have been perpetuated by systemic discriminatory
practices in zoning, employment, and education, and lack of access to resources and political representation. This information must be kept at the forefront as goals, policies, and programs are developed for the Housing Plan.

Appendix | Site Inventory
C-1
CAppendix
January 2022
Appendix C: Site Inventory
This section describes and analyzes the land resources
available for development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in the City of Long Beach. This includes the adequate sites inventory and other manners employed by
the City to satisfy its share of the region’s future housing needs, as well as a detailed overview of the site inventory analysis methodology and assumptions used to develop
the adequate sites inventory.

Section C.1 Regional Housing Needs
Assessment
State law mandates that jurisdictions provide sufficient land to accommodate a variety of housing opportunities
for all economic segments of the community. The number
of new units that must be accommodated is determined by each jurisdiction’s share of the region’s projected housing needs for the current planning period. This share, called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), is important
because compliance with this requirement is measured by the jurisdiction’s ability to provide adequate development capacity through appropriate land use policies and
development regulations to accommodate the RHNA.

The Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG), as the regional planning agency, is responsible for allocating the RHNA to individual jurisdictions within the six-county region, including the County of Los Angeles. 1 The RHNA is distributed by income category. For the
2021 Housing Element update, the City of Long Beach is
allocated a RHNA of 26,502 units as follows:
» Extremely Low Income (up to 30% of AMI): 3,570 units 2 (13.5%)
» Very Low Income (31% to 50% of AMI): 3,571 units
(13.5%)
» Low Income (51% to 80% of AMI): 4,047 units (15.3%)
» Moderate Income (81% to 120% of AMI): 4,158 units
(15.7%)
» Above Moderate Income (more than 120% of AMI):
11,156 units (42.1%)
The projected housing needs for extremely low income
households are estimated at 50 percent of the very low
income RHNA. However, for purposes of identifying sites for RHNA, no separate sites inventory is required for extremely low income housing needs.

The RHNA for this planning period commences on June
30, 2021 and covers through October 15, 2029. The City
must ensure the availability of residential sites at adequate densities and appropriate development standards to
accommodate these units. An important component of
Long Beach’s Housing Element is the identification of
sites for future residential development, and evaluation of the adequacy of these sites in fulfilling the City’s share of regional housing needs as determined by SCAG.

Section C.2 Future Residential
Dwelling Unit Potential
In order to obtain a state-certified Housing Element,
the City must demonstrate that its plans, policies and
zoning facilitate the production of the 26,502 unit RHNA allocation. The City may meet its RHNA obligation through a combination of: the projected number of Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs) anticipated to be permitted based on recent trends; of approved and proposed residential
development projects in the pipeline; and through an
inventory of sites with demonstrated zoning capacity to accommodate the RHNA allocation.
1Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) covers a six-county region, which includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial.
2The City has a RHNA allocation of 7,141 very low income units (inclusive of extremely low income units). Pursuant to State law (AB 2634), the City must project the number of extremely low income housing needs based on Census income distribution or assume 50% of the very low income units as extremely low. Therefore, the City’s RHNA of 7,141 very low income units may be split accordingly into 3,570 extremely low (50%) and 3,571 very low income (50%) units. However, for purposes of identifying adequate sites for the RHNA, State law does not mandate the separate accounting for the extremely low income category.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-2
Appendix
C
January 2022
To fulfill the latter element and to demonstrate that the City has adequate zoning capacity to accommodate its
RHNA, state law requires each jurisdiction to develop a Site Inventory and accompanying methodology as part of its
housing element update. The Site Inventory is comprised of a list of sites and an associated map that identifies the sites that are zoned at the appropriate densities and that in total can accommodate the RHNA allocation while also meeting a number of specific, state-mandated criteria.

Consistent with this requirement, Long Beach Planning
Bureau staff developed a methodology to identify sites
that are feasible for housing development over the next eight years, and therefore, eligible to be included in the mandatory site inventory. Sites identified are generally located where the Land Use Element (LUE) PlaceTypes
already planned for development to occur, largely on major corridors, in community centers and near public transit stops. The sites on the inventory are generally located in those areas where the opportunity for denser residential and mixed-use development has been focused by the LUE
in alignment with state law and planning best practices for focusing new housing near jobs, shopping and transit, in order to expand mobility options, reduce air pollution, alleviate traffic congestion and improve community health, all while allowing the City to reduce its carbon footprint.

State law dictates that if sufficient capacity to meet the RHNA cannot be demonstrated based on existing zoning,
the City is required to rezone sites on the inventory by October 15, 2024 to demonstrate the ability to meet
sufficient capacity. As described in this section, Long Beach must conduct a rezoning program in order to demonstrate its ability to meet the RHNA, since sufficient capacity cannot be demonstrated under existing zoning. The necessary
rezoning is already contemplated by the recently updated LUE, so sites on the inventory will not require general plan amendments but rather only need rezoning necessary to
implement and ensure consistency with the LUE.

C.2.1 Accessory Dwelling Units
New State laws that have been effective since January 1, 2018 substantially relax the development standards and
procedures for the construction of Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs). As a result, the City has seen significant increases in applications and permits for ADUs across Long Beach. Production of ADUs has more than quadrupled
between 2018 and 2020, as shown below:
» 2018: 59 units
» 2019: 151 units
» 2020: 268 units
While this three-year period yields an annual average of 159 units, given the progressively upward trend and an
emerging trend of Junior ADUs in Long Beach, the City
anticipates that the construction of ADUs will continue to increase. Junior ADUs are attached accessory units that occupy the existing square footage of a housing unit and therefore, are typically smaller in size, less expensive to construct, and a more affordable housing option.

However, to be conservative, and based on the observed
development trends in the City, the Housing Element
assumes an annual average of 159 ADUs between 2021
and 2029, for a total of 1,275 units. This is based on the average number of ADUs that have been permitted over
the past three years.

ADUs in Long Beach tend to be smaller. A survey of the most recent 100 ADU applications that were being processed
in 2020 indicated that 47 were for new construction of
ADUs and 53 were for conversion from existing spaces,
primarily garage, storage, and existing living spaces. New construction ADUs average 682 square feet, ranging in size from 309 to 1,000 square feet. For ADUs from converted
spaces, the average size was 522 square feet with the
smallest unit at 240 square feet and largest at 899 square feet. Specifically, 53 of the 100 ADUs reviewed were below 600 square feet and 34 ADUs are between 601 and 800
square feet. Only 13 ADUs were over 800 square feet.

Appendix | Site Inventory
C-3
CAppendix
January 2022
In 2020 SCAG prepared a Regional Accessory Dwelling
Unit Affordability Analysis based on a rent survey of ADUs across the region. This Affordability Analysis has been approved by HCD for use in the SCAG region to establish the potential affordability levels of ADUs expected to be constructed during the Housing Element planning period.

Long Beach belongs to the Los Angeles County II subregion in this study, which consists of ADUs with the following income/affordability distribution:
» Extremely Low Income: 15.0 percent
» Very Low Income: 8.5 percent
» Low Income: 44.6 percent
» Moderate Income: 2.1 percent
» Above Moderate Income: 29.8 percent
C.2.2 Entitled and Proposed Developments
Because the RHNA for this 2021-2029 Housing Element
begins on June 30, 2021, housing developments that
have been proposed or have received entitlements but
are not expected to be issued building permits until after July 1, 2021 can be credited toward the 2021-2029 RHNA.

Table C-1 lists the projects that have received approval or entitlement but are not yet permitted. In addition,
pipeline residential projects (proposed or upcoming) are also included. All of the approved/proposed/pipeline
projects will provide affordable housing units to lower income households, including those with special needs.

HOME and Housing Asset Funds are used as leverage
to improve the feasibility of these affordable housing
projects. Recent non-residential entitlement projects have also been reviewed against the inventory, and properties for which approvals entitling substantial improvements
that have been identified as having the potential to lessen the likelihood of development have been removed from
the inventory.

Table C-1: Approved, Entitled, and Proposed Developments Name Address Developer Units Very
Low Low Moderate Upper Target
Population
Approved
Anaheim/
Walnut
1500 E.

Anaheim
Bridge
Housing 88 53 34 1 0 Family
Proposed/Pipeline Projects
Union
Apartments
1401 LB
Blvd
Skid Row
Housing 160 88 71 1 0 Family/
Long Beach
Senior
Housing
901-941 E.

PCH
Mercy
Housing 68 58 9 1 0 Senior
26 Point 2
Apartments
3590 E.

PCH
Excelerate
Housing
Group
77 61 15 1 0 Homeless
The Cove 2121 W.

William St.

Century
Affordable
Development
90 72 17 1 0 Homeless Vet
Armory Arts
Collective
854 E. 7th
Street
Daylight/
Gundry/
Howard
65 14 49 2 0 Family
Subtotal: 460 293 161 6 0
Total: 548 346 195 7 0
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-4
Appendix
C
January 2022
C.2.3 Placetype Potential vs. Zoning Potential
The next way in which the RHNA can be accommodated
is through identification of potential development sites on a Site Inventory. The City of Long Beach updated its General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) in 2019, which uses PlaceTypes to designate allowable land uses. The City
has been incrementally amending its Zoning Code to
create or modify zoning districts to implement the new
LUE PlaceTypes. Specifically, the zoning districts for the mixed-use, higher density Neighborhood Serving Center
or Corridor (NSC) PlaceTypes were adopted into a new title of the Long Beach Municipal Code (Title 22, Transitional Zoning Code) through the Uptown Planning Land Use
and Neighborhood Strategy (UPLAN) process in 2020,
while the Multi-Family Residential (MFR) PlaceTypes and additional NSC PlaceTypes are planned to be adopted as part of UPLAN Phase 2 in 2022. The remaining residential PlaceTypes (other than the low-density Founding and
Contemporary Neighborhood (FCN) PlaceType) are
planned to be adopted through the Anaheim Corridor
Zoning Improvement Plan (ACZIP), which is set to begin in early 2022 with anticipated completion by the end of 2023.

Table C-2: Schedule for Adopting Implementing Zoning
Districts
PlaceType Adopted
in 2020
To be
Adopted
in 2022
To be
Adopted
in 2024
To be
Adopted
later
(TBD)

NSC-L X

NSC-M X

MFR-L X

MRF-M X

TOD-L X

TOD-M X
FCN X
Along with adoption of zones to implement each
PlaceType, staff will bring forward recommendations to
rezone properties to the new zones, including for parcels within the UPLAN and ACZIP areas that are designated with the corresponding PlaceTypes. Other parcels outside those geographies would require the additional step of rezoning the parcel before it could be developed under the new
zone. Because not all parcels have yet been rezoned to implement the LUE PlaceTypes, this Housing Element
estimates dwelling unit potential under two separate
scenarios: 1) under the current Zoning Code; and 2) under rezoning consistent with LUE PlaceType designations
through the 2019 LUE update. This Housing Element
includes a program that commits the City to rezone all
parcels listed on the Housing Element site inventory to implement the LUE, within three years of adoption of the updated Housing Element, as required by state law.

Site Selection Criteria
Long Beach is primarily built out with little vacant land remaining for development. As such, in developing
a method for identifying the sites available for
accommodating the 2021-2029 RHNA, the City developed
a comprehensive, elaborate, and iterative methodology
which employed a uniform set of objective criteria to all parcels in the City under two scenarios- both under each parcel’s existing zoning, and under the LUE PlaceType
for parcels that have not yet been rezoned to implement the LUE. A front-end method of filtering out was used in order to identify sites that are the most likely to develop.

Over 86,000 parcels throughout the City (excluding
condominium developments) were assessed for near-term
redevelopment potential under both scenarios. Contiguous parcels were then combined to create sites of appropriate size. Selected sites for inclusion in the inventory were then disaggregated to obtain parcel-level details with site data.

Parcel-Level Screening
Parcels were included or excluded based on the following criteria:
» Exclude: Parcels that contain a park, a school, or
waterway, or parcels that were included in the 5th cycle Housing Element; or parcels with a recently completed
or approved large housing development project (as of
May 2021)
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-5
CAppendix
January 2022
» Dwelling Unit Potential: A feasibility index was
developed using a number of variables. The variables considered included:
– Improvement-to-land value ratio < 1 (100%), or is null (i.e. no value recorded)
– One of the following:
◊ Lot size is greater than 5,000 square feet
◊ Address data indicates a vacant parcel
– One of the following:
◊ Existing lot coverage <= 60% if allowed height is 3
stories and under
◊ Existing lot coverage <= 80% if allowed height is
higher than 3 stories
◊ Improvement-to-land value ratio < 0.25 (25%)
◊ Improvement-to-land value ratio < 0.5 (50%) if
allowed height is 4 stories and over
◊ Either percent of lot built or improvement to land
value ratio is null (i.e. no value recorded)
– One of the following:
◊ Existing density (du/ac) <= 50 in Downtown
PlaceType
◊ Existing density (du/ac) <= 30 outside of
Downtown PlaceType
◊ Existing density (du/ac) is null (i.e. no value
recorded)
However, parcels in the following zones or PlaceTypes, or current uses with limited growth opportunities or other complications are excluded:
» Zoning is one of: Park, Public Right of Way
» PlaceType does not allow residential:
– CC (Community Commercial)
– I (Industrial)
– RSF (Regional-Serving Facility), except if in PD-1
(SEASP)
– WF (Waterfront)
– OS (Open Space)
– NI (Neo Industrial)
» Use (from Los Angeles County Assessor Use Code) is one of: Petroleum & Gas, Hospital, Cemetery, Police and Fire Station, Public Storage
» Historic landmark or PD-30 identified historic property High-Opportunity Sites
Given the importance of identifying additional sites in high opportunity areas to address fair housing concerns, an analysis focused on this issue was conducted of parcels within high and highest opportunity TCAC score areas.

In order to identify more sites in high opportunity areas, the City developed additional criteria to identify sites that may not yield as large a number of units as other sites on the inventory, but could still play a meaningful role in identifying dwelling unit potential in high resource areas.

The analysis focused on identifying sites larger than 10,000 square feet along major corridors with opportunity for
future residential development. of parcels in these areas . The analysis identified additional sites with the Founding and Contemporary Neighborhood (FCN) LUE PlaceType
designation. The FCN PlaceType is designed to facilitate lower-density residential development, so proportionately fewer units could be achieved through FCN sites. However, given the importance of identifying sites for the site
inventory in high opportunity areas, it was determined that large FCN sites on major corridors could play an important role as part of the site inventory, even if relatively few units could be achieved compared to other PlaceTypes.

Therefore, identified sites met the following criteria:
» FCN parcels in high and highest opportunity TCAC
designations that:
– Are larger than 10,000 square feet in size
– Fronting a major corridor as defined by the City’s
Mobility Element
– Have less than 2 dwelling units existing on the site
– Have relatively low lot coverage (less than 40%)
– Pass a visual screen test
From these resulting parcels, those that had an existing religious use, lot coverage less than 25%, and over 1 acre in undeveloped land were categorized as affordable and
assigned a density of 30 du/ac. This was done both based on recent trends and new state law supporting religious institutions in co-locating affordable housing on their properties as a secondary use. In determining the number of potential units for those sites, staff only analyzed the vacant portions of the property as it is expected that any existing religious institution would remain if housing is built in the future. See also Program 1.5 (Religious Facility Overlay) for additional information on how affordable
housing will be supported in being co-located on religious facility sites.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-6
Appendix
C
January 2022
Site-Level Screening
Given the high-density limits established for certain areas by the City’s zoning and PlaceType regulations, certain small sites could accommodate residential developments
of a feasible size. The second step to the site selection process is to assemble smaller but contiguous parcels to sites of 0.25 acre of larger, if either the proposed site does not involve the assembly of sites owned by three more
than three property owners, or if the site size is larger than 20 acres. Sites were also excluded if they were red-flagged as not developable in visual reviews using aerial photos of each potential site; examples of exclusions included private roads or utility sites, irregular lot shapes, or other unique factors that clearly affected development potential.

Achievable Densities and Development Capacity
In estimating dwelling unit potential, two sets of density assumptions were developed:
» Existing Zoning Density Assumption
» PlaceType Density Assumption
Existing Zoning Density and Affordability
Assumptions
To estimate achievable densities for each zone, the City used recent project data, when available, or probable
assumptions given zoning standards. For zones outside of PD-30 and SP-1, the achievable density under existing zoning was derived from the maximum density allowed
under zoning regulations and then adjusted to be 75% of the maximum given additional development standards (e.g. parking requirements, open space requirements, setbacks, etc.) (See Table C-3). Achievable density for PD-30 and SP-1, however, were estimated using an average of densities
actualized from recent residential development projects in said areas since the majority of new housing development in the City has taken place in recent years within PD-30 and SP-1. Outside of the PD-30 area, if a site is at least 0.5 acre and has a zoning density of 30 units per acre or higher (default density for lower income housing established by State law), the site is presumed to be feasible for facilitating lower income housing.

Otherwise, sites that have zoning allowing densities of less than 30 units per acre are presumed to be feasible for market rate housing based on allowable densities
achieved Within the Downtown area (equivalent to PD-30), the minimum density allowed generally far exceeds the
State-established default density of 30 units per acre for affordable housing. Therefore sites within PD-30 have
base development standards flexible enough to not be
expected to require use of the EDB. However, based on
recent trends, development in the Downtown does not
provide a high level of affordability despite the density. An inventory of all recent entitlement projects in PD-30 shows that about 8% of all sites were entitled as 100% affordable and all sites that were developed with 100% affordable
housing were between 1 acre and 2.5 acres in size.

Therefore, for properties within the Downtown, only sites that are between 1 and 2.5 acres in size were designated for affordable units, yielding affordable units of just under 7% of all Downtown sites, which aligns with the entitlement data. For sites categorized as market rate within both the PD-30 and SP-1 areas, approximately 10% of units were
allocated as Low Income, given the inclusionary housing policy is in effect in these areas.

Appendix | Site Inventory
C-7
CAppendix
January 2022
Table C-3: Zoning Density Assumptions (continued)Table C-3: Zoning Density Assumptions Name Height
Limit (ft)
Story
Limit
Final City
Density
Assumption
(du/acre)
R-1-S 24 2 13.6
R-1-M 25 2 9.1
R-1-L 25 2 2.7
R-1-N 25 2 5.4
R-1-T 25 2 10.9
R-2-S 24 2 27.2
R-2-I 32 3 32.6
R-2-L 35 2 8.2
R-2-N 25 2 10.9
R-2-A 25 2 10.9
R-3-S 25 2 16.3
R-3-4 25 2 19.2
R-3-T 28 2 10.9
R-4-R 28 2 21.8
R-4-N 38 3 21.8
R-4-H - - 21.8
R-4-U 65 5 21.8
RM 30 2 13.6
R-4-M 20 - 10.5
CNR 28 2 10.9
CCN 38 3 21.8
CCR 28 2 21.8
CO - - 21.8
SP-2 5 38
PD-2 25 2 60.8
PD-5 45 4 40.5
PD-6 375 - 131.3
PD-10 26 2 21.8
Name Height
Limit (ft)
Story
Limit
Final City
Density
Assumption
(du/acre)
PD-17 30 3 12.8
PD-22 30 2 39.8
PD-30 - - 150
SP-1-TN 83 - 80
SP-1-CDR - - 70
Under existing zoning, a total of 84 parcels (belonging to sites larger than 0.5 acres in size) that total 34.36 acres can facilitate the development of 2,972 lower income units
(Table C-4). In addition, parcels zoned for lower intensities can potentially accommodate 245 moderate-income units
and 11,630above moderate income units. A total of 14,847 units can be accommodated under the existing zoning.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-8
Appendix
C
January 2022
Table C-4: Current Zoning – Dwelling Unit Capacity
Zone Zone Name Number of
Units Acres Number of
Parcels
Affordable (Lower Income) 2,972 34.36 84
PD-22 Pacific Railway District 23 0.57 1
PD-30 Downtown District 1,046 6.94 14
SP-1-CDR Midtown Corridor District 999 14.23 35
SP-1-TN Midtown Transit Node District 809 10.08 33
SP-2 Southeast Area Specific Plan 95 2.54 1
Market-Rate 11,875 194.46 702
Moderate-Income 245 24.43 125
R-1-M Single-family Residential, moderate lot 7 0.8 1
R-1-N Single-family Residential, standard lot 97 16.36 63 R-2-A Two-family Residential, accessory second
unit 11 0.88 6
R-2-N Two-family Residential, standard lot 130 11.07 60 Above Moderate-Income 11,538 173.16 586
CCN Community R-4-N Commercial 112 5.15 14
CCR Community R-4-R Commercial 13 .61 1
CNR Neighborhood Commercial and Residential 258 22.81 103 CO Office Commercial 46 2.19 10
PD-22 Pacific Railway District 11 0.27 1
PD-30 Downtown District 8,074 53.45 186
R-3-4 Low-density Multi-family Residential 59 2.98 18
R-3-S Low-density Multi-family Residential, small
lot 117 7.29 40
R-3-T Multi-family Residential, Townhouse 88 7.51 35
R-4-N Medium-density Multiple Residential 194 8.84 31
R-4-R Moderate-density Multiple Residential 208 9.66 53 R-4-U Dense Multiple Residential, urban 12 0.56 1
SP-1-CDR Midtown Corridor District 446 6.28 38
SP-1-TN Midtown Transit Node District 668 8.36 37
SP-2 Southeast Area Specific Plan 1,324 29.45 5
Total 14,847 228.82 786
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-9
CAppendix
January 2022
PlaceType Density and Affordability Assumptions
Assumptions for PlaceType densities and affordability
levels (Table C-5) were derived from average densities for recent entitlement and building permit projects that most closely correspond to the density and height limits for each PlaceType, as summarized in the table. See Appendix C-1 (Appendix to this Appendix) for more detailed information on the recent entitlement and building permit projects
analyzed to derive the below-summarized averages. When calculating these averages, certain recent development
projects that are known to be outliers were excluded,
most notably greenfield or vacant lot single-family house/ townhome developments. The project averages were then
adjusted based on additional criteria, including other
LUE PlaceType regulations, PlaceType characteristics, and UPLAN Zoning District regulations.

Under the PlaceType scenario, sites that are designated market rate because they do not meet the criteria for
lower income housing are presumed to be feasible for a
mix of moderate income and market rate housing based
on allowable densities. With the newly adopted Enhanced Density Bonus (EDB), which provides increased densities up to 70% citywide and up to 100% near high quality transit, it is anticipated that sites on the inventory with either a site size of less than 0.5 acres or more than 5 acres will not be developed as 100% affordable and instead utilize the EDB. EDB can be leveraged by providing a percentage of very-low, low and/or moderate income units within an otherwise market rate project. For sites in the inventory outside of the PD-30 area, it is assumed they will take advantage of EDB and provide a proportion moderate-
income housing units since those incentives appear to
pencil out the best for lower-density projects. Although a proportion of 20% moderate-income units are assumed
for these sites, in order to be conservative, the City did not assume additional units overall to be achieved through the bonus. Additionally, due to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy that went into effect in 2021, sites designated as market rate in the PD-30 (Dowtown Plan) and SP-1 (Midtown Plan) areas were allocated 10% of the units as low-income to reflect the required set-aside. Thus, all market-rate sites have some level of affordable units allocated within the income mix, either as low income in Downtown, both low
and moderate income in Midtown (inclusionary and EDB),
or as moderate income in the rest of the City. Midtown included both inclusionary and EDB because the largest
number and proportion of affordable housing units are
being developed in that area, and because the densities in the specific plan are not as generous as PD-30. In the first the month since EDB was adopted, there is significant interest in using EDB in Midtown to achieve needed
densities for development to be feasible.

Within the Downtown area (equivalent to PD-30), the
minimum density allowed far exceeds the State-established default density of 30 units per acre. However, based on recent trends, development in the Downtown does not
provide a high level of affordability despite the density. An inventory of all recent entitlement projects in PD-30 shows that about 8% of all sites were entitled as 100% affordable and, and all sites that were developed with 100% affordable housing were between 1 acre and 2.5 acres in size. Therefore, for properties within the Downtown, only sites that are between1 and 2.5 acres in size were designated to be 100% affordable, yielding affordable units of just under 7% of all Downtown sites, which aligns with the entitlement data.

Finally, with the exception of the MFR PlaceType, all the PlaceTypes used for the Site Inventory allow for a mix of commercial and residential uses because the LUE update
is designed to facilitate a greater mix of housing, jobs and shopping focused near transit, to help create more
complete neighborhoods and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions Density assumptions for the site inventory are based on recent development trends in Long Beach and do not reflect the maximum possible residential densities but rather averages of recent projects, in order to account for the likelihood that residential development potential will not be maximized to the legal limit for every project. The City also considered the possibility of 100% commercial development in mixed use zones, and took steps to filter out sites most likely to develop with 100% commercial
uses. Residential and mixed-use development is far more profitable and more common in Long Beach and the
regional market compared to commercial development.

In fact, outside of the Downtown area, commercial and
office vacancy rates in Long Beach are higher than in the overall Los Angeles region and have only increased since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The current suburban mall vacancy rate in Long Beach is more than 50 percent for example, compared to 8 percent in Los Angeles.

Many existing commercial sites on the site inventory are currently developed as half-empty malls or strip malls
that will soon be zoned to allow for by-right multifamily Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-10
Appendix
C
January 2022
residential development. See Appendix C-3 (Appendix to this Appendix) for reports further detailing these trends. Given these high commercial vacancy rates even compared to the region, as well as the new allowance for multi-family residential development and mixed-use development under the rezoning program, the City has determined that it is extremely unlikely that a site on the site inventory would develop with a 100% commercial project. The City only included PlaceTypes and sites with the greatest potential for residential development, and filtered out sites most likely to be developed as 100% commercial sites including those with a 2-story height limits, less residentially focused mixed-use PlaceTypes such as the Neo-Industrial PlaceType, and the Community Commercial PlaceType which is designated as commercial only.

An analysis of recent commercial development found that since 2017 only two 100% commercial projects have been developed in mixed use zones, compared to 20 commercial projects in commercial-only zones the same time period. These 2 commercial projects were small in size and in older Zoning Districts in the Commercial chapter of the Code. The zones technically do allow for mixed-use but are designed to be primarily commercial, are found in the commercial chapter of the code, and are much more restrictive of residential development than the mixed-use PlaceTypes, specific plans and zones the City has adopted, such as the Downtown and Midtown plans, and the Title 22 (UPLAN) zones that help implement the LUE update. These older mixed-use zones will be replaced in the next few years through the comprehensive zoning code overhaul to implement the LUE. Additionally, some of the zoning districts developed for the new mixed-use PlaceTypes incentivize residential development, as seen in the RMU zoning districts. Finally, the slowdown in commercial development and rising vacancy rates in commercial spaces citywide provide additional evidence for commercial development not affecting the residential density assumptions for mixed-use PlaceTypes in Table C-5. In addition to anecdotal data from City staff, Costar and other databases have been used to verify that commercial and retail vacancies are higher in Long Beach compared to the Los Angeles market (See Costar reports in Appendix C-2 to this Appendix and more detailed analysis in Appendix D). With the continuing pandemic, all evidence points to a continued weakened commercial and retail development market compared to residential development for years to come. Local developers interviews to inform this process also confirmed that they see existing commercial sites as major opportunities given the weak and worsening commercial market. (see a summary of local developer interviews in Appendix C-4).

Table C-5: PlaceType Density Assumptions
PlaceType Height Assumptions
(du/acre) Notes
DT 150 Feet 170 Assumed overall PD-30 average applies to highest density areas within the Downtown, which is regulated by the PD-30 plan DT 38 Feet 40 Based on entitled recent projects (none permitted yet), assumes 3 story height limit
DT 80 Feet 140 Based on entitled recent projects (most permitted already), assumes 7 story height limit
DT Ht Incentive
Dist 170 Assumed overall PD-30 average applies to highest density areas since the Downtown is regulated through PD-30
MFR-L 3 Stories and
under 30
Based on recently entitled/permitted projects all at 3 stories or less, excluding vacant/greenfield single-family house/townhouse development but including DTLB projects <4 stories
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-11
CAppendix
January 2022
PlaceType Height Assumptions
(du/acre) Notes
MFR-L 4 to 5 Stories 40
Based on recently entitled/permitted projects all at 4-5 stories, excluding DTLB projects & the Spark at Midtown. Actual average is higher (47 du/ac) but assume downward adjustment from PlaceType dev standards (e.g. parking, setbacks) limiting unit density
MFR-M 3 Stories and
under 35 Upwards adjustment from MFR-L based on more intense PlaceType
MFR-M 4 to 5 Stories 50 Upwards adjustment from MFR-L based on more intense PlaceType
NSC-L 3 Stories and
under 30 Same assumptions as MFR-L at 3 stories or less NSC-L 4 to 5 Stories 45 Same assumptions as MFR-M at 4-5 stories NSC-L Over 5 stories 70
Based on recent projects at 6-7 stories and significantly adjusted downward (actual average is 150, mostly driven by PD-30/WF projects)
NSC-M 3 Stories and
under 35 Upwards adjustment from NSC-L based on more intense PlaceType
NSC-M 4 to 5 Stories 55 Upwards adjustment from NSC-L based on more intense PlaceType
NSC-M Over 5 stories 80
Based on recent projects at 6-7 stories and significantly adjusted downward (actual average is 150, mostly driven by PD-30/WF projects)
TOD-L 4 to 5 Stories 80
Upwards adjustment from NSC-M based on more intense
PlaceType (actual avg is 80 from 2 recent permitted projects at 4-5 stories)
TOD-L Over 5 stories 100
Upwards adjustment from TOD-L at 4-5 stories based on higher height limit (only project outside of DTLB at this height came in at 127 du/ac for 6 stories)
TOD-M 4 to 5 Stories 85
Upwards adjustment from TOD-L at 4-5 stories based on more intense PlaceType (so far projects have come in at 82 du/ac for this PT and height)
TOD-M 150 Feet 120 Upwards adjustment from TOD-L based on more intense PlaceType
TOD-M Over 5 stories 120 Upwards adjustment from TOD-L based on more intense PlaceType
DT = Downtown
MFR = Multi-Family Residential
NSC = Neighborhood-Serving Centers and Corridors
TOD = Transit-Oriented Development
L = Low
M = Moderate
*Outside of PD-30, affordable housing projects had average density of 90 units per acre, compared to 40 units per acre for market rate projects (excluding single-family greenfield development on Norwalk) Table C-5: PlaceType Density Assumptions (continued)
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-12
Appendix
C
January 2022
Under the PlaceTypes scenario, a total of 389 parcels (belonging to sites larger than 0.5 acres in size) that total 169.48 acres can facilitate the development of 12,943 lower income units ( Table C-6). In addition, parcels zoned for lower intensities can potentially accommodate 1,446 moderate-income and 14,182 market-rate units. A total of 28,571 units can be accommodated under PlaceTypes.

Table C-6: PlaceTypes – Dwelling Unit Capacity
PlaceType PlaceType Name Number
of Units Acres Number
of Parcels
Affordable (Lower Income) 12,943 169.48 389
DT Downtown 1,918 6.94 14
FCN Founding and Contemporary Neighborhood 166 6.48 3
MFR-L Multi-Family Residential - Low 203 5.34 8
MFR-M Multi-Family Residential - Moderate 436 7.38 22
NSC-L Neighborhood-Serving Center or Corridor - Low 1,532 39.43 88 NSC-M Neighborhood-Serving Center or Corridor -
Moderate 4,552 68.38 149
RSF Regional Serving Facility 95 2.54 1
TOD-L Transit-Oriented Development - Low 1,933 18.79 54 TOD-M Transit-Oriented Development - Moderate 2,108 14.2 50 Market-Rate (Moderate/
Above) 15,628 251.55 839
DT Downtown 6,875 52.12 181
FCN Founding and Contemporary Neighborhood 209 17.48 22 MFR-L Multi-Family Residential - Low 229 7.56 39
MFR-M Multi-Family Residential - Moderate 494 12.08 71
NSC-L Neighborhood-Serving Center or Corridor - Low 1,323 42.94 200 NSC-M Neighborhood-Serving Center or Corridor -
Moderate 3,217 66.04 189
RSF Regional Serving Facility 1,312 29.06 4
TOD-L Transit-Oriented Development - Low 720 10.06 61
TOD-M Transit-Oriented Development - Moderate 1,249 14.21 72 Total 28,571 421.03 1,228
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-13
CAppendix
January 2022
Section C.3 Adequacy of Residential
Sites in Meeting RHNA
The following table summarizes the City’s strategy for
meeting the RHNA ( Table C-7). Based on current zoning, and taking into account ADU estimates the City has a
shortfall of 9,835 units (6,809 lower income units and
3,026 moderate and above-moderate income units). The
City commits to amending the Zoning Code within three
years to fully implement the LUE PlaceTypes for sites in the site inventory. Development capacity based on allowable densities under PlaceTypes can accommodate 12,943 lower income and 15,628 moderate and above moderate-income
units, exceeding the RHNA.

Table C-7: Residential Development Potential and RHNA
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
RHNA 7,141 4,047 4,158 11,156 26,502
Approved Projects 53 34 1 0 88
Proposed/Pipeline Projects 293 161 6 0 460
Accessory Dwelling Units 299 567 27 379 1,272
Remaining RHNA 6,496 3,285 4,124 10,777 24,682
Existing Zoning Scenario
Inventory Capacity 2,972 11,875 14,847
Existing Zoning Scenario Total
(Pipeline + ADU + Inventory Sites) 4,379 12,288 16,667
Zoning Scenario (Shortfall)/Buffer (6,809) (3,026) (9,835) PlaceType Scenario Inventory
Capacity 12,943 15,628 28,571
PlaceType Scenario Total
(Pipeline+ ADUs+ Inventory sites) 14,350 16,041 30,391
PlaceType Scenario (Shortfall)/
Buffer 3,162 727 3,889
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-14
Appendix
C
January 2022
Section C.4 Maps of Sites under
PlaceTypes
The following maps depict the sites selected in the site inventory under the PlaceTypes scenario.

Figure C-1: Sites Inventory - Citywide

Appendix | Site Inventory
C-15
CAppendix
January 2022
Figure C-2: Sites Inventory - CPA A, B, and C

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-16
Appendix
C
January 2022
Figure C-3: Sites Inventory - CPA D

Appendix | Site Inventory
C-17
CAppendix
January 2022
Figure C-4: Sites Inventory - CPA E and F

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-18
Appendix
C
January 2022
Figure C-5: Sites Inventory - CPA G
See above
See below
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-19
CAppendix
January 2022
Figure C-5: Sites Inventory - CPA H, I, K, and L

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-20
Appendix
C
January 2022
Figure C-5: Sites Inventory - CPA J, M, and N

Appendix | Site Inventory
C-21
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7261007028 1600 1/2 CHERRY AVE 0.20 NSC-M 0 2 8
7209008012 342 1/2 E 19TH ST 0.13 TOD-M 1 0 9
7281019021 417 1/4 E 1ST ST 0.03 DT 0 0 4
7275001083 300 ALAMITOS AVE 0.52 DT 7 0 66
7274023016 919 ALAMITOS AVE 0.16 DT 1 0 5
7274023018 905 ALAMITOS AVE 0.19 DT 1 0 7
7274023022 861 ALAMITOS AVE 0.16 DT 1 0 5
7274023024 853 ALAMITOS AVE 0.14 DT 1 0 5
7266005001 744 ALAMITOS AVE 0.12 DT 2 0 15
7266006040 638 ALAMITOS AVE 0.14 DT 2 0 18
7275002025 210 ALAMITOS AVE 0.31 DT 4 0 39
7265001037 200 ALAMITOS AVE 0.34 DT 5 0 43
7268030013 1708 ALAMITOS AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7268019024 1480 ALAMITOS AVE 0.46 MFR-M 0 4 17
7268019018 1404 ALAMITOS AVE 0.13 MFR-M 0 1 5
7274006023 1217 ALAMITOS AVE 0.30 MFR-M 0 3 11
7267005010 1060 ALAMITOS AVE 0.18 MFR-M 0 2 6
7267005012 1054 ALAMITOS AVE 0.19 MFR-M 0 2 7
7266015016 468 ALMOND AVE 0.16 MFR-L 0 1 4
7148013035 3385 ATLANTIC AVE 0.14 NSC-M 10 0 0
7274001018 1225 ATLANTIC AVE 0.18 TOD-L 0 3 10
7274013032 1078 ATLANTIC AVE 0.47 TOD-L 47 0 0
7274015900 999 ATLANTIC AVE 0.34 DT 1 0 13
7274015041 937 ATLANTIC AVE 0.18 DT 1 0 6
7274015043 919 ATLANTIC AVE 0.18 DT 1 0 6
7274016035 853 ATLANTIC AVE 0.17 DT 1 0 6
7274016007 847 ATLANTIC AVE 0.17 DT 1 0 6
7274016008 835 ATLANTIC AVE 0.17 DT 1 0 6
7274017014 753 ATLANTIC AVE 0.11 DT 0 0 4
7274017015 741 ATLANTIC AVE 0.17 DT 1 0 6
Section C.5 Table of Sites under PlaceTypes
The following table lists the sites selected in the site inventory under the PlaceTypes scenario* and provides basic information about each site. For more detailed information on each site, including existing use, lot coverage and land-to- improvement value, see Table 1 found in Appendix C-3 (Appendix to this Appendix).

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-22
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7274017028 740 ATLANTIC AVE 0.17 DT 1 0 6
7274017030 728 ATLANTIC AVE 0.17 DT 1 0 6
7116018023 6935 ATLANTIC AVE 0.60 NSC-M 41 0 0
7115002004 6685 ATLANTIC AVE 0.78 NSC-M 54 0 0
7115027012 6597 ATLANTIC AVE 2.54 NSC-M 175 0 0
7115026038 6580 ATLANTIC AVE 0.60 NSC-M 41 0 0
7274018049 638 ATLANTIC AVE 0.34 DT 5 0 43
7124001022 6184 ATLANTIC AVE 0.25 NSC-L 0 2 6
7124001021 6176 ATLANTIC AVE 0.12 NSC-L 0 1 3
7124001024 6142 ATLANTIC AVE 0.35 NSC-L 13 0 0
7124001025 6108 ATLANTIC AVE 0.40 NSC-L 15 0 0
7125035032 6001 ATLANTIC AVE 0.35 NSC-L 0 2 9
7124017032 5990 ATLANTIC AVE 0.32 NSC-L 12 0 0
7124017031 5966 ATLANTIC AVE 0.21 NSC-L 8 0 0
7124017033 5960 ATLANTIC AVE 0.11 NSC-L 4 0 0
7125034032 5941 ATLANTIC AVE 0.11 NSC-L 0 1 2
7125034033 5927 ATLANTIC AVE 0.21 NSC-L 0 1 5
7127006036 5738 ATLANTIC AVE 0.29 NSC-M 0 2 7
7127009005 5574 ATLANTIC AVE 0.20 NSC-L 0 1 5
7127009035 5564 ATLANTIC AVE 0.10 NSC-L 0 1 2
7281002002 555 ATLANTIC AVE 0.34 DT 5 0 43
7127020012 5400 ATLANTIC AVE 0.46 NSC-M 20 0 0
7130002034 5361 ATLANTIC AVE 0.72 NSC-M 32 0 0
7130025031 5350 ATLANTIC AVE 0.40 NSC-M 0 3 10
7130006043 5205 ATLANTIC AVE 0.33 NSC-M 0 2 8
7130022041 5146 ATLANTIC AVE 0.65 NSC-M 28 0 0
7130010017 5117 ATLANTIC AVE 1.07 NSC-M 47 0 0
7130010018 5115 ATLANTIC AVE 0.56 NSC-M 25 0 0
7135013053 4570 ATLANTIC AVE 3.28 NSC-M 226 0 0
7139001018 4385 ATLANTIC AVE 0.54 NSC-L 20 0 0
7139001030 4335 ATLANTIC AVE 0.56 NSC-L 21 0 0
7139001900 4325 ATLANTIC AVE 0.19 NSC-L 7 0 0
7139002031 4215 ATLANTIC AVE 1.68 NSC-L 63 0 0
7281007029 417 ATLANTIC AVE 0.17 DT 2 0 22
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-23
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7139002030 4101 ATLANTIC AVE 0.28 NSC-L 0 2 6
7138016036 4040 ATLANTIC AVE 0.74 NSC-L 28 0 0
7281006010 402 ATLANTIC AVE 0.46 DT 6 0 58
7139003002 4019 ATLANTIC AVE 0.19 NSC-L 7 0 0
7281007028 401 ATLANTIC AVE 0.23 DT 3 0 29
7139003003 4001 ATLANTIC AVE 0.37 NSC-L 14 0 0
7139003004 3981 ATLANTIC AVE 0.37 NSC-L 14 0 0
7138017019 3918 ATLANTIC AVE 0.28 NSC-L 11 0 0
7138017023 3908 ATLANTIC AVE 0.29 NSC-L 11 0 0
7138017022 3900 ATLANTIC AVE 0.31 NSC-L 12 0 0
7138030015 3850 ATLANTIC AVE 0.44 NSC-L 0 3 10
7139004004 3839 ATLANTIC AVE 0.38 NSC-L 0 2 9
7138031024 3804 ATLANTIC AVE 0.73 NSC-L 27 0 0
7145019014 3402 ATLANTIC AVE 0.50 NSC-M 34 0 0
7148013034 3395 ATLANTIC AVE 0.41 NSC-M 28 0 0
7148012033 3390 ATLANTIC AVE 0.26 NSC-M 0 3 10
7148013036 3355 ATLANTIC AVE 0.16 NSC-M 11 0 0
7148013037 3333 ATLANTIC AVE 0.36 NSC-M 25 0 0
7148013038 3301 ATLANTIC AVE 0.54 NSC-M 37 0 0
7148013033 3301 ATLANTIC AVE 0.59 NSC-M 41 0 0
7211001003 2572 ATLANTIC AVE 0.29 TOD-M 44 0 0
7211001004 2560 ATLANTIC AVE 0.15 TOD-M 23 0 0
7211001005 2556 ATLANTIC AVE 0.14 TOD-M 21 0 0
7211001006 2546 ATLANTIC AVE 0.15 TOD-M 23 0 0
7208006057 2545 ATLANTIC AVE 0.11 TOD-M 17 0 0
7208006058 2535 ATLANTIC AVE 0.11 TOD-M 17 0 0
7208006060 2525 ATLANTIC AVE 0.11 TOD-M 17 0 0
7208006061 2515 ATLANTIC AVE 0.10 TOD-M 15 0 0
7208007008 2485 ATLANTIC AVE 0.23 MFR-M 14 0 0
7208007027 2467 ATLANTIC AVE 0.35 MFR-M 22 0 0
7208007026 2403 ATLANTIC AVE 0.26 MFR-M 0 2 10
7210009011 1954 ATLANTIC AVE 0.28 TOD-L 0 4 16
7210009027 1934 ATLANTIC AVE 0.14 TOD-L 0 2 8
7209004023 1909 ATLANTIC AVE 0.13 TOD-L 0 2 7
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-24
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7209004022 1901 ATLANTIC AVE 0.13 TOD-L 0 2 7
7210016029 1890 ATLANTIC AVE 0.12 TOD-L 12 0 0
7210016028 1884 ATLANTIC AVE 0.11 TOD-L 11 0 0
7210016027 1870 ATLANTIC AVE 0.23 TOD-L 23 0 0
7210016904 1858 ATLANTIC AVE 0.34 TOD-L 34 0 0
7209006022 1825 ATLANTIC AVE 0.13 TOD-L 0 2 7
7269032906 1535 ATLANTIC AVE 0.55 TOD-L 55 0 0
7269031017 1491 ATLANTIC AVE 0.16 TOD-L 0 2 10
7269031018 1487 ATLANTIC AVE 0.13 TOD-L 0 2 7
7269031020 1475 ATLANTIC AVE 0.14 TOD-L 0 2 8
7269031021 1473 ATLANTIC AVE 0.16 TOD-L 0 2 10
7274013030 1066 ATLANTIC AVE 0.28 TOD-L 28 0 0
7274013008 1036 ATLANTIC AVE 0.14 TOD-L 0 2 8
7313033018 2629 BALTIC AVE 0.16 NSC-L 0 1 4
7254008023 1067 BELMONT AVE 0.14 MFR-L 0 1 3
7254008022 1065 BELMONT AVE 0.14 MFR-L 0 1 3
7205003004 2575 CEDAR AVE 0.15 NSC-L 6 0 0
7269036003 1777 CEDAR AVE 0.17 NSC-M 0 2 6
7269001030 1726 CEDAR AVE 0.18 MFR-M 11 0 0
7269001031 1724 CEDAR AVE 0.18 MFR-M 11 0 0
7269001032 1720 CEDAR AVE 0.18 MFR-M 11 0 0
7269036023 1719 CEDAR AVE 0.17 MFR-M 0 2 6
7269036024 1709 CEDAR AVE 0.17 MFR-M 0 2 6
7269042019 1339 CEDAR AVE 0.14 MFR-M 0 1 5
7269042020 1335 CEDAR AVE 0.14 MFR-M 0 1 5
7275005004 332 CERRITOS AVE 0.13 MFR-M 0 1 5
7275005005 326 CERRITOS AVE 0.14 MFR-M 0 1 5
7265003011 27 CERRITOS AVE 0.12 MFR-M 0 1 4
7268027002 1782 CERRITOS AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7268027005 1776 CERRITOS AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7268027013 1742 CERRITOS AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7268027027 1736 CERRITOS AVE 0.12 NSC-M 0 1 5
7129030016 5003 CHERRY AVE 0.51 FCN 0 0 5
7147026017 3431 CHERRY AVE 0.90 NSC-L 34 0 0
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-25
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7267015015 935 CHERRY AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7262024010 760 CHERRY AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7262024012 754 CHERRY AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7116006048 6825 CHERRY AVE 0.59 NSC-M 41 0 0
7116006047 6821 CHERRY AVE 0.25 NSC-M 17 0 0
7116006046 6819 CHERRY AVE 0.35 NSC-M 24 0 0
7116007053 6701 CHERRY AVE 0.40 NSC-M 0 4 16
7119001004 6510 CHERRY AVE 0.34 NSC-L 0 2 8
7114018052 6465 CHERRY AVE 0.52 NSC-L 20 0 0
7114020037 6395 CHERRY AVE 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7114020039 6377 CHERRY AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7119014035 6242 CHERRY AVE 0.46 NSC-L 0 3 11
7118013004 6193 CHERRY AVE 0.26 NSC-L 0 2 6
7123013042 5925 CHERRY AVE 0.33 NSC-L 0 2 8
7119018900 5898 CHERRY AVE 0.41 NSC-M 28 0 0
7157015017 5540 CHERRY AVE 0.96 NSC-M 0 10 38
7128031030 5531 CHERRY AVE 0.31 NSC-M 0 3 12
7128031001 5519 CHERRY AVE 0.12 NSC-M 0 1 5
7128032001 5465 CHERRY AVE 0.24 NSC-M 0 2 10
7157015025 5450 CHERRY AVE 10.21 NSC-M 0 103 408
7128032019 5449 CHERRY AVE 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7129003029 5365 CHERRY AVE 0.52 NSC-M 36 0 0
7129010028 5229 CHERRY AVE 0.25 FCN 0 0 3
7152001016 4700 CHERRY AVE 3.70 NSC-M 254 0 0
7137012011 4103 CHERRY AVE 0.51 FCN 0 0 6
7137013006 4001 CHERRY AVE 0.64 FCN 0 0 9
7137025027 3801 CHERRY AVE 0.30 FCN 0 0 3
7263007001 294 CHERRY AVE 0.14 MFR-M 0 1 5
7275019030 245 CHERRY AVE 0.23 MFR-M 0 2 8
7216032025 1845 CHERRY AVE 0.13 NSC-M 0 1 5
7216032023 1835 CHERRY AVE 0.13 NSC-M 0 1 5
7261005007 1701 CHERRY AVE 0.31 NSC-M 0 3 12
7261007029 1600 CHERRY AVE 0.20 NSC-M 0 2 8
7261008020 1535 CHERRY AVE 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-26
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7261008023 1519 CHERRY AVE 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7261008024 1505 CHERRY AVE 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7261017024 1441 CHERRY AVE 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7261017025 1437 CHERRY AVE 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7261017026 1433 CHERRY AVE 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7261017030 1409 CHERRY AVE 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7261017031 1403 CHERRY AVE 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7261032007 1134 CHERRY AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7261032008 1132 CHERRY AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7262008021 1048 CHERRY AVE 0.13 NSC-M 0 1 5
7267014018 1043 CHERRY AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7262008020 1040 CHERRY AVE 0.13 NSC-M 0 1 5
7267014019 1035 CHERRY AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7280012005 445 CHESTNUT AVE 0.24 DT 1 0 9
7280012007 437 CHESTNUT AVE 0.24 DT 1 0 9
7206026010 2620 CHESTNUT AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7269038025 1615 CHESTNUT AVE 0.17 MFR-M 0 2 6
7269038026 1607 CHESTNUT AVE 0.17 MFR-M 0 2 6
7269039010 1548 CHESTNUT AVE 0.86 MFR-M 54 0 0
7180020003 4344 CLARK AVE 0.36 FCN 0 0 4
7258022006 776 CORONADO AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 4
7258022028 720 CORONADO AVE 0.18 NSC-M 8 0 0
7258028005 675 CORONADO AVE 0.17 NSC-M 7 0 0
7120016032 6681 CORONADO AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7257013004 391 CORONADO AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7257013007 387 CORONADO AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7257014012 374 CORONADO AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7257019014 324 CORONADO AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7262027003 620 DAWSON AVE 0.14 NSC-M 10 0 0
7262027016 600 DAWSON AVE 0.33 NSC-M 23 0 0
7274022001 900 E 10TH ST 0.26 DT 1 0 9
7241012140 4313 E 10TH ST 0.69 MFR-L 26 0 0
7254017013 3842 E 10TH ST 1.77 MFR-L 66 0 0
7273011002 322 E 10TH ST 0.17 DT 3 0 26
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-27
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7258001025 2841 E 10TH ST 0.30 MFR-L 0 2 7
7273007023 233 E 10TH ST 0.18 DT 3 0 28
7273007024 223 E 10TH ST 0.18 DT 3 0 28
7273007038 201 E 10TH ST 0.12 DT 2 0 18
7267015014 1942 E 10TH ST 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7274023007 1028 E 10TH ST 0.17 DT 1 0 6
7274023008 1020 E 10TH ST 0.17 DT 1 0 6
7274007013 1027 E 11TH ST 0.16 MFR-M 0 1 6
7274007037 1019 E 11TH ST 0.16 MFR-M 0 1 6
7269030014 505 E 14TH ST 0.28 TOD-L 0 4 16
7259006048 3515 E 15TH ST 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7259006047 3507 E 15TH ST 0.16 NSC-M 0 2 6
7269022018 419 E 16TH ST 0.14 TOD-M 1 0 10
7269022016 415 E 16TH ST 0.14 TOD-M 1 0 10
7269021042 351 E 17TH ST 0.15 TOD-M 1 0 10
7269021014 345 E 17TH ST 0.15 TOD-M 1 0 10
7268030016 1225 E 17TH ST 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7209008010 340 E 19TH ST 0.13 TOD-M 1 0 9
7216012001 1851 E 19TH ST 0.57 NSC-M 39 0 0
7281019020 417 E 1ST ST 0.09 DT 1 0 12
7281019019 401 E 1ST ST 0.20 DT 3 0 25
7256003004 3712 E 1ST ST 0.13 MFR-M 0 1 3
7256003003 3702 E 1ST ST 0.13 MFR-M 0 1 5
7265003008 1054 E 1ST ST 0.19 MFR-M 0 2 7
7209010007 408 E 20TH ST 0.14 TOD-L 1 0 9
7209010006 344 E 20TH ST 0.14 TOD-L 1 0 9
7208005019 544 E 25TH ST 0.12 TOD-L 0 2 7
7208005018 540 E 25TH ST 0.12 TOD-L 0 2 7
7208002010 233 E 25TH ST 0.15 TOD-L 0 2 9
7208002008 227 E 25TH ST 0.15 TOD-L 0 2 9
7208005020 550 E 25TH WAY 0.12 TOD-L 0 2 7
7206023012 204 E 29TH ST 0.15 TOD-M 1 0 10
7206023011 162 E 29TH ST 0.16 TOD-M 1 0 11
7243013035 5700 E 2ND ST 0.28 NSC-L 0 2 6
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-28
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7265020028 1831 E 2ND ST 0.12 MFR-M 0 1 4
7265020025 1821 E 2ND ST 0.12 MFR-M 0 1 4
7206011013 222 E 31ST ST 0.14 MFR-M 0 1 3
7206010010 116 E 31ST ST 0.14 MFR-M 0 1 3
7206010009 114 E 31ST ST 0.14 MFR-M 0 1 3
7206010008 112 E 31ST ST 000B 0.14 MFR-M 0 1 3
7206011014 226 E 31ST ST A 0.14 MFR-M 0 1 3
7263007004 2016 E 3RD ST 0.19 MFR-M 0 2 7
7280017009 119 E 3RD ST 0.17 DT 29 0 0
7266008022 975 E 4TH ST 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7266008021 965 E 4TH ST 0.16 DT 2 0 20
7275001002 912 E 4TH ST 0.24 DT 3 0 31
7266008015 901 E 4TH ST 0.42 DT 6 0 53
7275001001 900 E 4TH ST 0.07 DT 1 0 9
7281011001 600 E 4TH ST 0.23 DT 3 0 29
7255037028 4337 E 4TH ST 0.29 NSC-L 0 2 7
7255036015 4300 E 4TH ST 0.16 NSC-L 0 1 4
7255036013 4240 E 4TH ST 0.16 NSC-L 0 1 4
7255015017 3932 E 4TH ST 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7255014001 3800 E 4TH ST 0.12 NSC-L 0 1 3
7255003020 3714 E 4TH ST 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7255003021 3708 E 4TH ST 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7255003007 3646 E 4TH ST 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7255003006 3640 E 4TH ST 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7255002007 3601 E 4TH ST 0.30 NSC-L 0 2 7
7257016027 3540 E 4TH ST 0.48 NSC-L 18 0 0
7257005019 3027 E 4TH ST 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7257005018 3017 E 4TH ST 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7257008023 2919 E 4TH ST 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7257008022 2909 E 4TH ST 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7257008016 2811 E 4TH ST 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7257008015 2805 E 4TH ST 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7263023024 2741 E 4TH ST 0.27 NSC-L 0 2 6
7263020010 2429 E 4TH ST 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-29
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7263020009 2425 E 4TH ST 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7263004001 2000 E 4TH ST 0.37 NSC-L 0 2 9
7266026045 1949 E 4TH ST 0.44 NSC-L 0 3 10
7275016050 1800 E 4TH ST 0.40 NSC-L 0 2 10
7266015024 1337 E 4TH ST 0.12 NSC-L 0 1 3
7266015023 1327 E 4TH ST 0.19 NSC-L 0 1 5
7275001021 1030 E 4TH ST 0.26 DT 4 0 32
7281005003 832 E 5TH ST 0.28 DT 4 0 35
7281002010 523 E 5TH ST 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7281002009 509 E 5TH ST 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7281002041 437 E 5TH ST 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7281002024 425 E 5TH ST 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7266007027 1011 E 5TH ST 0.13 DT 2 0 16
7266007026 1001 E 5TH ST 0.15 DT 2 0 19
7121014001 2800 E 63RD ST 0.25 NSC-L 0 2 6
7115002009 590 E 67TH ST 0.16 NSC-M 0 2 6
7115002006 570 E 67TH ST 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7120016030 3240 E 67TH ST 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7120016031 3230 E 67TH ST 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7274018040 633 E 6TH ST 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7274018039 625 E 6TH ST 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7266007007 1036 E 6TH ST 0.15 DT 2 0 19
7266007008 1028 E 6TH ST 0.15 DT 2 0 19
7273020039 325 E 7TH ST 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7274017035 633 E 7TH ST 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7274017034 623 E 7TH ST 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7274017033 617 E 7TH ST 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7274017045 601 E 7TH ST 0.23 DT 3 0 29
7241018032 4740 E 7TH ST 0.38 NSC-L 0 2 9
7241016025 4540 E 7TH ST 0.42 NSC-L 0 3 10
7241015031 4400 E 7TH ST 0.30 NSC-L 0 2 7
7241002040 4350 E 7TH ST 0.27 NSC-L 0 2 6
7254021013 4017 E 7TH ST 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7254021012 4001 E 7TH ST 0.23 NSC-L 0 1 6
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-30
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7273020024 337 E 7TH ST 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7258027103 3322 E 7TH ST 0.54 NSC-M 37 0 0
7258022021 3303 E 7TH ST 0.17 NSC-M 12 0 0
7258028001 3250 E 7TH ST 0.12 NSC-M 8 0 0
7258028004 3222 E 7TH ST 0.14 NSC-M 10 0 0
7258021005 3201 E 7TH ST 0.28 NSC-M 0 3 11
7258028028 3200 E 7TH ST 0.59 NSC-M 41 0 0
7258031014 2926 E 7TH ST 0.16 NSC-M 0 2 6
7258031013 2918 E 7TH ST 0.16 NSC-M 0 2 6
7258017026 2801 E 7TH ST 0.32 NSC-M 0 3 13
7262017025 2717 E 7TH ST 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7262017024 2709 E 7TH ST 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7262032001 2700 E 7TH ST 0.20 NSC-M 0 2 8
7262021011 2337 E 7TH ST 0.27 NSC-M 0 3 10
7262027002 2212 E 7TH ST 0.16 NSC-M 11 0 0
7262027001 2200 E 7TH ST 0.16 NSC-M 11 0 0
7267030005 1837 E 7TH ST 0.17 NSC-M 0 2 6
7267030004 1829 E 7TH ST 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7266001034 1577 E 7TH ST 0.45 NSC-L 0 3 11
7266017071 1500 E 7TH ST 0.41 NSC-M 0 4 16
7266003033 1155 E 7TH ST 0.37 NSC-M 0 4 14
7266006042 1020 E 7TH ST 0.39 DT 5 0 50
7273017020 345 E 8TH ST 0.07 DT 1 0 11
7273011021 327 E 9TH ST 0.13 DT 2 0 20
7240011006 5124 E ANAHEIM RD 0.69 MFR-L 26 0 0
7253025035 4127 E ANAHEIM ST 0.32 NSC-M 22 0 0
7254004033 3942 E ANAHEIM ST 0.25 NSC-M 0 2 10
7274005001 900 E ANAHEIM ST 0.30 NSC-M 0 3 12
7274003005 700 E ANAHEIM ST 0.18 NSC-M 0 2 7
7274001017 556 E ANAHEIM ST 0.13 TOD-L 0 2 7
7274001016 550 E ANAHEIM ST 0.11 TOD-L 0 2 6
7269029019 543 E ANAHEIM ST 0.17 TOD-M 26 0 0
7269029020 541 E ANAHEIM ST 0.17 TOD-M 26 0 0
7269029021 535 E ANAHEIM ST 0.17 TOD-M 26 0 0
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-31
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7269029022 501 E ANAHEIM ST 0.50 TOD-M 75 0 0
7269028020 437 E ANAHEIM ST 0.25 TOD-M 3 0 24
7253028029 4315 E ANAHEIM ST 0.41 NSC-M 0 4 16
7253025026 4133 E ANAHEIM ST 0.32 NSC-M 22 0 0
7253025020 4023 E ANAHEIM ST 0.16 NSC-M 11 0 0
7253025019 4021 E ANAHEIM ST 0.16 NSC-M 11 0 0
7253025031 4001 E ANAHEIM ST 0.47 NSC-M 32 0 0
7253010035 3925 E ANAHEIM ST 0.21 NSC-M 0 2 8
7254004031 3922 E ANAHEIM ST 0.26 NSC-M 0 3 10
7253010033 3909 E ANAHEIM ST 0.24 NSC-M 0 2 10
7254002001 3800 E ANAHEIM ST 0.17 NSC-M 12 0 0
7254002022 3720 E ANAHEIM ST 0.44 NSC-M 30 0 0
7253009034 3701 E ANAHEIM ST 0.20 NSC-M 14 0 0
7253009010 3655 E ANAHEIM ST 0.67 NSC-M 29 0 0
7254001016 3636 E ANAHEIM ST 0.59 NSC-M 41 0 0
7259014011 3530 E ANAHEIM ST 0.33 NSC-M 23 0 0
7259014022 3522 E ANAHEIM ST 0.15 NSC-M 10 0 0
7259014001 3512 E ANAHEIM ST 0.15 NSC-M 10 0 0
7259013005 3422 E ANAHEIM ST 0.12 NSC-M 0 1 5
7259013004 3416 E ANAHEIM ST 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7259010083 3411 E ANAHEIM ST 0.95 NSC-M 65 0 0
7259013003 3408 E ANAHEIM ST 0.13 NSC-M 0 1 5
7259010031 3401 E ANAHEIM ST 0.19 NSC-M 13 0 0
7259009036 3339 E ANAHEIM ST 0.75 NSC-M 52 0 0
7259015012 3300 E ANAHEIM ST 0.18 NSC-M 0 2 7
7259008032 3229 E ANAHEIM ST 0.44 NSC-M 30 0 0
7259015013 3204 E ANAHEIM ST 6.99 NSC-M 0 70 280
7259008031 3201 E ANAHEIM ST 0.19 NSC-M 13 0 0
7259016001 3102 E ANAHEIM ST 0.30 NSC-M 21 0 0
7259017023 2938 E ANAHEIM ST 0.48 NSC-M 33 0 0
7259021022 2923 E ANAHEIM ST 0.13 NSC-M 9 0 0
7259017002 2916 E ANAHEIM ST 0.15 NSC-M 10 0 0
7259021015 2901 E ANAHEIM ST 0.40 NSC-M 28 0 0
7259019027 2888 E ANAHEIM ST 0.27 NSC-M 0 3 10
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-32
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7259020016 2841 E ANAHEIM ST 0.13 NSC-M 9 0 0
7259020015 2829 E ANAHEIM ST 0.27 NSC-M 19 0 0
7259020014 2821 E ANAHEIM ST 0.13 NSC-M 9 0 0
7259020013 2809 E ANAHEIM ST 0.13 NSC-M 9 0 0
7260026025 2701 E ANAHEIM ST 0.95 MFR-M 59 0 0
7260027026 2700 E ANAHEIM ST 0.28 NSC-M 0 3 11
7260025029 2625 E ANAHEIM ST 0.72 NSC-M 50 0 0
7260024014 2501 E ANAHEIM ST 0.26 NSC-M 0 3 10
7260030034 2436 E ANAHEIM ST 0.35 NSC-M 0 3 14
7269015018 233 E ANAHEIM ST 0.34 TOD-M 51 0 0
7260022028 2325 E ANAHEIM ST 0.28 NSC-M 0 3 11
7260021028 2235 E ANAHEIM ST 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7260021027 2219 E ANAHEIM ST 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7260021026 2215 E ANAHEIM ST 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7261033027 2130 E ANAHEIM ST 0.54 NSC-M 37 0 0
7261022015 2041 E ANAHEIM ST 0.34 NSC-M 0 3 14
7261022014 2021 E ANAHEIM ST 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7261031001 1942 E ANAHEIM ST 0.14 NSC-M 10 0 0
7261031028 1934 E ANAHEIM ST 0.40 NSC-M 28 0 0
7261031005 1908 E ANAHEIM ST 0.13 NSC-M 9 0 0
7261026014 1735 E ANAHEIM ST 0.21 NSC-M 14 0 0
7261026013 1733 E ANAHEIM ST 0.17 NSC-M 12 0 0
7261026012 1731 E ANAHEIM ST 0.14 NSC-M 10 0 0
7261027009 1601 E ANAHEIM ST 0.40 NSC-M 0 4 16
7261028003 1600 E ANAHEIM ST 0.30 NSC-M 0 3 12
7268040031 1569 E ANAHEIM ST 0.32 NSC-M 0 3 13
7268040024 1525 E ANAHEIM ST 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7269014009 141 E ANAHEIM ST 0.17 TOD-M 2 0 16
7267003042 1340 E ANAHEIM ST 0.23 NSC-M 0 2 9
7269014008 131 E ANAHEIM ST 0.17 TOD-M 2 0 16
7267003002 1200 E ANAHEIM ST 0.21 NSC-M 0 2 8
7268018024 1199 E ANAHEIM ST 0.50 NSC-M 34 0 0
7268017020 1155 E ANAHEIM ST 0.43 NSC-M 0 4 17
7268016047 1111 E ANAHEIM ST 0.21 NSC-M 0 2 8
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-33
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7268016028 1101 E ANAHEIM ST 0.12 NSC-M 0 1 5
7273004042 110 E ANAHEIM ST 0.32 DT 5 0 49
7274006001 1038 E ANAHEIM ST 0.16 NSC-M 11 0 0
7274006002 1024 E ANAHEIM ST 0.16 NSC-M 11 0 0
7274006003 1020 E ANAHEIM ST 0.16 NSC-M 11 0 0
7274006004 1006 E ANAHEIM ST 0.16 NSC-M 11 0 0
7115006039 901 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.38 NSC-L 14 0 0
7115005012 801 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7120018072 3490 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.22 NSC-M 10 0 0
7120018077 3430 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.35 NSC-M 15 0 0
7120018031 3350 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.36 NSC-M 0 2 9
7120017024 3303 E ARTESIA BLVD 5.34 NSC-M 0 53 214
7120002033 3012 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.28 NSC-M 0 2 7
7120001036 2990 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.23 NSC-M 0 1 6
7114005058 1965 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.48 NSC-L 0 3 11
7114005057 1833 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.38 NSC-L 0 2 9
7114009037 1600 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.35 NSC-L 0 2 9
7114001058 1313 E ARTESIA BLVD 2.33 NSC-L 87 0 0
7114001030 1221 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.11 NSC-L 4 0 0
7114013025 1200 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.48 NSC-L 0 3 11
7115007039 1133 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.13 NSC-L 0 1 3
7115007038 1117 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7115007037 1115 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7115006032 1011 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.28 NSC-L 11 0 0
7115006031 1009 E ARTESIA BLVD 0.14 NSC-L 5 0 0
7239008001 6500 E ATHERTON ST 3.23 FCN 0 0 39
7240001023 5270 E ATHERTON ST 0.32 MFR-L 0 2 8
7138031016 645 E BIXBY RD 0.30 FCN 0 0 3
7139012012 323 E BIXBY RD 0.16 NSC-L 0 1 4
7139012011 301 E BIXBY RD 0.16 NSC-L 0 1 4
7281021032 740 E BROADWAY 0.40 DT 7 0 61
7281013014 733 E BROADWAY 0.26 DT 4 0 40
7281021004 730 E BROADWAY 0.40 DT 7 0 61
7281015100 525 E BROADWAY 0.35 DT 6 0 54
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-34
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7256011029 4000 E BROADWAY 0.28 FCN 0 0 3
7264004020 3215 E BROADWAY 0.12 NSC-L 0 1 3
7275019031 1923 E BROADWAY 0.12 NSC-M 0 1 5
7280020038 139 E BROADWAY 0.13 DT 2 0 20
7280020035 127 E BROADWAY 0.16 DT 3 0 24
7265010024 1100 E BROADWAY 0.26 NSC-M 0 3 10
7206023025 220 E CANTON ST 0.15 TOD-M 16 0 0
7206023023 212 E CANTON ST 0.14 TOD-M 1 0 10
7206023022 170 E CANTON ST 0.14 TOD-M 1 0 10
7206023021 162 E CANTON ST 0.14 TOD-M 1 0 10
7266005009 1036 E CHANDA CT 0.12 DT 2 0 15
7266005008 1032 E CHANDA CT 0.12 DT 2 0 15
7264005019 3131 E CORTO PL 0.17 NSC-L 0 1 4
7209006013 540 E DAYMAN ST 0.15 TOD-L 0 2 9
7209006011 534 E DAYMAN ST 0.15 TOD-L 0 2 9
7206021005 240 E ELDRIDGE ST 0.14 MFR-M 0 1 3
7206021004 236 E ELDRIDGE ST 0.14 MFR-M 0 1 3
7206021003 220 E ELDRIDGE ST 0.14 MFR-M 0 1 3
7269020020 343 E ESTHER ST 0.15 TOD-M 23 0 0
7269020900 333 E ESTHER ST 0.15 TOD-M 23 0 0
7269021019 318 E ESTHER ST 0.16 TOD-M 24 0 0
7268030027 1234 E ESTHER ST 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7268030002 1226 E ESTHER ST 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7240011024 5251 E LAS LOMAS ST 0.92 NSC-L 35 0 0
7219020012 5033 E LOS COYOTES
DIAGONAL 0.25 FCN 0 0 3
7131001026 58 E MARKET ST 0.17 NSC-L 0 1 4
7131001025 54 E MARKET ST 0.16 NSC-L 0 1 4
7131004007 336 E MARKET ST 0.17 NSC-L 0 1 4
7131004006 330 E MARKET ST 0.16 NSC-L 0 1 4
7126034025 201 E MARKET ST 0.82 NSC-L 31 0 0
7126035041 135 E MARKET ST 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7126036056 13 E MARKET ST 0.30 NSC-L 0 2 7
7126035020 127 E MARKET ST 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-35
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7131002003 114 E MARKET ST 0.13 NSC-L 0 1 3
7131002030 100 E MARKET ST 0.26 NSC-L 0 2 6
7243004015 5871 E NAPLES PLZ 0.63 NSC-L 24 0 0
7243004019 5865 E NAPLES PLZ 0.26 NSC-L 0 2 6
7281023013 615 E OCEAN BLVD 0.42 DT 7 0 64
7280029024 211 E OCEAN BLVD 0.99 DT 17 0 151
7253001001 3600 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.23 NSC-M 0 2 9
7269019050 220 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.47 TOD-M 71 0 0
7268003038 904 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.52 NSC-M 36 0 0
7242012006 6700 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 2.54 RSF 95 0 0
7237020040 6695 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.87 RSF 0 5 21
7242011013 6500 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 6.17 RSF 0 37 148
7237020051 6411 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 18.18 RSF 0 182 727 7209006026 595 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.35 TOD-M 4 0 34
7209006018 567 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.14 TOD-M 21 0 0
7209006025 555 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.41 TOD-M 62 0 0
7269035011 538 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.13 TOD-M 1 0 13
7209006010 533 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.14 TOD-M 21 0 0
7269035010 530 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.13 TOD-M 1 0 13
7209006008 525 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.14 TOD-M 21 0 0
7240011032 5201 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.74 NSC-L 28 0 0
7240011030 5155 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.90 NSC-L 79 0 0
7220004001 5095 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.31 MFR-L 0 2 7
7269035001 500 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.11 TOD-M 1 0 11
7220005003 4500 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.31 NSC-M 0 3 12
7269020014 402 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.14 TOD-M 21 0 0
7259003007 3500 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.34 NSC-M 23 0 0
7259002002 3344 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7259033043 3100 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.40 NSC-M 0 4 16
7259032022 3000 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.26 NSC-M 0 3 10
7259031035 2838 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.25 NSC-M 17 0 0
7259031029 2800 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.27 NSC-M 19 0 0
7260005001 2500 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7260003014 2434 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.26 NSC-M 0 3 10
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-36
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7260002020 2340 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.51 NSC-M 35 0 0
7260002010 2300 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.53 NSC-M 36 0 0
7269019028 228 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.16 TOD-M 24 0 0
7260001015 2100 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7209015031 209 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.47 TOD-M 5 0 46
7261006029 2054 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.34 NSC-M 0 3 14
7216033028 1843 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.41 NSC-M 0 4 16
7216033026 1801 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.25 NSC-M 0 2 10
7216033027 1629 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.26 NSC-M 0 3 10
7216033001 1601 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.26 NSC-M 0 3 10
7261001022 1600 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.71 NSC-M 49 0 0
7268029045 1520 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.34 NSC-M 0 3 14
7268028039 1250 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 1.32 NSC-M 91 0 0
7268027035 1190 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.41 NSC-M 28 0 0
7210032040 1101 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.39 NSC-M 0 4 15
7269010011 110 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.30 TOD-M 3 0 29
7209016035 101 E PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.24 TOD-M 3 0 23
7259005019 3517 E RANSOM ST 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7259005018 3507 E RANSOM ST 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7259006005 3222 E RANSOM ST 0.18 NSC-M 0 2 7
7135019020 1155 E SAN ANTONIO DR 0.53 NSC-L 20 0 0
7135019017 1145 E SAN ANTONIO DR 0.28 NSC-L 11 0 0
7135027002 1140 E SAN ANTONIO DR 0.35 NSC-L 0 2 9
7127004038 800 E SOUTH ST 0.14 MFR-M 0 1 3
7126001024 302 E SOUTH ST 0.26 MFR-L 0 2 6
7157012016 2440 E SOUTH ST 0.90 NSC-M 62 0 0
7119018030 2311 E SOUTH ST 2.25 NSC-M 155 0 0
7123019029 1535 E SOUTH ST 0.18 MFR-M 0 1 5
7123019028 1517 E SOUTH ST 0.15 MFR-M 0 1 4
7128008006 1516 E SOUTH ST 0.12 MFR-M 0 1 3
7128008022 1510 E SOUTH ST 0.19 MFR-M 0 1 5
7123022029 1201 E SOUTH ST 0.52 NSC-M 36 0 0
7223019007 5201 E STEARNS ST 1.98 FCN 45 0 0
7223019004 5195 E STEARNS ST 0.36 FCN 0 0 4
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-37
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7208006062 572 E VERNON ST 0.13 TOD-M 0 3 11
7208006063 566 E VERNON ST 0.09 TOD-M 0 2 8
7208006064 560 E VERNON ST 0.06 TOD-M 0 1 5
7208006065 550 E VERNON ST 0.05 TOD-M 0 1 4
7257030025 3425 E VISTA ST 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7146022031 1061 E WARDLOW RD 0.22 NSC-L 0 1 6
7145019018 675 E WARDLOW RD 0.48 NSC-L 18 0 0
7145012022 577 E WARDLOW RD 0.57 NSC-M 39 0 0
7145012021 577 E WARDLOW RD 0.52 NSC-M 36 0 0
7148013028 550 E WARDLOW RD 0.39 NSC-M 0 4 16
7148013042 530 E WARDLOW RD 0.57 NSC-M 40 0 0
7148013014 500 E WARDLOW RD 0.59 NSC-M 39 0 0
7145011015 433 E WARDLOW RD 0.38 NSC-M 26 0 0
7146022013 1069 E WARDLOW RD 0.22 NSC-L 0 1 6
7228017015 6220 E WILLOW ST 2.83 FCN 82 0 0
7228017004 6200 E WILLOW ST 0.74 FCN 0 0 8
7208006009 590 E WILLOW ST 0.28 TOD-M 3 0 27
7208006055 558 E WILLOW ST 0.21 TOD-M 2 0 21
7208006056 540 E WILLOW ST 0.28 TOD-M 3 0 27
7273017025 805 ELM AVE 0.40 DT 7 0 61
7273020012 745 ELM AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273020013 735 ELM AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7145010001 3650 ELM AVE 0.34 MFR-L 0 2 8
7145011033 3590 ELM AVE 0.70 MFR-M 44 0 0
7145006026 3491 ELM AVE 0.29 MFR-M 0 3 10
7281009901 345 ELM AVE 0.34 DT 6 0 52
7145011014 3429 ELM AVE 0.30 NSC-M 21 0 0
7207001031 3247 ELM AVE 0.41 NSC-M 28 0 0
7207011033 2690 ELM AVE 0.12 TOD-M 1 0 12
7207011032 2666 ELM AVE 0.13 TOD-M 1 0 13
7269023011 1567 ELM AVE 0.17 TOD-M 1 0 12
7269023012 1561 ELM AVE 0.17 TOD-M 1 0 12
7269026028 1487 ELM AVE 0.15 TOD-M 2 0 14
7269025035 1484 ELM AVE 0.22 TOD-M 0 3 14
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-38
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7269026029 1483 ELM AVE 0.17 TOD-M 2 0 16
7269025008 1478 ELM AVE 0.17 TOD-M 0 3 10
7269026033 1429 ELM AVE 0.16 TOD-M 2 0 15
7269026034 1425 ELM AVE 0.15 TOD-M 2 0 14
7269026008 1411 ELM AVE 0.15 TOD-M 2 0 14
7273008016 1077 ELM AVE 0.15 TOD-L 15 0 0
7273008017 1069 ELM AVE 0.17 TOD-L 17 0 0
7273008018 1063 ELM AVE 0.17 TOD-L 17 0 0
7273008019 1053 ELM AVE 0.17 TOD-L 17 0 0
7273008020 1051 ELM AVE 0.14 TOD-L 14 0 0
7206028015 2621 EUCALYPTUS AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7254014025 831 EUCLID AVE 0.14 MFR-L 0 1 3
7256006003 221 EUCLID AVE 0.16 NSC-L 0 1 5
7259016002 1220 FREEMAN AVE 0.14 NSC-M 10 0 0
7259016003 1208 FREEMAN AVE 0.14 NSC-M 10 0 0
7259016026 1116 FREEMAN AVE 0.29 NSC-M 20 0 0
7259016010 1100 FREEMAN AVE 0.29 NSC-M 20 0 0
7261008001 1640 GARDENIA AVE 0.13 NSC-M 0 1 5
7261008011 1536 GARDENIA AVE 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7261008012 1530 GARDENIA AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7259031017 1767 GLADYS AVE 0.15 NSC-M 10 0 0
7259020026 1375 GLADYS AVE 0.40 MFR-M 0 4 14
7256003005 65 GRAND AVE 0.13 MFR-M 0 1 3
7255014003 386 GRAND AVE 0.12 NSC-L 0 1 3
7120015054 6629 HAMMOND AVE 0.24 NSC-M 0 2 10
7120015053 6621 HAMMOND AVE 0.12 NSC-M 0 1 5
7209028021 1816 HENDERSON AVE 0.17 NSC-M 12 0 0
7209028027 1826 HENDERSON AVE # A 0.17 NSC-M 12 0 0
7120016042 6661 INDIANA AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7263013014 392 JUNIPERO AVE 0.32 NSC-L 0 2 8
7263007046 275 JUNIPERO AVE 0.27 MFR-M 0 2 10
7262004008 1028 JUNIPERO AVE 0.15 MFR-L 0 1 4
7262004009 1006 JUNIPERO AVE 0.30 MFR-L 0 2 7
7268025003 1783 LEMON AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-39
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7268025005 1773 LEMON AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7274021001 850 LIME AVE 0.52 DT 2 0 19
7274021002 830 LIME AVE 0.17 DT 1 0 6
7127020025 5417 LIME AVE 0.13 NSC-M 6 0 0
7274003007 1224 LIME AVE 0.15 MFR-M 0 1 6
7274003009 1218 LIME AVE 0.15 MFR-M 0 1 6
7274003035 1130 LIME AVE 0.15 MFR-M 0 1 6
7274003038 1122 LIME AVE 0.15 MFR-M 0 1 6
7274015042 920 LINDEN AVE 0.18 DT 1 0 6
7274015044 912 LINDEN AVE 0.25 DT 1 0 9
7127008011 5518 LINDEN AVE 0.13 NSC-L 0 1 3
7127008012 5510 LINDEN AVE 0.13 NSC-L 0 1 3
7130002032 5390 LINDEN AVE 0.23 NSC-M 10 0 0
7281007005 433 LINDEN AVE 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7281007062 425 LINDEN AVE 0.19 DT 3 0 24
7145013008 3516 LINDEN AVE 0.30 MFR-M 19 0 0
7145011036 3515 LINDEN AVE 0.62 MFR-M 39 0 0
7145013009 3510 LINDEN AVE 0.29 MFR-M 18 0 0
7148013025 3325 LINDEN AVE 0.19 NSC-M 0 2 7
7281015026 246 LINDEN AVE 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7281015028 240 LINDEN AVE 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7269035003 1774 LINDEN AVE 0.12 TOD-L 0 2 7
7269035004 1770 LINDEN AVE 0.15 TOD-L 0 2 9
7269021029 1733 LINDEN AVE 0.14 TOD-M 1 0 10
7269021028 1723 LINDEN AVE 0.14 TOD-M 1 0 10
7269024012 1565 LINDEN AVE 0.15 TOD-M 0 2 9
7269024013 1559 LINDEN AVE 0.15 TOD-M 0 2 9
7269025017 1471 LINDEN AVE 0.15 TOD-M 0 2 9
7269025018 1465 LINDEN AVE 0.15 TOD-M 0 2 9
7269025023 1423 LINDEN AVE 0.15 TOD-M 0 2 9
7269030013 1420 LINDEN AVE 0.16 TOD-L 0 2 10
7269025024 1415 LINDEN AVE 0.15 TOD-M 0 2 9
7281019047 135 LINDEN AVE 0.26 DT 4 0 32
7281019048 125 LINDEN AVE 0.15 DT 2 0 19
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-40
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7145012028 3426 LINDEN AVENUE 0.44 MFR-M 28 0 0
7273025001 695 LOCUST AVE 0.13 DT 22 0 0
7273025015 643 LOCUST AVE 0.18 DT 31 0 0
7273025017 635 LOCUST AVE 0.18 DT 31 0 0
7273025021 621 LOCUST AVE 0.56 DT 95 0 0
7141002011 3642 LOCUST AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7141003014 3500 LOCUST AVE 0.19 NSC-L 7 0 0
7141003016 3500 LOCUST AVE 0.18 NSC-L 7 0 0
7208023007 2246 LOCUST AVE 0.13 TOD-L 1 0 8
7208023008 2234 LOCUST AVE 0.13 TOD-L 1 0 8
7269019037 1722 LOCUST AVE 0.28 TOD-M 2 0 19
7269018012 1610 LOCUST AVE 0.17 TOD-M 1 0 12
7269018017 1604 LOCUST AVE 0.17 TOD-M 1 0 12
7269014001 1351 LOCUST AVE 0.27 TOD-M 3 0 26
7273006008 1155 LOCUST AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273006009 1145 LOCUST AVE 0.14 DT 2 0 22
7273007047 1130 LOCUST AVE 0.51 DT 9 0 78
7273006012 1119 LOCUST AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273006013 1105 LOCUST AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273007030 1044 LOCUST AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273007041 1034 LOCUST AVE 0.51 DT 9 0 78
7273006014 1025 LOCUST AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273006015 1021 LOCUST AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273007036 1012 LOCUST AVE 0.15 DT 3 0 23
7258009019 909 LOMA AVE 0.15 MFR-L 0 1 4
7258009020 901 LOMA AVE 0.15 MFR-L 0 1 4
7254014023 830 LOMA AVE 0.14 MFR-L 0 1 3
7258024021 723 LOMA AVE 0.14 MFR-L 0 1 3
7256006004 220 LOMA AVE 0.31 NSC-L 0 2 7
7264002024 217 LOMA AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7256006008 216 LOMA AVE 0.16 NSC-L 0 1 4
7264002025 215 LOMA AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7256006010 214 LOMA AVE 0.16 NSC-L 0 1 4
7256006012 212 LOMA AVE 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-41
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7259003012 1771 LOMA AVE 0.19 NSC-M 0 2 7
7254001027 1228 LOMA AVE 0.29 NSC-M 0 3 11
7259014013 1205 LOMA AVE 0.15 MFR-L 0 1 4
7259014014 1201 LOMA AVE 0.15 MFR-L 0 1 4
7273012037 923 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.21 DT 4 0 32
7273020038 700 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.48 DT 8 0 74
7207019068 3060 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.29 NSC-M 1 0 13
7208027036 2196 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.34 TOD-L 34 0 0
7269015022 1343 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.30 TOD-M 45 0 0
7273012010 931 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.19 DT 3 0 29
7273011031 928 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.29 DT 5 0 44
7273012011 927 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273011015 918 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.29 DT 5 0 44
7273012024 915 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.34 DT 6 0 52
7273011016 912 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273021017 795 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.52 DT 9 0 79
7273021007 729 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.19 DT 3 0 29
7304004009 6916 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.06 NSC-L 0 0 2
7304004027 6900 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.18 NSC-L 0 1 4
7304005002 6890 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.12 NSC-L 5 0 0
7304005003 6880 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.06 NSC-L 2 0 0
7304005007 6850 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.23 NSC-L 9 0 0
7305004033 6432 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.59 NSC-L 22 0 0
7307012005 6230 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.30 NSC-L 0 2 7
7307013001 6172 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.31 NSC-L 0 2 7
7273027037 600 LONG BEACH BLVD 1.51 DT 257 0 0
7126017037 5588 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.29 NSC-L 0 2 7
7132007024 5425 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.32 NSC-L 0 2 8
7131009027 5340 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.07 NSC-L 3 0 0
7131009028 5336 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.06 NSC-L 2 0 0
7131009025 5324 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.39 NSC-L 15 0 0
7132011902 5301 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.26 NSC-L 0 2 6
7131010026 5284 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.28 NSC-L 0 2 6
7132012035 5281 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.20 NSC-L 0 1 5
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-42
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7131010025 5278 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.13 NSC-L 0 1 3
7132012002 5277 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.07 NSC-L 0 0 2
7131025030 5190 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.26 NSC-L 10 0 0
7131025031 5170 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.28 NSC-L 11 0 0
7132016900 5151 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.26 NSC-L 0 2 6
7131025032 5140 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.31 NSC-L 0 2 7
7132017900 5115 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.90 NSC-L 34 0 0
7131038015 5020 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.80 NSC-L 30 0 0
7132028019 5005 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.45 NSC-L 17 0 0
7131038017 5000 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.44 NSC-L 17 0 0
7133035056 4991 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.44 NSC-L 0 3 10
7133003033 4990 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.44 NSC-L 0 3 10
7134016900 4310 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.35 NSC-M 0 3 14
7134005040 4231 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.51 NSC-M 35 0 0
7134016029 4200 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.38 NSC-M 0 4 15
7139016027 4155 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.37 NSC-L 0 2 9
7139014009 4047 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.30 NSC-L 0 2 7
7139014006 4017 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7139014005 4001 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7139011026 3932 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.48 NSC-L 0 3 11
7139012001 3860 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.27 NSC-L 0 2 6
7139012006 3834 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.26 NSC-L 10 0 0
7139012007 3832 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.26 NSC-L 10 0 0
7139012009 3818 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.26 NSC-L 0 2 6
7139020012 3811 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7139020030 3801 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.21 NSC-L 0 1 5
7145006096 3414 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.27 NSC-M 19 0 0
7145006015 3400 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.31 NSC-M 21 0 0
7141004035 3377 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.78 NSC-M 54 0 0
7207001028 3250 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.23 NSC-M 16 0 0
7207001029 3248 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.15 NSC-M 10 0 0
7207001035 3200 LONG BEACH BLVD 1.06 NSC-M 73 0 0
7207002025 3150 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.14 NSC-M 1 0 6
7207002026 3144 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.14 NSC-M 1 0 6
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-43
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7206011039 3075 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.17 NSC-M 12 0 0
7206011040 3069 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.16 NSC-M 11 0 0
7206011041 3063 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.16 NSC-M 11 0 0
7206011031 3061 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.15 NSC-M 10 0 0
7206021011 3039 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.15 NSC-M 1 0 6
7206021012 3031 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.15 NSC-M 1 0 6
7206021013 3015 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.15 NSC-M 1 0 6
7206023067 2995 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.41 TOD-M 44 0 0
7206023059 2901 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.70 TOD-M 74 0 0
7208002033 2525 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.34 TOD-M 4 0 33
7208003013 2500 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.42 TOD-M 5 0 40
7208011011 2491 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.13 TOD-L 1 0 8
7208010019 2490 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.14 TOD-L 14 0 0
7208011012 2485 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.15 TOD-L 1 0 10
7208011015 2461 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.15 TOD-L 1 0 10
7208011016 2453 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.13 TOD-L 1 0 8
7208010023 2450 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.68 TOD-L 68 0 0
7208010024 2400 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.83 TOD-L 83 0 0
7208014025 2335 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.13 TOD-L 13 0 0
7208015009 2330 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.24 TOD-L 24 0 0
7208015028 2310 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.49 TOD-L 49 0 0
7208014028 2301 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.52 TOD-L 52 0 0
7208022006 2250 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.14 TOD-L 1 0 9
7208022024 2238 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.29 TOD-L 2 0 19
7208026028 2185 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.43 TOD-L 43 0 0
7208027011 2160 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.34 TOD-L 34 0 0
7208027014 2148 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.17 TOD-L 17 0 0
7208026029 2145 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.72 TOD-L 72 0 0
7208026022 2129 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.14 TOD-L 14 0 0
7209011020 2090 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.33 TOD-L 33 0 0
7209011004 2070 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.24 TOD-L 24 0 0
7209011030 2000 LONG BEACH BLVD 2.65 TOD-L 265 0 0
7209010001 1990 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.34 TOD-L 2 0 22
7209014905 1965 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.61 TOD-M 65 0 0
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-44
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7209007036 1840 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.44 TOD-M 5 0 43
7209015028 1801 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.64 TOD-M 96 0 0
7269020041 1760 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.28 TOD-M 3 0 27
7269020009 1750 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.13 TOD-M 1 0 13
7269021020 1730 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.13 TOD-M 20 0 0
7269019043 1701 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.45 TOD-M 48 0 0
7269021046 1700 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.55 TOD-M 83 0 0
7269018016 1647 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.32 TOD-M 34 0 0
7269022004 1640 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.29 TOD-M 2 0 20
7269019033 1637 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.31 TOD-M 33 0 0
7269018002 1633 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.17 TOD-M 18 0 0
7269018003 1621 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.17 TOD-M 18 0 0
7269026025 1498 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.31 TOD-M 47 0 0
7269026038 1480 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.16 TOD-M 24 0 0
7269026037 1476 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.14 TOD-M 21 0 0
7269027023 1350 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.88 TOD-M 132 0 0
7269015004 1335 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.17 TOD-M 26 0 0
7269015035 1333 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.66 TOD-M 99 0 0
7280028108 133 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.26 DT 4 0 40
7273002004 1234 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.17 TOD-M 0 3 10
7273002005 1226 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.17 TOD-M 0 3 10
7273002008 1200 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.17 TOD-M 0 3 10
7273007048 1157 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.65 TOD-M 7 0 62
7273002009 1118 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.17 TOD-M 0 3 10
7273008002 1098 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.17 DT 29 0 0
7273008001 1090 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.51 DT 87 0 0
7273008003 1062 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.17 DT 29 0 0
7273008004 1060 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.17 DT 29 0 0
7273008005 1050 LONG BEACH BLVD 0.17 DT 29 0 0
7272024115 627 MAGNOLIA AVE 0.60 DT 8 0 76
7280013019 324 MAGNOLIA AVE 0.06 DT 1 0 9
7280013020 302 MAGNOLIA AVE 0.12 DT 2 0 18
7269042003 1300 MAGNOLIA AVE 0.29 NSC-M 0 3 11
7272002012 1244 MAGNOLIA AVE 0.10 NSC-M 0 1 4
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-45
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7274024001 700 MARTIN LUTHER KING
JR AVE 0.30 DT 4 0 38
7274009007 1052 MARTIN LUTHER KING
JR AVE 0.16 MFR-M 0 1 6
7274009016 1044 MARTIN LUTHER KING
JR AVE 0.16 MFR-M 0 1 6
7254016002 825 MIRA MAR AVE 0.13 MFR-L 0 1 3
7254016003 817 MIRA MAR AVE 0.13 MFR-L 0 1 3
7260025009 1336 MOLINO AVE 0.15 MFR-M 9 0 0
7274004023 1133 MYRTLE AVE 0.15 MFR-M 0 1 6
7274004024 1125 MYRTLE AVE 0.15 MFR-M 0 1 6
7274005016 1116 MYRTLE AVE 0.13 MFR-M 0 1 5
7274005021 1100 MYRTLE AVE 0.29 MFR-M 0 3 10
7274011018 1069 MYRTLE AVE 0.15 MFR-M 0 1 6
7274011019 1067 MYRTLE AVE 0.15 MFR-M 0 1 6
7181002007 4750 N LAKEWOOD BLVD 0.34 MFR-L 0 2 8
7191015029 3310 N LOS COYOTES
DIAGONAL 0.25 FCN 0 0 3
7120014049 6650 N PARAMOUNT BLVD 0.40 NSC-M 0 4 16
7120001037 6574 N PARAMOUNT BLVD 0.71 NSC-L 27 0 0
7120001038 6542 N PARAMOUNT BLVD 0.12 NSC-M 5 0 0
7120001021 6542 N PARAMOUNT BLVD 0.19 NSC-L 0 1 5
7120001022 6532 N PARAMOUNT BLVD 0.12 NSC-L 0 1 3
7072016033 3445 N STUDEBAKER RD 0.63 FCN 0 0 9
7072016031 3433 N STUDEBAKER RD 1.07 FCN 0 0 13
7072016030 3401 N STUDEBAKER RD 1.67 FCN 39 0 0
7079030019 3014 N STUDEBAKER RD 1.07 FCN 0 0 12
7238015021 1000 N STUDEBAKER RD 3.06 NSC-L 115 0 0
7274021023 835 N WASHINGTON PL 0.14 DT 1 0 5
7274021025 829 N WASHINGTON PL 0.14 DT 1 0 5
7266008016 431 N ZONA CT 0.12 DT 2 0 15
7266017025 572 NEBRASKA AVE 0.17 MFR-L 0 1 4
7266017026 564 NEBRASKA AVE 0.17 MFR-L 0 1 4
7266015001 541 NEBRASKA AVE 0.16 MFR-L 0 1 4
7266015002 535 NEBRASKA AVE 0.16 MFR-L 0 1 4
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-46
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7266015003 525 NEBRASKA AVE 0.16 MFR-L 0 1 4
7266015005 515 NEBRASKA AVE 0.15 MFR-L 0 1 4
7258010010 915 NEWPORT AVE 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7258010012 909 NEWPORT AVE 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7258024004 780 NEWPORT AVE 0.14 MFR-L 0 1 3
7258024006 776 NEWPORT AVE 0.14 MFR-L 0 1 3
7257002007 525 NEWPORT AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 5
7257002015 441 NEWPORT AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 5
7257002021 419 NEWPORT AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 5
7257016005 388 NEWPORT AVE 0.15 NSC-L 6 0 0
7257018022 305 NEWPORT AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7264001021 231 NEWPORT AVE 0.20 NSC-L 0 1 5
7264005017 231 OBISPO AVE 0.11 NSC-L 0 1 2
7264004019 226 OBISPO AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7259001004 1768 OBISPO AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7259001005 1760 OBISPO AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7259001006 1750 OBISPO AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7259006003 1520 OBISPO AVE 0.12 NSC-M 0 1 5
7258005011 1010 OBISPO AVE 0.30 MFR-L 0 2 7
7262032003 670 OHIO AVE 0.12 NSC-M 0 1 5
7260007003 1776 OHIO AVE 0.19 NSC-M 0 2 7
7274022074 921 OLIVE AVE 0.17 DT 1 0 6
7274022034 901 OLIVE AVE 0.26 DT 1 0 9
7274021003 851 OLIVE AVE 0.17 DT 1 0 6
7274021053 841 OLIVE AVE 0.17 DT 1 0 6
7115005011 6616 OLIVE AVE 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7127004002 5694 OLIVE AVE 0.13 MFR-M 0 1 3
7127004003 5690 OLIVE AVE 0.12 MFR-M 0 1 3
7274003006 1227 OLIVE AVE 0.15 MFR-M 0 1 6
7274004004 1220 OLIVE AVE 0.15 MFR-M 0 1 6
7274004005 1208 OLIVE AVE 0.15 MFR-M 0 1 6
7274003018 1127 OLIVE AVE 0.15 MFR-M 0 1 6
7268018031 1333 ORANGE AVE 0.16 NSC-M 0 2 6
7268018018 1329 ORANGE AVE 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-47
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7128006008 5689 ORANGE AVE 0.23 MFR-L 9 0 0
7128006016 5601 ORANGE AVE 0.47 MFR-L 18 0 0
7129013017 5204 ORANGE AVE 0.91 NSC-L 34 0 0
7136014018 4550 ORANGE AVE 0.44 NSC-M 0 4 18
7137016019 4056 ORANGE AVE 0.39 NSC-L 0 2 10
7146028009 3416 ORANGE AVE 0.22 NSC-L 0 1 6
7146028010 3400 ORANGE AVE 0.26 NSC-L 0 2 6
7210041030 2150 ORANGE AVE 0.80 MFR-L 30 0 0
7268027008 1771 ORANGE AVE 0.15 NSC-M 10 0 0
7268035023 1508 ORANGE AVE 0.13 MFR-M 0 1 5
7268035022 1504 ORANGE AVE 0.13 MFR-M 0 1 5
7268019019 1403 ORANGE AVE 0.12 MFR-M 0 1 4
7268019020 1401 ORANGE AVE 0.13 MFR-M 0 1 5
7268042032 1332 ORANGE AVE 0.67 NSC-M 46 0 0
7267003003 1250 ORANGE AVE 0.28 NSC-M 0 3 11
7120015046 6634 ORIZABA AVE 0.12 NSC-M 0 1 5
7257011001 396 ORIZABA AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7257011002 392 ORIZABA AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7273014003 944 PACIFIC AVE 0.16 DT 3 0 24
7273014004 934 PACIFIC AVE 0.20 DT 3 0 31
7273014005 930 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273014010 920 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273014011 912 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273014900 906 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7272013061 845 PACIFIC AVE 0.35 DT 5 0 44
7272020047 757 PACIFIC AVE 0.34 DT 5 0 43
7273023016 738 PACIFIC AVE 0.33 DT 6 0 50
7273023020 730 PACIFIC AVE 0.21 DT 4 0 32
7132014028 5234 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 MFR-M 7 0 0
7132014018 5230 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 MFR-M 7 0 0
7280003012 507 PACIFIC AVE 1.07 DT 150 0 0
7280010044 453 PACIFIC AVE 0.34 DT 6 0 52
7280015001 351 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7204008003 3431 PACIFIC AVE 0.42 TOD-L 0 6 24
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-48
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7280016020 338 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7280016021 328 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7206005020 2836 PACIFIC AVE 0.15 MFR-L 1 0 4
7206005021 2830 PACIFIC AVE 0.14 MFR-L 1 0 4
7206025027 2654 PACIFIC AVE 0.15 TOD-L 1 0 10
7206025028 2650 PACIFIC AVE 0.15 TOD-L 1 0 10
7206025029 2632 PACIFIC AVE 0.15 TOD-L 1 0 10
7206026034 2627 PACIFIC AVE 0.51 NSC-L 19 0 0
7205005021 2572 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 TOD-L 17 0 0
7205004005 2565 PACIFIC AVE 0.26 NSC-L 10 0 0
7205004007 2551 PACIFIC AVE 0.13 NSC-L 5 0 0
7205004009 2545 PACIFIC AVE 0.12 NSC-L 5 0 0
7205004011 2535 PACIFIC AVE 0.13 NSC-L 5 0 0
7205009017 2429 PACIFIC AVE 0.27 NSC-L 0 2 6
7205008019 2418 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 NSC-L 0 1 4
7205008026 2400 PACIFIC AVE 0.26 NSC-L 0 2 6
7205021030 2299 PACIFIC AVE 0.53 NSC-L 20 0 0
7205020033 2200 PACIFIC AVE 0.55 NSC-L 21 0 0
7209022005 1887 PACIFIC AVE 0.18 TOD-L 0 3 13
7209022008 1875 PACIFIC AVE 0.18 TOD-L 0 3 13
7209022016 1845 PACIFIC AVE 0.18 TOD-L 23 0 0
7209021017 1832 PACIFIC AVE 0.16 TOD-L 20 0 0
7209022900 1827 PACIFIC AVE 0.37 TOD-L 46 0 0
7209021019 1826 PACIFIC AVE 0.16 TOD-L 20 0 0
7209021021 1820 PACIFIC AVE 0.16 TOD-L 20 0 0
7269009022 1770 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 TOD-L 17 0 0
7269009020 1750 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 TOD-L 17 0 0
7269009027 1740 PACIFIC AVE 0.35 TOD-L 35 0 0
7269009017 1724 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 TOD-L 17 0 0
7269009016 1720 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 TOD-L 17 0 0
7269008008 1618 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 TOD-L 17 0 0
7269008010 1608 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 TOD-L 17 0 0
7269008013 1602 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 TOD-L 17 0 0
7269007014 1550 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 TOD-L 0 2 10
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-49
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7269007022 1548 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 TOD-L 0 2 10
7269004022 1319 PACIFIC AVE 0.06 TOD-L 6 0 0
7269004023 1311 PACIFIC AVE 0.05 TOD-L 5 0 0
7272001033 1219 PACIFIC AVE 0.33 DT 5 0 41
7273004005 1218 PACIFIC AVE 0.14 DT 2 0 22
7272001017 1203 PACIFIC AVE 0.12 DT 2 0 15
7272005009 1131 PACIFIC AVE 0.14 DT 2 0 18
7272005010 1121 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7272005012 1107 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7272005013 1063 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 DT 2 0 22
7273005014 1058 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273005015 1052 PACIFIC AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7204006049 3401 PACIFIC PL 0.31 TOD-L 0 4 18
7204015010 3355 PACIFIC PL 1.04 TOD-L 104 0 0
7228017012 2501 PALO VERDE AVE 2.32 FCN 0 0 30
7241010004 1215 PARK AVE 0.14 MFR-L 0 1 3
7241010005 1201 PARK AVE 0.16 MFR-L 0 1 4
7250012015 299 PARK AVE 0.29 FCN 0 0 3
7209004004 1928 PASADENA AVE 0.14 TOD-L 0 2 8
7209004005 1922 PASADENA AVE 0.14 TOD-L 0 2 8
7209005003 1876 PASADENA AVE 0.14 TOD-L 0 2 8
7209005004 1870 PASADENA AVE 0.14 TOD-L 0 2 8
7209007007 1825 PASADENA AVE 0.14 TOD-M 2 0 13
7209006004 1824 PASADENA AVE 0.14 TOD-L 0 2 8
7209007027 1819 PASADENA AVE 0.14 TOD-M 2 0 13
7209006005 1816 PASADENA AVE 0.14 TOD-M 2 0 13
7209006006 1812 PASADENA AVE 0.14 TOD-M 2 0 13
7273014007 947 PINE AVE 0.28 DT 5 0 43
7273016009 810 PINE AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273022015 714 PINE AVE 0.36 DT 6 0 55
7273023011 711 PINE AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273023013 701 PINE AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7209016034 1814 PINE AVE 0.15 TOD-M 2 0 14
7269008014 1629 PINE AVE 0.34 TOD-L 0 5 19
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-50
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7269013001 1470 PINE AVE 0.12 TOD-L 0 2 7
7269013003 1460 PINE AVE 0.13 TOD-L 0 2 7
7269013004 1452 PINE AVE 0.17 TOD-L 0 2 10
7269013019 1420 PINE AVE 0.12 TOD-L 0 2 7
7269013020 1410 PINE AVE 0.12 TOD-L 0 2 7
7269014012 1324 PINE AVE 0.45 TOD-M 5 0 44
7269014014 1310 PINE AVE 0.31 TOD-M 3 0 30
7273005027 1101 PINE AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7273005028 1057 PINE AVE 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7257019012 327 REDONDO AVE 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7258011036 929 REDONDO AVE 0.29 NSC-M 0 3 11
7258011028 835 REDONDO AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7258022005 785 REDONDO AVE 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7258022027 701 REDONDO AVE 0.32 NSC-M 22 0 0
7258023031 700 REDONDO AVE 0.54 NSC-M 37 0 0
7258027102 659 REDONDO AVE 0.15 NSC-M 10 0 0
7257002008 512 REDONDO AVE 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 5
7257002014 440 REDONDO AVE 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 5
7257014028 389 REDONDO AVE 0.30 NSC-L 0 2 7
7257014006 387 REDONDO AVE 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7257014011 375 REDONDO AVE 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7257015029 374 REDONDO AVE 0.29 NSC-L 0 2 10
7257015014 372 REDONDO AVE 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 5
7257019017 317 REDONDO AVE 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7257019020 315 REDONDO AVE 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7257018025 300 REDONDO AVE 0.30 NSC-L 0 2 7
7257029020 271 REDONDO AVE 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7257029021 269 REDONDO AVE 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7257030011 250 REDONDO AVE 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7264001056 244 REDONDO AVE 0.50 NSC-L 19 0 0
7264001014 238 REDONDO AVE 0.11 NSC-L 4 0 0
7264001020 230 REDONDO AVE 0.19 NSC-L 0 1 5
7259002011 1719 REDONDO AVE 0.29 NSC-M 0 3 11
7259012041 1466 REDONDO AVE 0.13 NSC-M 0 1 5
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-51
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7259012040 1456 REDONDO AVE 0.13 NSC-M 0 1 5
7259012039 1450 REDONDO AVE 0.13 NSC-M 0 1 5
7259009028 1355 REDONDO AVE 0.29 NSC-M 20 0 0
7259009031 1347 REDONDO AVE 0.29 NSC-M 20 0 0
7259009037 1325 REDONDO AVE 0.16 NSC-M 11 0 0
7258006026 1001 REDONDO AVE 0.43 NSC-M 0 4 17
7141002009 4216 ROSE AVE 0.16 NSC-L 0 1 4
7254007017 1055 ROSWELL AVE 0.13 MFR-L 0 1 3
7254007018 1043 ROSWELL AVE 0.14 MFR-L 0 1 3
7256038036 76 S TERMINO AVE 0.33 MFR-L 0 2 8
7317005034 3665 SANTA FE AVE 0.29 NSC-L 11 0 0
7311021016 3646 SANTA FE AVE 0.02 NSC-L 0 0 1
7311021018 3640 SANTA FE AVE 0.36 NSC-L 0 2 9
7317006026 3631 SANTA FE AVE 0.27 NSC-L 0 2 6
7317014020 3621 SANTA FE AVE 0.85 NSC-L 32 0 0
7311019052 3510 SANTA FE AVE 0.27 NSC-L 0 2 6
7314004020 3195 SANTA FE AVE 0.20 NSC-L 0 1 5
7314004021 3191 SANTA FE AVE 0.16 NSC-L 0 1 4
7313034003 2686 SANTA FE AVE 0.13 NSC-L 5 0 0
7314032016 2601 SANTA FE AVE 0.50 NSC-L 19 0 0
7401001024 2594 SANTA FE AVE 0.37 NSC-L 0 2 9
7401001022 2520 SANTA FE AVE 1.08 NSC-L 41 0 0
7401016017 2380 SANTA FE AVE 0.34 NSC-L 0 2 8
7401031001 2290 SANTA FE AVE 0.76 NSC-L 29 0 0
7260001016 1786 SHERMAN PL 0.19 NSC-M 0 2 7
7269015017 NO SITUS ON FILE 0.17 TOD-M 26 0 0
7260005011 1774 STANLEY AVE 0.12 NSC-M 0 1 5
7260005010 1770 STANLEY AVE 0.12 NSC-M 0 1 5
7263023026 419 TEMPLE AVE 0.13 NSC-L 0 1 3
7260007004 1743 TEMPLE AVE 0.19 NSC-M 0 2 7
7254008010 1062 TERMINO AVE 0.13 MFR-L 0 1 3
7280020033 235 THE PROMENADE N 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7280020034 233 THE PROMENADE N 0.19 DT 3 0 29
7280020037 219 THE PROMENADE N 0.18 DT 3 0 28
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-52
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7280013021 449 W 3RD ST 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7280014253 345 W 3RD ST 0.33 DT 6 0 50
7280016022 131 W 3RD ST 0.31 DT 5 0 48
7280016023 125 W 3RD ST 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7278025026 613 W 4TH ST 0.26 DT 1 0 9
7280010012 239 W 4TH ST 0.26 DT 4 0 32
7280009133 127 W 4TH ST 0.53 DT 9 0 81
7132014017 59 W 52ND ST 0.23 MFR-M 10 0 0
7132014015 51 W 52ND ST 0.23 MFR-M 10 0 0
7132014014 47 W 52ND ST 0.23 MFR-M 10 0 0
7132015009 125 W 52ND ST 0.16 MFR-M 0 1 4
7272002039 500 W ANAHEIM ST 0.44 NSC-M 0 4 18
7272002011 490 W ANAHEIM ST 0.20 NSC-M 0 2 8
7272002022 456 W ANAHEIM ST 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7272002037 440 W ANAHEIM ST 0.26 NSC-M 0 3 10
7269042028 305 W ANAHEIM ST 0.51 NSC-M 35 0 0
7272001034 240 W ANAHEIM ST 0.34 NSC-M 0 3 14
7269004030 225 W ANAHEIM ST 0.71 NSC-M 49 0 0
7269004020 219 W ANAHEIM ST 0.17 TOD-L 17 0 0
7269004021 213 W ANAHEIM ST 0.17 TOD-L 17 0 0
7269004024 201 W ANAHEIM ST 0.06 TOD-L 6 0 0
7269005011 133 W ANAHEIM ST 0.17 TOD-M 26 0 0
7273004041 130 W ANAHEIM ST 0.31 DT 5 0 48
7280023007 305 W BROADWAY 0.34 DT 6 0 52
7132028040 15 W DEL AMO BLVD 0.54 NSC-L 20 0 0
7132005033 31 W LOUISE ST 0.62 NSC-L 23 0 0
7132014031 42 W MOUNTAIN VIEW ST 0.23 MFR-M 10 0 0
7132014034 30 W MOUNTAIN VIEW ST 0.23 MFR-M 0 1 6
7132014035 26 W MOUNTAIN VIEW ST 0.23 MFR-M 0 1 6
7132015027 128 W MOUNTAIN VIEW ST 0.23 MFR-M 0 1 6
7132015029 120 W MOUNTAIN VIEW ST 0.22 MFR-M 0 1 6
7202040022 623 W PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.42 NSC-L 0 3 10
7209028022 431 W PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.28 NSC-M 19 0 0
7209027012 321 W PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.18 NSC-M 12 0 0
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-53
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7209027011 311 W PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.32 NSC-M 22 0 0
7269036001 300 W PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.27 NSC-M 0 3 10
7209022023 245 W PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.29 TOD-L 0 5 21
7209022028 201 W PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.47 TOD-L 59 0 0
7209021029 127 W PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.41 TOD-M 62 0 0
7269009026 124 W PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.48 TOD-M 72 0 0
7209021034 101 W PACIFIC COAST HWY 0.39 TOD-M 4 0 38
7132011030 12 W PLYMOUTH ST 0.33 NSC-L 0 2 8
7314006029 1718 W SPRING ST 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7204015017 350 W WARDLOW RD 0.87 TOD-L 87 0 0
7317002006 2410 W WARDLOW RD 0.13 NSC-L 0 1 3
7317002007 2400 W WARDLOW RD 0.20 NSC-L 0 1 5
7317005013 1730 W WARDLOW RD 0.13 NSC-L 5 0 0
7317005014 1700 W WARDLOW RD 0.40 NSC-L 15 0 0
7311022015 1608 W WARDLOW RD 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7311022016 1600 W WARDLOW RD 0.21 NSC-L 0 1 5
7201025025 855 W WILLOW ST 0.39 NSC-L 0 2 10
7201024025 701 W WILLOW ST 0.39 NSC-L 0 2 10
7201023025 641 W WILLOW ST 0.26 NSC-L 0 2 6
7201023027 601 W WILLOW ST 0.35 NSC-L 0 2 9
7202015002 600 W WILLOW ST 0.41 NSC-L 0 2 10
7206028014 455 W WILLOW ST 0.24 NSC-L 0 1 6
7206026011 329 W WILLOW ST 0.31 NSC-L 0 2 7
7205003006 320 W WILLOW ST 0.14 NSC-L 5 0 0
7205003030 300 W WILLOW ST 0.25 NSC-L 9 0 0
7205004025 200 W WILLOW ST 0.33 NSC-L 12 0 0
7205005027 190 W WILLOW ST 0.46 TOD-L 46 0 0
7402004027 1700 W WILLOW ST 0.27 NSC-L 0 2 6
7313033031 1553 W WILLOW ST 0.27 NSC-L 0 2 6
7313032015 1545 W WILLOW ST 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7313032038 1521 W WILLOW ST 0.12 NSC-L 0 1 3
7313032037 1517 W WILLOW ST 0.33 NSC-L 0 2 8
7313030028 1395 W WILLOW ST 0.27 NSC-L 0 2 6
7313030029 1355 W WILLOW ST 0.35 NSC-L 0 2 9
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-54
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7313029023 1339 W WILLOW ST 0.13 NSC-L 0 1 3
7313029024 1335 W WILLOW ST 0.14 NSC-L 0 1 3
7401007001 1292 W WILLOW ST 0.12 NSC-L 0 1 3
7314021001 2056 W WILMA PL 0.24 NSC-L 0 1 6
7128008008 5727 WALNUT AVE 0.14 MFR-M 0 1 3
7314021002 2615 WEBSTER AVE 0.17 NSC-L 0 1 4
7185018015 3936 WOODRUFF AVE 1.20 FCN 0 0 14
7185018019 3908 WOODRUFF AVE 1.83 FCN 0 0 23
7185018020 3840 WOODRUFF AVE 109 0.78 FCN 0 0 7
7241012129 1025 XIMENO AVE 0.13 MFR-L 5 0 0
7207019076 0.87 NSC-M 38 0 0
7269013035 0.19 TOD-L 0 3 11
7145011003 0.31 MFR-M 19 0 0
7255015019 0.12 NSC-L 0 1 3
7313034044 0.38 NSC-L 14 0 0
7207001027 0.30 NSC-M 21 0 0
7268028040 0.33 NSC-M 0 3 13
7273016021 0.19 DT 3 0 29
7135014027 3.94 NSC-M 271 0 0
7304005006 0.06 NSC-L 2 0 0
7259001015 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7207001032 0.20 NSC-M 14 0 0
7314006031 0.06 NSC-L 0 0 2
7269001033 0.18 MFR-M 11 0 0
7145014002 0.26 MFR-L 0 2 6
7281007027 0.12 DT 2 0 15
7135022028 0.42 NSC-M 0 4 17
7280005919 2.26 DT 38 0 346
7274022804 0.04 DT 0 0 2
7141003021 0.18 NSC-L 7 0 0
7135022029 2.56 NSC-M 0 26 102
7237028013 0.39 MFR-L 0 2 10
7116018021 0.23 NSC-M 16 0 0
7237020904 3.84 RSF 0 38 154
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-55
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7141003022 0.18 NSC-L 7 0 0
7401007018 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
7269020053 0.66 TOD-M 99 0 0
7119018901 0.52 NSC-M 36 0 0
7259001016 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7280005921 1.75 DT 298 0 0
7274022808 0.17 DT 1 0 6
7135014033 0.52 NSC-M 36 0 0
7269005028 0.34 TOD-L 34 0 0
7280005918 2.90 DT 49 0 444
7120018073 0.12 NSC-M 5 0 0
7148013026 0.19 NSC-M 0 2 8
7280015096 0.17 DT 3 0 26
7209015012 0.20 TOD-M 2 0 20
7141003015 0.19 NSC-L 7 0 0
7135022030 1.82 NSC-M 0 18 73
7253017900 0.52 NSC-M 52 0 0
7206023072 0.19 TOD-M 20 0 0
7268006919 0.12 TOD-L 0 2 7
7274003003 0.15 NSC-M 0 1 6
7208006059 0.11 TOD-M 17 0 0
7274003036 0.14 MFR-M 0 1 5
7304005004 0.06 NSC-L 2 0 0
7281018804 0.52 DT 9 0 79
7135022031 0.30 NSC-M 0 3 12
7268006908 0.74 TOD-L 74 0 0
7120001012 0.02 NSC-M 0 0 1
7269005029 0.33 TOD-L 33 0 0
7145019020 0.18 NSC-L 7 0 0
7274022809 0.05 DT 0 0 2
7127009036 0.10 NSC-L 0 1 2
7281018805 0.35 DT 6 0 54
7278015045 0.80 DT 14 0 122
7148013030 0.19 NSC-M 13 0 0
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-56
Appendix
C
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7259031036 0.15 NSC-M 10 0 0
7141004049 0.71 NSC-M 49 0 0
7148013015 0.19 NSC-M 13 0 0
7265020024 0.07 NSC-M 0 1 2
7314006030 0.07 NSC-L 0 0 2
7274022806 0.15 DT 1 0 5
7273022901 0.53 DT 9 0 81
7269005030 0.21 TOD-M 32 0 0
7132028039 0.17 NSC-L 6 0 0
7148013031 0.20 NSC-M 14 0 0
7145007052 0.56 MFR-L 21 0 0
7209015014 0.10 TOD-M 1 0 10
7259003010 0.19 NSC-M 13 0 0
7260031031 0.29 NSC-M 0 3 11
7259002034 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7101017004 0.36 NSC-M 25 0 0
7205008029 0.28 NSC-L 0 2 6
7280005924 0.31 DT 5 0 48
7274013007 0.14 TOD-L 0 2 8
7241010003 0.12 NSC-L 0 1 3
7148013032 0.20 NSC-M 14 0 0
7255014002 0.12 NSC-L 0 1 3
7121014002 0.12 NSC-L 0 1 3
7132012030 0.13 NSC-L 0 1 3
7304004008 0.06 NSC-L 0 0 2
7268006918 0.12 TOD-L 0 2 7
7274022807 0.17 DT 1 0 6
7120001035 0.02 NSC-M 0 0 1
7206011038 0.17 NSC-M 12 0 0
7304005005 0.06 NSC-L 2 0 0
7273025018 0.20 DT 34 0 0
7278015955 5.61 DT 95 0 859
7268006920 0.12 TOD-L 0 2 7
7141002010 0.15 NSC-L 0 1 4
Appendix | Site Inventory
C-57
CAppendix
January 2022
APN Address Parcel
Acreage
PlaceType
Designation
Potential
Low
Income
Units
Potential
Moderate
Income
Units
Potential
Market Rate
Units
7114020038 0.11 NSC-L 0 1 2
7273004004 0.16 DT 3 0 24
7281011109 0.13 DT 2 0 16
7132028017 0.32 NSC-L 12 0 0
7260022024 0.14 NSC-M 0 1 6
7269001034 0.20 MFR-M 13 0 0
7141003020 0.19 NSC-L 7 0 0
7280026023 0.81 DT 14 0 124
7267003015 0.06 NSC-M 0 1 2
7253016900 0.60 NSC-M 26 0 0
7261032031 0.27 NSC-M 0 3 10
7137014017 0.31 FCN 0 0 5
* The preceding table represents sites that met the criteria outlined in the methodology at the time the analysis was conducted
Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites
In seeking to identify the most feasible sites for development, relatively few of available sites are vacant because Long Beach is a built-out city. Therefore, the site inventory must rely primarily on non-vacant sites. There are only 220 vacant lots found in the City, all of which are registered and available for public review on the City’s Vacant Lot Registry.

The vast majority of those vacant lots are either too small to develop or have substantial barriers to development, such as expensive environmental remediation of former oil well sites. Therefore, in order to ensure sites selected for the site inventory do not have existing uses that are impediments to housing development, staff conducted extensive analysis to only select sites that are most likely to develop during the planning period, employing a front-end method of filtering out parcels. Development likelihood and feasibility was determined by a number of different variables, including improvement-to-land value ratio, existing lot coverage, lot size, future development potential, and existing use and unit count where applicable. The City analyzed the most current parcel-level data across such variables to determine which sites were most appropriate for inclusion into the site inventory and to estimate the number of additional units that are likely to be developed. Additionally, staff conducted visual screenings of sites using google earth and removed any site that appeared unlikely to develop for any reason based on an aerial photography analysis.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
C-58
Appendix
C
January 2022
For larger sites of more than 2 acres, staff did extensive research on the site, reviewing existing uses, leases,
and other factors and removed any identified sites with demonstrated impediments. Finally, staff also conducted additional market research to support assumptions
around parcel turnover at commercial sites. Many of
the non-vacant sites in the inventory have an existing
commercial use or are in a zone that is currently zoned commercial only but will soon allow residential uses once the zoning district is updated to align with the new Land Use Element designation. Staff found that outside of the Downtown area, commercial and office vacancy rates
in Long Beach are higher than in the Los Angeles region and have only increased since the start of the pandemic.

The current suburban mall vacancy rate in Long Beach is more than 50 percent for example, compared to 8 percent in Los Angeles. Many of the aforementioned larger sites are currently developed as half-empty malls or strip malls that will soon be zoned to allow for by-right multifamily residential development. See Appendix C-3 (Appendix to this Appendix) for reports detailing these trends. Given these high commercial vacancy rates even compared to
the region, as well as the new allowance for multi-family residential development under the rezoning program, it
is likely that such sites will turnover during the planning period.

The City also verified its assumptions by analyzing recent project submittals and inquiries since January 2019
to assess development trends as rezoning continues
throughout Long Beach to implement the 2019 Land Use
Element Update. 21 residential development applicants
have been received in that time for more than 3,000 new housing units. Many of these applications are occurring in places that have recently been rezoned, including more
than 1,100 new units in the Southeast Specific Plan Area adopted in July 2021. An analysis of these applications reflects the assumptions about development likelihood for sites within the City’s Housing Element Site Inventory.

Interviews with local developers who are working in Long Beach also informed the factors and assumptions in the
Site Inventory and verified that the sites on the Inventory are likely to redevelop. Lot size (smaller, disjointed) can be a challenge when considering the feasibility of
development in Long Beach as well as environmental
issues (associated with the oil industry). This supports the City’s strategy of identifying the largest available sites and excluding sites with known environmental issues or other challenges to development. The interviews revealed that infill, adaptive reuse, underperforming shopping centers and underutilized sites offer tremendous opportunities
for affordable and multifamily development. The City
is seen as a “hot market” for residential and mixed-use development according to developers, and most of the
respondents are actively investigating sites and seeking investment opportunities on non-vacant sites in the City.

When the criteria for the City’s proposed Housing Element site inventory was described, all respondents agreed these are appropriate criteria. (see a summary of local developer interviews in Appendix C-4).

In sum, the City took a conservative approach using a
front-end method of filtering out in order to include only sites that are the most likely to develop. Therefore, based on this evidence, the City of Long Beach has determined that the sites on the Site Inventory are feasible for
residential development, do not have impediments due to existing uses, and are the sites in the City most likely to be developed with housing during the planning period.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-1
DAppendix
January 2022
Appendix D: Housing
Constraints
The provision of decent, safe, and affordable housing is an important goal of the City of Long Beach. However,
there are a variety of factors that facilitate or constrain the development, maintenance, and improvement of
the housing stock in the City. These include government codes and regulations, market mechanisms (such as
real estate trends and construction costs), and physical and environmental constraints. This section reviews
and analyzes these potential constraints, in terms of
a) governmental constraints, b) non-governmental
including market constraints, and c) environmental and
infrastructural constraints
Section D.1 Governmental Constraints
Local policies and regulations can impact the availability of housing and, in particular, the provision of affordable housing. Land use controls, residential development
standards, fees and exactions, and permit processing
procedures among others may increase the cost of housing maintenance, development, and improvement. This
section discusses these potential constraints and actions taken to mitigate them.

D.1.1 Transparency in Development
Regulations
The City’s website provides a variety of information
and resources to help property owners and developers
navigate through the development process. The majority of the information is located under the Development
Services Department webpages ( https://www.longbeach.
gov/lbds/), which include the following:
» Application and forms for Building and Planning permits, Code Enforcement, Historic Preservation, and Housing &
Neighborhood Services
» Documents such as Building Standard Code and
Permitting Guidelines
» Planning documents such as General Plan, Specific
Plans, and Zoning Code
» Fee schedule
The City also offers electronic plan check and online
permits.

D.1.2 Land Use Controls
A. General Plan PlaceType Designations
Adopted in 2019, the Land Use Element (LUE) of the
Long Beach General Plan sets forth the City’s policies for guiding local development. It establishes the distribution and intensity of land that is allocated for different uses.

The General Plan LUE uses an innovative approach called “PlaceTypes, ” which emphasizes flexibility and allows for a mix of compatible uses. This approach provides regulating guidance on land use, form, and character-defining
features. Though many of the PlaceTypes allow for greater density and mix of uses, particularly near transit stations and along transit and commercial corridors, nearly half (47.3%) of the City’s land area comprises non-residential PlaceTypes such as Industrial, Commercial, and Regional Serving Facility which cover the Port of Long Beach, the airport, and institutional uses. Another 40.9% of the City’s land area is comprised of the Founding and Contemporary Neighborhood (FCN) PlaceType, which is a low-density
residential PlaceType reflective of much of the existing single-family areas in Long Beach. The remaining 11.8%
of the City’s geography is designated with higher-density residential or mixed-use PlaceTypes that can accommodate densities, and more appropriate to accommodate housing.

These areas include the Neighborhood Serving, Multi-
Family, Downtown, Transit Oriented Development, and
Waterfront PlaceTypes.

The nine PlaceTypes in the LUE that allow residential uses are detailed in Table D-1. As shown on Figure D-1, these PlaceTypes are generally concentrated in areas closest to Metro A line stations and high-quality transit corridors in the southern part and western half of the City.

While the City’s LUE identifies a variety of PlaceTypes which allow a full range of residential development types (single- family, duplexes, apartments, etc.) at a variety of intensities as noted above, the PlaceTypes with the most development potential are applied in a limited extent. While the new LUE significantly expands the City’s capacity for new
housing development, there remain constraints in terms
of opportunities for new housing in some areas in the City due to a combination of PlaceType designation and height limits established in the LUE. These constraints stem in part from multigenerational land use patterns and planning
decisions that have limited new housing development in
highest opportunity areas. Over 40% of the City is reserved for low-density development with maximum two-stories
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-2
Appendix
D
January 2022
in the FCN PlaceType. This PlaceType covers a variety of contexts, typically areas currently developed as single- family or low-density residential, however the PlaceType is also applied in older central City neighborhoods which are developed with multi-family and currently non-conforming under existing R-1 and R-2 Zones (see below) due to
downzoning from multi-family to single-family in the
late 1980s. Since the FCN PlaceType does allow for other types of low-density housing at densities up to 18 units per acre, it will be important to keep this in mind as the City develops zoning regulations to implement the FCN
PlaceType, instead of maintaining existing regulations
which are more restrictive than what is already built in some areas. The City has already demonstrated how the LUE PlaceTypes are flexible and can be implemented through
more progressive zoning tools (see discussion of UPLAN, in the section below). Taking a flexible approach to FCN is particularly important given the City’s focus on equity and increasing community access to high quality schools, parks, and housing options. The LUE is adaptable enough Figure D-1 : General Plan Residential PlaceTypes
Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-3
DAppendix
January 2022
to support the City’s goals of removing barriers to housing production to help combat the City’s well-documented
housing shortages and ensuring the availability and fair distribution of affordable housing throughout the City to reverse existing patterns of segregation and concentrated poverty. To help ensure the LUE PlaceTypes are not a barrier to residential development, the City has proposed Program

2.3: A Variety of Housing Types in Low Density Zones,
to update the Code to provide use and development
regulations that reflect the intent of the Founding and Contemporary Neighborhoods to accommodate a variety
of housing types.

In addition to controlling density and the type of uses, the LUE also establishes maximum heights Citywide. Each Table D-1: General Plan Residential PlaceTypes
PlaceType Density (max.) Height Primary Residential Uses Founding and
Contemporary
Neighborhood
7-18 du/ac 2 stories max;
varies by area Single-family and low-density housing
Multi-Family
Residential-Low
Up to 29 du/ac based on
lot size 4 stories max Duplex, triplex, and garden apartment housing Multi-Family
Residential-Moderate
Up to 62 du/ac based on
lot size 6 stories max Moderate-density apartment and condominium buildings on larger parcels of land
Neighborhood-
Serving Centers and
Corridors-Low
Up to 44 du/ac based on
lot size 4 stories max Low-density apartment and condominium buildings
Neighborhood-
Serving Centers and
Corridors-Moderate
Up to 54 du/ac based on
lot size 7 stories max Moderate-density apartment and condominium buildings on larger parcels of land
Transit-Oriented
Development-Low
No max. density; 5
stories max. 5 stories max. Low urban density apartment and condominium buildings
Transit-Oriented
Development-
Moderate
No max. density; 10
stories max. 10 stories max. Moderate urban density apartment and condominium buildings
Downtown 38-500 ft (with
incentives) max. height
38-500 ft (with
incentives) max.
height
Ranges from smaller-scale residential units to
medium-scale and high-rise residential towers
Waterfront 35-600 ft max. height 35-600 ft max.
height
Ranges from low-rise multi-family residential
buildings to mid-rise and high-rise housing
developments
PlaceType has a maximum height limit (See Table D-1 ) which is superseded by the LUE PlaceType Height Limits
Map (see Figure D-2) which may provide more restrictive height limits depending on geography. The added layer
of restriction further limits the development potential afforded under the PlaceTypes, in some cases reducing
multi-family or mixed-use area height limits by one
or two stories. Height is commonly a limiting factor in development feasibility, especially when combined with
other zoning regulations such as setbacks and parking. For further discussion of height, see Section C.2, below. The City will need to ensure LUE height limits do not constraint development potential by augmenting other development
regulations to help ensure maximum densities are
achievable.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-4
Appendix
D
January 2022 Land Use Element | City of Long Beach68
Land Use Plan
4 Map LU-8

PLACETYPE HEIGHT LIMITS
Map LU-8

HEIGHTS
December 2019
Figure D-2 : PlaceType Height Limits Map
Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-5
DAppendix
January 2022Land Use Plan | Creating Vibrant and Exciting Places 69 Land Use Plan
4 ARTESIA FWY

ARTESIA
CHERRY
SOUTH
LONG B
EACH

DEL AMO BLVD
DIEGO
SPRING
WILLOW

PACIFIC COAST
CHERRY

SANTA FE

ANAHEIM
7TH 7TH

LONG BEACH

PACIFIC COAST
SPRING
2ND
L.A.

County

PARAMOUNT
DOWNEY

ATLANTIC
ORANGE
MARKET

DEL AMO
CARSON
ORANGE
CONANT
SAN
ANTON
IO
SAN
FWY

BROADWAY
OCEAN
CHERRY
ORANGE
OCEAN

HARBOR SCENIC
OCEAN
2ND

LOYNESELIOT
XIMENO

ATHERTON
PARK
APPIAN
WILLOW

WARDLOWWARDLOW

STEARNS

CLARK CLARK

SAN DIEGO FWY
70TH
4 TH

LOS ANGELES RIVER

PACIFIC

BROADWAY

SAN GAB

RIEL RIV
ER

ALAMITOS
4TH

HARDING
7TH
10 TH10TH

ANAHEIM
City of
Carson
City of
Seal Beach
City of
Compton
City of
Paramount
City of
Bellflower
City of
Hawa
Gardens
iian
City of
Los Angeles
City of
Lakewood
405 605
710 605
405
405
405
710
710
91 22
47 103
91 BIXBY

PACIFIC
TEMPLE
City of
Los Alamitos
405

LOS COYOTES DIAGONAL
CARSON
3RD

STUDEBAKER

BELLFLOWER

LAKEWOOD

PALO VERDE

REDONDO

TERMINO

JUNIPERO

SAN GABRIEL RIVER
City of
Signal Hill
2 ST2 ST
2 ST
5 ST
5 ST
5 ST
5 ST
5 ST
5 ST
Refer to the Port Master Plan
for Height Limit
2 ST
2 ST
150 ft
65 ft
65 ft
2 ST
2 ST
4 ST
4 ST
2 ST
2 ST
2 ST
2 ST
2 ST
2 ST
2 ST
2 ST
3 ST
40 ft
65 ft
2 ST
2 ST
2 ST
65 ft
3 ST
2 ST
2 ST 2 ST
3 ST
4 ST
2 ST
60 ft
3 ST
4 ST
2 ST
2 ST
40 ft
40 ft
40 ft
4 ST
45 ft
45 ft
3 ST
3 ST
FAA and Zoning Code
Regulates Height
3 ST
3 ST
3 ST
3 ST
2 ST
2 ST
4 ST
3 ST
Refer to the
Zoning Code
for Height Limit
4 ST
60 ft, 4 ST
40 ft
2 ST
2 ST
5 ST
3 ST
3 ST
3 ST
3 ST
3 ST
35 ft
45 ft
4 ST
3 ST
10 ST
45 ft
4 ST
4 ST
4 ST
5 ST
3 ST
60 ft
65 ft
40 ft
5 ST
45 ft
3 ST
3 ST
100 ft
4 ST
2 ST
3 ST
6 ST
55-265 ft
3 ST
10 ST
10 ST
FAA and
Zoning
Code
Regulates
Height
100 ft
5 ST
16 ST
3 ST
4 ST
4 ST
3 ST
3 ST
3 ST
40 ft
Unlimited
Height
4 ST
4 ST
4 ST
40 ft
45 ft
3 ST
12 ST
3 ST
3 ST
4 ST
7 ST
5 ST
3 ST
45 ft
Refer to SP-2 (SEASP) for Height Limit
Rancho
Estates
(PD-11)
1 ST Height
Limit
4 ST
4 ST
4 ST
3 ST
3 ST 6 ST
4 ST
4 ST
3 ST
5 ST
4 ST
45 ft
60 ft
3 ST
60 ft
4 ST
300 ft 420 ft
5 ST
45 ft
3 ST
3 ST
4 ST
3 ST
4 ST
3 ST
600 ft
5 ST
3 ST
3 ST
240 ft
40 ft
10 ST
40 ft
35 ft
3 ST
100 ft
4 ST
3 ST
3 ST
7 ST
4 ST
7 ST
3 ST
3 ST
3 ST
3 ST
Legend
0 0.5 10.25
Mile
2 Stories
3 Stories
4 Stories
5 Stories
6 Stories
7 Stories
10-16 Stories
80 - 100 Feet
35 - 75 Feet
135 - 150 Feet
240 Feet and Over
Please refer to height number for maximum building height Maximum Building Heights Building Height Boundary
Building Height (Feet and/or Stories)40 FT
4 ST
December 2019
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-6
Appendix
D
January 2022
B. Zoning Districts
The Zoning Code implements LUE policies by specifying
detailed development regulations that accomplish the
General Plan’s goals. These include specific use types (such as residential, retail, office, and industrial) that are allowed and not allowed by the corresponding zoning district
and building development standards (such as height and
placement on a site). State law requires that zoning be consistent with maps and policies in the General Plan, so when the LUE establishes maximum densities and height
limits, the zoning code can only allow development
underneath this cap. Since uses and densities/intensities may only be permitted if they are consistent with both the General Plan land use designation and the zoning of the property, limitations of the General Plan (as noted above) translate to limitations of the Zoning Code. The Long Beach Zoning Code is contained within the City’s Municipal Code and implements the general policies contained in the
General Plan.

While it has been amended numerous times, including
significant revisions in 1997 and a number of recent
and ongoing amendments in an effort to make minor
improvements pending more significant updates, the
existing Zoning Code hasn’t been comprehensively
updated in more than 30 years. The Zoning Code should
ideally be updated periodically to respond to new land
use trends, economic and environmental conditions,
and evolving community needs and priorities while also
becoming more accessible and easier to understand for
the general public. As a result, the Code, as it is currently written, no longer aligns with current goals, new City
priorities, or today’s realities and it is not consistent with the new LUE. This incongruency is a major impediment to the development of new housing in most of the City, especially outside of the areas that have had recent code updates, or are regulated by Specific Plans or Planned Districts, such as the Downtown and Midtown areas, as well as the newly adopted UPLAN and Code.

In 2019, the City performed an audit of the Zoning Code (Code Audit) to identify inconsistencies between the
existing Code and the newly adopted LUE. Findings from
the Code Audit that are relevant to this discussion on
housing constraints are incorporated into this analysis, as appropriate. In a future phase, the City is expected to amend the Code to address constraints identified in the Code Audit and fully implement the policies of the LUE.

The Zoning Code delineates the following six basic
residential zones, with 20 subcategories:

R-1: Single Family (plus suffix S, M, N, L, or T)
R-2: Two Family (plus suffix S, I, N, A, or L)
R-3: Low Density Multi-Family (plus suffix S, 4, or T)
R-4: High Density Multi-Family (plus suffix R, N, H, U, or M) RM: Mobile Home (no suffix attached)
RP: Residential Planned Unit Development (no suffix
attached)
In addition, the following commercial zones also allow
residential uses:

CNR: Neighborhood Commercial and Residential
CCR: Community R-4-R
CNN:Community R-4-N
CHW: Regional Highway District
Residential zoning districts are defined in the Code as follows:

R-1-S: The R-1-S District is a single-family residential district with small lots. The District recognizes the existing subdivision pattern and is established to accommodate the requirements of a modern home on existing small lots. This Zone is only appropriate in high open space amenity areas such as the Coastal Zone.

R-1-M: The R-1-M District is a single-family residential district with moderate sized lots. This District recognizes the difficulty of developing odd sized and shaped parcels with normal sized lots. It also recognizes the City’s objective of providing more affordable ownership housing and the
effect of lot size on housing costs.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-7
DAppendix
January 2022
R-1-N: The R-1-N District is a single-family residential district with standard lots. This District recognizes the outdoor lifestyle characteristic of Southern California and is established to protect such areas from overcrowding and conversion to higher densities.

R-1-L: The R-1-L District is a single-family residential district with large lots. This District recognizes the need for an open, uncrowded living environment within metropolitan
centers.

R-1-T: The R-1-T District is a single-family district of townhouses.

R-2-S: The R-2-S District is a two-family residential district with small lots. This District recognizes existing subdivision and use patterns in distinct portions of the City and is established to accommodate such patterns without
crowding and congestion. This Zone is generally not
suitable outside of the Coastal Zone.

R-2-I: The R-2-I District is a two-family residential district with intensified development on the lots. This District recognizes existing subdivision and use patterns in distinct portions of the City and allows an intensity of development appropriate only in areas within immediate proximity to public open space.

R-2-N: The R-2-N District is a two-family residential district with standard lots. This District recognizes the need for two-family, moderate density housing with outdoor living space.

R-2-A: The R-2-A District is a two-family residential district with standard lots. This District restricts one (1) unit to a small accessory unit. This District recognizes the desire to maintain the existing character of a community by
retaining single-family dwellings while adding a second unit to the rear.

R-2-L: The R-2-L District is a two-family residential district with large lots. It recognizes the use pattern of two-family dwellings in older, large lot subdivisions. It also encourages the preservation of these neighborhoods and also provides opportunity for spacious, well-designed, two-family
developments.

R-3-S: The R-3-S District is a three-family residential district.

This District recognizes the constraints small lots place on multifamily developments and the adverse consequences
related to large scale multifamily development in existing neighborhoods of single-family use.

R-3-4: The R-3-4 district is a four-family residential district.

The district recognizes the constraints lot size places on multifamily development and the adverse consequences
related to large scale multifamily uses development in
single-family neighborhoods.

R-3-T: The R-3-T district is a townhouse or row house
residential district on small (especially shallow) lots. It is intended for residential lots located along significant traffic arteries where a lot line to lot line, high lot coverage, inward-oriented dwelling is appropriate. This district is typically appropriate in areas in transition from commercial to residential use.

R-4-R: The R-4-R district is a moderate density, multifamily residential district with restrictions on building height. It is intended to provide a moderate density use consistent in scale with existing older and lower density developments.

The district is designed to encourage full development in established moderate density neighborhoods.

R-4-N: The R-4-N district is a high density, multifamily residential district. It is intended to meet the demand of a broad segment of the population which provides a
diversity of housing choices.

R-4-H: The R-4-H district is a high-rise, high density, multifamily residential district. The district is intended to encourage residential development with a distinctive urban living environment.

R-4-U: The R-4-U district is a high-density, multifamily residential district. It is intended to provide housing opportunities in an urban context and design style to
support downtown activity center employment with
adjoining housing.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-8
Appendix
D
January 2022
RM: The RM district is a single-family residential district for mobile homes and manufactured housing. This district recognizes the significant contribution that mobile home housing developments can make toward providing a
diversity of housing choices. This district is established to encourage such development on large sites.

R-4-M: The R-4-M district is a moderate density subdivided mobile home park development district. The district
recognizes the wishes of mobile home owners in rental
mobile home parks to be given the opportunity to own
the space on which their mobile home is located. Such
subdivisions of mobile home parks to resident ownership is encouraged by the State of California as an appropriate method of preserving low-income housing stock.

RP: The RP district is a residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) district. It is intended to encourage innovative, creative developments according to good urban planning
principles, across a range of potential densities providing new and diverse housing opportunities, with integrated
community facilities and benefits. The district is designed to reduce or eliminate rigidity that otherwise may result from the application of traditional development standards, and to encourage the development or recycling of larger parcels of land as coherent, integrated projects. The zoning symbol “RP” must be followed by a number indicating the approved density in DU/ac, such as “RP-12” or “RP-18. ” Despite the variety of zones that allow multi-family the actual area of land covered by these zones is a small
portion of the City. Therefore, the potential for Long Beach to develop multi-family at the appropriate intensities to meet desired housing goals is limited to the minimal areas of City land located along some major corridors. Also, these multi-family areas have their own constraints, because of the required consistency with density and height limits of the LUE.

Commercial zoning districts that allow residential uses are established as follows:

CNR: The Neighborhood Commercial and Residential
(CNR) District is a mixed-use district permitting small scale commercial uses and/or moderate density residential
development at R-3-T densities.

CCR: The Community R-4-R (CCR) District is similar to
the Community Auto-Oriented District, but also permits
moderate density residential development at R-4-R
densities.

CNN: The Community R-4-N (CCN) District is similar to
the Community Auto-Oriented District, but also permits
medium density residential development at R-4-N
densities.

CHW: The Regional Highway District (CHW) is a commercial use district for mixed scale commercial uses located along major arterial streets and regional traffic corridors.

Planned Development Districts (PDs)
The Planned Development (PD) district allows flexible
development standards for areas with unique land uses
that would benefit from special design policies and
standards not otherwise possible under conventional
zoning district regulations. The PD district is designed to promote a compatible mix of land uses, allow for planned commercial/business parks, and encourage a variety of
housing styles and densities. Many of the PD districts have provided the primary opportunities for infill development during the past decade, specifically in PDs 5, 6, 25, and 30.

The City has several PD districts that have not been updated and do not have improved standards to facilitate housing production, such as higher allowable density, which has limited new development in these older districts, compared to the more recent PD30 and SP1, which incorporate more flexible standards to promote residential development.

The new LUE identifies opportunities to update existing PDs to better implement the PlaceTypes, such updating
PD-2 to better align with the intent of the Waterfront and Regional-Serving Facility PlaceTypes.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-9
DAppendix
January 2022
The PD districts with significant potential for residential development are noted below, as defined in the Code:

PD-1 Southeast Area Development and Improvement
Plan: Established residential neighborhoods continue to anchor the area and are complemented by businesses,
restaurants, hospitality uses, and recreational amenities.

The proposed land use plan for the area accommodates a
mix of single-family residential, mobile homes, and multi- family residential uses.

PD-25 Atlantic Avenue: The Atlantic Avenue PD-25
area is transitioning from conditions such as vacant,
underutilized, and deteriorated commercial and residential structures and incompatible land uses, to include new
schools, banks, residences, and shopping opportunities.

PD-25 aims to ensure that recycling and reinvestment
results in high-quality development and compatible uses that complement and serve the adjoining residential
neighborhoods. New workforce, senior, and family housing developments are developing in this corridor.

PD-30 Downtown: PD-30 is designed to develop the
downtown into a multi-purpose activity center of regional significance and to connect the various districts of
downtown into a cohesive and functional whole. PD-30
residential districts include the: Mixed Use District, East Village Mixed Use District, West End Residential District, and East Village Residential District. Typical densities range from 31 to 54 units per acre, with unlimited higher densities available to high-rise buildings in the Downtown Core.

Uptown Long Beach- UPLAN
As part of the earliest Land Use Element implementation efforts, the City of Long Beach in collaboration with the North Long Beach community, developed and completed
Phase 1 of the Planning Land Use & Neighborhood Strategy in Uptown (UPLAN) in 2019. The rezoning to implement the land use vision was adopted in December 2020. The zoning included the following zones:

RMU3 and RMU3 A-Series Residential Mixed-Use 3 zones
are residentially focused and permit a range of residential configurations with limited neighborhood-serving
non-residential uses. Use may be configured in a horizontal or vertical mixed-use format.

RMU4 and RMU4 A-Series Residential Mixed-Use 4
zones are residentially focused and permit higher density residential uses in areas where multi-family housing is currently dominant use. These zones permit intensification of existing residential areas to increase housing
opportunities and introduce neighborhood-serving,
non-residential uses in proximity to residents.

MU-1 and MU-1 A-Series Mixed-Use 1 zones provide for
medium-scale, mixed-use development as a transition
between residential and mixed-use nodes. These zones
permit mixed residential and non-residential uses in a wide variety of configurations.

MU-2 and MU-2 A-Series Mixed-Use 2 zones provide for
neighborhood activity centers in proximity to bus routes and multi-modal corridors. These zones permit horizontal and vertical mixed-use appropriately scaled for adjacent neighborhoods.

MU-3 and MU-3 A-Series Mixed-Use 3 zones provide for
the highest intensity neighborhood activity centers in
proximity to bus routes and multi-modal corridors. These zones permit horizontal and vertical mixed-use scaled
for the highest intensity uses that benefit from transit proximity and pedestrian activity.

While UPLAN is an example of the implementation
opportunities available under the new LUE, as noted above, consistency requirements between the zoning code and
the LUE may impact development feasibility if density and height limits in the LUE are overly restrictive.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-10
Appendix
D
January 2022
C. Development Standards
These zoning districts and associated development
standards provide for the development of a variety of
housing types in the City. Tables D-2 and D-3 summarize the development standards for each zone, including
the UPLAN zones. Table D-4 summarizes the residential
densities allowed for multi-family districts. These tables are followed by an analysis of constraints of major categories of standards, such as parking, lot requirements, and height.

Currently, a majority of higher density residential
development occurs in areas with Planned Development
(PD) zoning, due to the flexibility in development standards built into the PD regulations, as well as other market
related factors such as the desirability of residential in PD areas, such as Downtown. As demonstrated later in Section IV, Housing Resources, and Appendix C, most development anticipated in PD zones is intended as high-density multi- family and/or mixed-use developments, at densities 30
units per acre or higher. This assumes a rezoning program (Program 1.1) to align the zoning regulations with the new Land Use Element PlaceTypes, which allow higher densities in PD-1 and PD-25. For example, in PD-30 (Downtown Core), there are no limits to height or density. The requirement for parking is one space per unit, without distinction by the number of bedrooms, a significant reduction from the 1.5 to two spaces that are generally required for units of one or more bedrooms in the City. With the reduced requirement for parking and no limit to height or density, developments have exceeded 200 units per acre in this area.

As shown in Table D-3, the City is developing new zones to implement the LUE, specifically new context sensitive mixed-use zones which allow for a variety of uses, standards which promote more urban and walkable development
patterns, and reduced parking requirements (see Table
D-7).

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-11
DAppendix
January 2022
Table D-2: Residential Development Standards
District
Max.

Units
Per
Lot
Density Min.

Lot
Area
(sq. ft.)
Max. Height
Max. Lot
Coverage
(% of Lot)
Min.

Usable
Open
Space
Floor
Area
Ratio
Min. Lot
Area Per
Unit (sq.
ft.)
Max.

Dwelling
Unit/
Acre
R-1-S 1 2,400 18 2,400 28 ft. N/A 6% 1.2
R-1-M 1 3,600 12 3,600 25 ft. N/A 6% 0.67
R-1-N 1 6,000 7 6,000 25 ft. 50% 16% 0.6
R-1-L 1 12,000 4 12,000 25 ft. 40% 23% 0.6
R-1-T 1 3,000 15 3,000 25 ft. N/A 6% 1.2
R-2-S 2 1,200 36 4,800 28 ft. N/A 2% 1.3
R-2-I 2 1,000 44 4,800 35 ft. N/A 2% N/A
R-2-N 2 3,000 15 6,000 25 ft. 60% 6% 0.6
R-2-A 2 3,000 15 6,000 25 ft. 60% 6% 0.6
R-2-L 2 4,000 11 8,000 35 ft. 40% 8% N/A
R-3-S 3 2,100 21 6,300 25 ft. N/A 250 sq.
ft./ unit N/A
R-3-4 4 1,700 26 4,500 25 ft. N/A 200 sq.
ft./ unit N/A
R-3-T N/A See Table D-4 3,000 28 ft. N/A 250 sq.
ft./ unit N/A
R-4-R N/A See Table D-4 18,000 28 ft. N/A 150 sq.
ft/ unit N/A
R-4-N N/A See Table D-4 18,000 38 ft.
(3 stories) N/A 150 sq.
ft./ unit N/A
R-4-H N/A See Table D-4 18,000 Varies (5-24 stories) 50% 150 sq. ft./ unit N/A
RM N/A 2,400 18 18,000 30 ft.
(2 stories) 65% 200 sq.
ft./ unit N/A
R-4-U N/A See Table D-4 22,500 65 ft.
(5 stories) N/A 150 sq.
ft./ unit 3.0
R-4-M 1 3,100 14 3,100 20 ft. 75% 10% N/A
RP - 1,200 36 2,400
25 ft: within 50 ft. of R-1, R-2, or
R-3 zoning district; 38 ft: other
area within PUD
N/A 6% 1.3
Suffix denotes: S = small lot; M = moderate lot; N = standard lot, L = large Lot; T = townhomes; I = intensified development; A = accessory unit; H= high rise; U = urban; RM = mobile homes
Source: Municipal Code, City of Long Beach
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-12
Appendix
D
January 2022
Table D-3: UPLAN Development Standards
Development Standard
Zones
RMU3/RMU3-A RMU4/RMU4-A MU-1-/MU-1-A MU-2-/MU-2-A MU-3-/MU-3-A Minimum Lot Size1 3,000 sq. ft.

Maximum Number of
Stories 3 4 3 3 4
Maximum Building Height 45 ft. 60 ft. 45 ft. 45 ft. 60 ft.

Building Placement and Activation
Primary Frontage (min. required public realm > building setback – measured from curb face to building face (ft.)2,3,⁴ Residential Stories 1-3 15 ft.⁵
Non-Residential Stories 1-3 10 ft.

Upper Stories 4th Story
and Above N/A
5 ft. greater
than the
average setback
of the lower
floors

N/A N/A
5 ft. greater
than the
average setback
of the lower
floors
Secondary/All Other Street
Frontages 10 ft. 8 ft. 8 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.

Balconies 10 ft.

Interior Building Setbacks3
Alley 12 ft. from the centerline of the alley
Adjacent to existing single-family houses within R1 zones, where not separated by an alley Floor 1-2 15 ft.

Floor 1-2 20 ft.⁶
Upper Floors 0 ft.⁶
Active Ground Floor Condition, Min. Required Per Lot/Development Primary Frontage⁷ 25% 25% 25% 25% 50%
Secondary Frontage⁷ - - - 25% 50%
Notes:
1 Minimum only applies to new subdivisions of existing lots. 2 Due to the variable existing right-of-way dimension, setbacks from streets (primary, secondary, and other frontages) shall be measured from curb face to building face.
3 Projections are permitted in the required setbacks in accordance with Section 21.32.220(C). 4 When street dedications, street improvements and/or easements are required that would alter the location of the curb, setbacks shall determine to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services or the Director of Public Works. Where not additional dedication is anticipated and narrow sidewalk conditions occur, the depth of the setback shall allow for an adequate minimum unobstructed path of travel and other pedestrian amenities, when combine with the public sidewalk, and balance the objective of maintaining the development feasibility of shallow lots. Alignment of front building facades should be also be maintained and should be within two feet of abutting properties. 5 A minimum depth of 5-feet of the setback area shall be hardscaped and/or landscaped. Stoops are required for residential units facing a street. 6 Measured parcel line to building face; adjacent to single-family houses within R1 zones. 7 See Map Atlas, and Section 8 for standards.

Source: City of Long Beach, Title 22 (Uplan Zoning Code)

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-13
DAppendix
January 2022
Table D-4: Residential Densities for Multi-Family Districts District Site Area (sq. ft.) Site Width (ft.) Permitted Density by Site Area (sq. ft.) Per Unit
Density
Range (units
per acre)
R-3-T
0-3,200
3,201-15,000
15,001 or more
0-25
26-120
121 or more
1 unit per lot
1 unit per 3,000 sq. ft.
1 unit per 2,400 sq. ft.
13-18
R-4-R
0-3,200
3,201-15,000
15,001 or more
0-25
26-120
121 or more
1 unit per lot
1 unit per 1,500 sq. ft.
1 unit per 1,450 sq. ft.
13-30
R-4-N
0-3,200
3,201-15,000
15,001-22,500
22,501 or more
0-25
26-120
121-180
181 or more
1 unit per lot
1 unit per 1,500 sq. ft.
1 unit per 1,200 sq. ft.
1 unit per 975 sq. ft.
13-45
R-4-H
0-3,200
3,201-15,000
15,001-22,500
22,501 or more
0-25
26-120
121-180
181 or more
1 unit per lot
1 unit per 1,500 sq. ft.
1 unit per 1,200 sq. ft.
1 unit per 175-310 sq. ft.
13-249
R-4-U
0-3,200
3,201-15,000
15,001-22,500
22,501-30,000
30,001 or more
0-25
26-120
121-180
181-240
241 or more
1 unit per lot
1 unit per 1,500 sq. ft.
1 unit per 975 sq. ft.
1 unit per 500 sq. ft.
1 unit per 400 sq. ft.
14-109
Suffix denotes: N = standard lot, T = townhomes; H = high rise; U = urban Note:

The density allowed shall be that provided in the row corresponding to the site width and area. If the site width and area are in ranges located in different rows, then the higher of the two (2) densities is allowed.

Source: Municipal Code, City of Long Beach
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-14
Appendix
D
January 2022
C.1 Parking Requirements
Parking requirements for residential districts vary by the number of bedrooms in a housing unit, location of the
development, type of permitted use, and other criteria
associated with the demand for parking generated by
the particular development. Table D-5 details parking
requirements by residential type citywide and in Downtown Long Beach.

Except for Downtown, the UPLAN area, and the Coastal
Zone, the City’s parking regulations do not vary depending on context, which prevents the City from reducing required off-street parking in instances where appropriate based on anticipated demand. (In Los Angeles, for instance, the Cornfield Arroyo Specific Plan does not mandate parking minimums in the area covered by the specific plan, which is pedestrian-friendly and adjacent to public transit.) In addition, only garage parking is permitted to satisfy requirements for residential units. The existing parking regulations encourage and maintain an auto-centric
development pattern, requiring dedication of developable land to surface parking instead of other uses, such as
housing, or forcing construction of expensive structured parking to meet minimum requirements, a cost which is
typically passed on to the renter. Parking requirements have been a problem especially in applications for a change of use, as there is inadequate space in older developments to accommodate additional parking requirements. As
part of interviews conducted during the 2019 Code Audit commissioned by the City, stakeholders noted current
parking requirements, when coupled with other constraints such as height and density, can hinder new residential
development if parking area takes up a significant portion of developable land and reduces development capacity,
thus rendering projects financially infeasible. This is especially true for smaller lots and for projects targeting ‘missing middle’ product types or obtainably priced units.

The City does offer some incentives in an attempt
to prevent parking standards from constraining the
development of certain types of housing. For example, the Planning Commission may reduce parking requirements
to one space per three bedrooms for residential projects for lower income seniors and disabled residents in areas with available on-street parking or near transit. However, in several parts of the City on-street parking is limited in supply, making this finding difficult to achieve. Parking is also reduced for special group residences to one space per two beds. These parking incentives do not take
into consideration reduced parking demand for other
(non-senior) lower income households, or how the cost
of parking may impact the affordability of rental housing when the cost of onsite parking is coupled with the rental price of the unit.

In the coastal zone, the California Coastal Act encourages the City to preserve public coastal access. To ensure more on-street parking is maintained for public use, in areas already facing limited parking availability, the City requires an additional 0.5 spaces per one-bedroom unit and all
other unit sizes have the same parking requirements
as citywide (except in PD-30, where one space per unit
is required regardless of unit size). Given the desirable location, even small units (especially in the Belmont Shore area) are often occupied by households with two cars.

Specifically, the City conducted a parking study in Belmont Shore to identify appropriate parking standards for the area. To balance the need for parking for coastal access, business uses, and housing, the Zoning Code allows several incentives: tandem parking for low-income housing units when projects include 10% or more of the units on-site as low-income units and for projects of 20 units or more to satisfy the parking requirements for one-bedroom units in the PD-30 and the PD-5 districts. Moreover, PD districts also allow for shared use guest parking for mixed-use projects.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-15
DAppendix
January 2022
The UPLAN code adopted in December 2020 includes
context sensitive parking regulations (see Table D-7 ), which result in a significant reduction in minimum parking required for residential units of all sizes as compared to citywide standards. In addition, parking may be
“unbundled” from the unit, parking is rounded down when performing calculations, there is no new parking required for a change of use of an existing structure, and parking are subject to future affordable housing incentives (in progress).

Table D-5: Parking Requirements
Use Required Number of Spaces
Residential Use Citywide Coastal Zone
0 bedroom (< 450 sq. ft.): 1.0 space/unit 1.0 space/unit 1 or more bedroom 1.5 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit
2 bedrooms or more 2.0 spaces per unit 2.0 spaces per unit Guest parking 1.0 space/four units 1.0 space/four units Special Residential Uses Market Rate Unit Below Market Rent Handicapped1 1 space/1 bedroom 1 space/2 bedrooms
Senior Citizen1 1 space/1 bedroom 1 space/2 bedrooms
Congregate Care1 1 space/1 bedroom 1 space/2 bedrooms
Residential Care Facility 1 space/bed
Fraternity, Sorority,
Dormitory 1 space/bed
Other Special Group
Residences 1 space/2 beds
Downtown Plan
Dwelling Unit, Shopkeeper
Unit, or Live/Work Unit

1.0 space/unit

1.0 guest parking space/4 units (half of the guest
parking can be shared with commercial use)
Special Group Residence 1.0 space/3 bedrooms
Note:
1 The Planning Commission may further reduce the parking standards to 1 space per 3 bedrooms if it finds that the neighborhoods in which the facility is proposed has ample, readily available on-street parking or is well-served by public transportation and a concentration of senior services.

Source: Municipal Code, City of Long Beach
To address parking constraints citywide, the City proposes Program 2.3, to adjust development regulations to facilitate a variety of housing types consistent with the LUE.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-16
Appendix
D
January 2022
Table D-6: Required Parking for Limited and Conforming Accessory Dwelling Units and Primary Dwellings Use Required Number of Spaces
Coastal Zone and/or Parking Impacted Area
ADU 1 spot in addition to the required parking for the primary dwelling Primary Dwelling Same as existing number of spaces
Other Permitted Area
ADU 0 1.0 space/four units
Primary Dwelling Same as existing number of spaces Below Market Rent Source: Municipal Code, City of Long Beach,
Table D-7: UPLAN Vehicular Parking Requirements
Use Minimum Zone Requirement
RMU3/RMU3-A; RMU4/RMU4-A MU-1-/MU-1-A; MU-2-/MU-2-A; MU-3-/ MU-3-A
Residential
0 – 1 Bedroom 0.751 0.51
2 Bedrooms 1.251 11
3 or more bedrooms 1.51 1.251
Special group residence,
assisted living, congregate
care

0.332 0.252
Senior Housing 0.53 0.333
Live-work Units 1.5⁴ 1⁴
Guest Parking 1.5⁵ 1⁵
Notes:
1 Per unit; See parking incentives for inclusion of affordable housing incentives for inclusion of affordable housing 2 Per bed
3 Per bed; See parking incentives for inclusion of affordable housing 4 Per unit; See parking incentives for inclusion of affordable housing 5 See parking incentives for inclusion of affordable housing Source: City of Long Beach, Title 22 (Uplan Zoning Code) Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-17
DAppendix
January 2022
Table D-8: UPLAN Parking Setback Standards
Zones
RMU3/RMU3-A RMU4/RMU4-A MU-1-/MU-1-A MU-2-/MU-2-A MU-3-/MU-3-A Required Minimum Parking Setback (Measured Parcel Line to Parking (Feet), applicable to surface or structured parking) Primary Frontage, Surface
Parking 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft.

Primary Frontage, Parking
Structure 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft.

Secondary Frontage 6 ft. landscape setback required between sidewalk and parking and shall be landscaped or decoratively hardscaped (not asphalt)
Alley 0 ft.

Adjacent to:

Residential District 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft.

Non-residential or
Mixed-Use District 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft.

Source: City of Long Beach, Title 22 (Uplan Zoning Code) Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-18
Appendix
D
January 2022
C.2 Site Requirements
In general, density, maximum height, and lot coverage
standards determine the number of units that can be
constructed on a given lot.

Density
Density regulations establish the allowed level of intensity in certain areas of the city. The existing Code establishes a variety of density requirements for high density multi- family residential zoning districts (See Table D-4 ) The density requirements have variable thresholds that change depending on the size of a lot, so as the lot size increases, more units are allowed onsite. While unit size impacts
the overall density of a project, the general emphasis on large development on large lots does significantly and
unnecessarily restricts appropriately scaled multi-family infill on small or medium size lots in the same context, which also significantly impacts affordability. The net result is to disincentivize the production of smaller, and potentially lower cost, units.

Additionally, the density regulations do not effectively implement the City’s Land Use Element, which allows for and accommodates a variety of uses and densities in the Founding and Contemporary Neighborhood PlaceType.

The majority of the City’s older, central neighborhoods are zoned R-1 (single-family) or R-2 (two-family). These neighborhoods are built at a higher density than is
allowed by the zone itself, resulting in large amounts of non-conformities in existing residential neighborhoods. As of 2019, the City estimates there are over 4,200 parcels and over 24,000 units that are non-conforming, which limits the ability of property owners to make improvements,
potentially impacting the quality of housing for existing tenants.

There is no residential density limit in the UPLAN mixed-use zones, and mixed-use projects with residential are not
subject to the minimum FAR requirements of the zone.

Areas of the City with residential PlaceType designations (such as Multi-Family Residential-Low) are limited to the allowed density of the PlaceType. The MFR-L PlaceType,
for example, has a maximum density of 29 units per acre.

While affordable housing projects may be feasible at these densities, HCD typically assumes a minimum density of 30 units per acre is needed to facilitate affordable housing.

As mentioned in Section D.1.1., the existing zones under the FCN PlaceType continues to perpetuate development
limitations across a wide area of the city. While these zones do fall under the umbrella density allowed in the FCN
PlaceType, appropriately implementing the full flexibility of the FCN PlaceType can alleviate some of the development constraints resulting from the existing restrictive density standards in R1 and R2 Zones.

While the Code establishes maximum density, projects
are not always able to develop under the maximum
allowed because of the combination of site development
requirements (such as lot size, height, and parking
requirements). A majority of development activity occurs in areas, such as Downtown, that are not subject to
density restrictions. To address the potential for projects outside of these areas this to develop under the maximum allowed density, the City proposes Program 2.3, to adjust development regulations to facilitate a variety of housing types consistent with the LUE.

Height
In Long Beach, the maximum building height ranges from
two stories in the low-density R-1 zone to five stories in the R-4-U zone. High rises are allowed in the core of Downtown PD-30 and along the Downtown Shoreline in PD-5 and
PD-6. The R-4-H zone offers a height incentive up to 24 additional stories if certain lot width and height standards are met.

Additionally, the existing zoning districts which allow mixed-use development (CNR, CCR and CCN) only allow a
maximum 44 units/acre and three stories in the densest of the three zoning districts, CCN.

While the regulations allow a variety of heights, much of the city is currently zoned for a 2-story height limit, which impacts developmental feasibility of medium and higher
density residential product types. Additionally, though the LUE provides more height flexibility by PlaceType, as noted above, the LUE imposes additional height limitations on much of the city despite higher maximum height
allowances outlined for each PlaceType. For example, the Neighborhood-Serving Center or Corridor – Moderate
(NSC-M) PlaceType allows for a maximum of 7 stories, but much of the area covered under this PlaceType is restricted to 3-4-5 stories per the LUE Height Limits map.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-19
DAppendix
January 2022
The new UPLAN mixed-use zones allow up to 4 stories, and 60 feet in the RMU4-A and MU3-A Zones. Combined with
reduced parking requirements, this additional height can help ensure development feasibility in the UPLAN area.

Lot Coverage
Maximum lot coverage standards vary from “none” in some residential zones, to 40% in the R-1-L and R-2-L zones, and no maximum in R-3 and R-4 zones.

When considered alone height and lot coverage standards don’t seem overly restrictive. However, when combined,
current standards substantially limit the achievement of maximum allowed height and density in the zone, and this impacts ability of the City to achieve housing development goals. The principal issue encountered when meeting all three of these standards is inefficient site utilization.

To address this, the City proposes Program 2.3, to adjust development regulations to facilitate a variety of housing types consistent with the LUE.

Table D-9: Housing Types by Residential Zone
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 RM CNR CCR CCN CHW
Single-Family Detached P P P1 P P P P P X
Single-Family Attached P2 P P P X P P P X
Duplex (2 units) P2 P P P X P P P X
Three-Family Dwelling X P3 P1 P X P P P X
Four-Family Dwelling X X P1 P X P P P X
Multi-Family (5 or more) X X X P X P P P X
Townhouse X P3 P P X P P P X
Manufactured Home P P⁴ X X P P P P X
Mobile Home Park C C C C C X X X X
Secondary Units A X X X X X X X X
Small Group Home P P P P P P P P X
Special Group Residence⁵ X X X C X X C C C
Transitional Housing P P P P P X X X X
Supportive Housing P P P P P X X X X
Shelters X X X X X X C C X
P = Permitted C = Conditionally Permitted A = Permitted Accessory Use (by right) X = Not Permitted Notes:
1 Except the R-3-T zone
2 Except the R-1-S, R-1-M, R-1-N, and R-1-L zones
3 Except the R-2-S, R-2-I, R-2-N, and R-2-L zones
4 Except the R-2-A zone
5 Special Group Residence includes residential care facilities, convalescent hospital, senior housing, housing for persons with disabilities, halfway housing, and communal housing.

Source: Municipal Code, City of Long Beach
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-20
Appendix
D
January 2022
Table D-10: UPLAN Residential Uses by Zone
Use
Residential
Mixed-Use
Zones
Residential
Mixed-Use Zones
(A Series)
Mixed-Use Zones Mixed-Use Zones (A Series)
RMU3 RMU4 RMU3-A RMU4-A MU-1 MU-2 MU-3 MU-1-A MU-2-A MU-3-A Single-Family Detached N N N N N N N N N N
Accessory Dwelling Unit Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Live/Work Units Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Multi-Family1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Senior and/or
Handicapped Housing Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Group Home (1-6 Persons) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Special Group Residence N N N N C C C C C C
Emergency Shelter C C N C C C C C C C
Transitional Housing Y Y Y Y NL NL NL NL NL NL
Supporting Housing Y Y Y Y NL NL NL NL NL NL
Note:

1. Residential development shall be limited to attached configurations (rowhomes, townhomes) and detached courtyard-style multifamily development such as bungalows; single-family detached houses are prohibited.

Y – Yes, the use is permitted
N – No, the use is not permitted
C – Conditional use permit required
N/L – Is not listed in the use table for this zone; the Zoning Administrator has the authority to interpret the use as allowed given it is similar to the use listed for RMU zones, but this will be clarified in a future update through UPLAN Phase 2 zoning code updates (see Action 2.3.4) Source: City of Long Beach, Title 22 (Uplan Zoning Code) D. Provisions for a Variety of Housing
Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions must
identify adequate sites to be made available through
appropriate zoning and development standards to
encourage the development of various types of housing
for all economic segments. This includes single and multi- family housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes,
emergency shelters, transitional housing, supportive
housing, and single-room occupancy (SRO) units, among
others. Table D-9 summarizes the housing types permitted within Long Beach’s primary residential zone districts.

Table D-10 lists the permit requirements for residential uses in the City’s UPLAN area. An analysis of these uses follows Table D-10.

In addition to single-family residential opportunities, the following housing types are available for all economic
segments of the community, including lower income
residents, seniors, students, homeless people, and other residents of the City.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-21
DAppendix
January 2022
D.1 Multi-Family
Multi-family housing comprises approximately half of the City’s housing stock. The City’s Zoning Code sub-categorizes multi-family housing units into duplexes, three-family
dwellings, four-family dwellings, and multi-family dwellings with five or more units. Duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and four-family dwellings are allowed in R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones. Multi-family dwellings with five or more units are permitted in the R-4 zones. Additionally, residential uses are allowed in the CNR, CCR, and CCN districts.

Outside of Downtown and the UPLAN area, additional
standards for multi-family residential uses are restrictive, limiting output of multi-family projects. For example, the Code requires 20-to-40-foot rear and side stepbacks on
the upper floors of buildings on lots in the highest density residential zoning district (R-4) if they abut any lower density zoning district. While this type of development standard can help with neighborhood compatibility
and break down the massing of structure, the 40-foot
requirement has the effect of reducing the overall
development potential on a site. This combined with
other use requirements such as the courtyard standard
requirements, can make higher density multi-family
developments difficult to design and potentially infeasible to build. These limitations are compounded by the other constraints imposed by development standards for each
zone, mentioned in Section C, such as height, density,
parking, and lot coverage.

D.2 Mixed-Use Development
Housing can be developed in mixed-use commercial
zones, provided it complies with the specified density
and development standards. Single-family detached,
single-family attached, duplexes, three-family dwellings, four-family dwellings, multi-family, townhouses,
manufactured homes, and small group homes are allowed
in CNR, CCR, and CCN zones. Special group residences are allowed by CUP in CCR, CCN, and CHW zones.

The current zoning regulations for multi-family (above) combined with the limited number of zones which allow
mixed-use, reduce the ability to build mixed-use projects; however, the new LUE opens up more of the City to
residential development by allowing residential uses in most of the PlaceType designations except those strictly reserved for commercial and industrial uses.

The recently adopted UPLAN code further promotes
mixed-use development consistent with the new LUE,
creating new Residential Mixed Use 3 (RMU3 and RMU3
A-series), Residential Mixed Use 4 (RMU4 and RMU4
A-series), Mixed Use 1 (MU1 and MU1 A-series), Mixed
Use 2 (MU2 and MU2 A-series), and Mixed Use 3 (MU3 and
MU3 A-series) zones. While these zones do require active ground floor uses, lobbies, common areas, and units with porches, patios, and stoops can satisfy this requirement.

Other ground floor design requirements, such as entrance and windows are not overly restrictive.

D.3 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
ADUs are permitted in all zoning districts which allow
residential uses. ADUs are not allowed in zones that do not allow residential uses, even if a nonconforming residential use is present. The Zoning Code permits ADUs, provided
the following:
» The unit cannot exceed 50% of the primary dwelling’s
floor area or 800 square feet, whichever is more, up to a limit of 850 square feet for 0-1 bedroom, and 1,000
square feet for 2 or more bedrooms; and
» The unit is subject to minimum housing code compliance and the principal unit must be brought into compliance
before occupancy of the secondary unit is allowed.

The existing regulations for ADUs are not compliant with state law and will need to be updated. (see Program 1.7) D.4 Single-Room Occupancy
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units are one of the most
traditional forms of affordable private housing for lower income individuals, including seniors, and persons with disabilities. An SRO unit is usually small, between 80 and 250 square feet. These units provide a valuable source of affordable housing and can serve as an entry point into the housing market for formerly homeless people.

In 2015, the City adopted an ordinance to include SROs as a Special Group Residence. SROs are limited to occupancy by two persons per unit and shall have on-site management.

Conditions for approval are similar to those required for other special group residence uses in the same zone.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-22
Appendix
D
January 2022
D.5 Mobile/Manufactured
Mobile and manufactured homes make up an important
contribution to the housing stock, especially regarding housing choice and affordability, in the City of Long Beach.

According to the Department of Finance, the City had
2,346 mobile homes in 2019. The RM district allows for
mobile home parks. In addition, mobile home parks are
conditionally permitted in all residential zones provided that the specified requirements are met.

Manufactured or modular housing placed on a permanent
foundation is explicitly permitted in the R-1, R-2 (except R-2-A), and RM zones. Mobile/manufactured homes and
mobile parks have must also comply with supplemental
regulations related to density, parking, recreation areas, and setbacks.

D.6 Emergency Shelter/Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Senate Bill No. 2 (2007) amended Sections 65582, 65583, and 65589.5 of the Government Code relating to local planning.

This bill added emergency shelters to these provisions and required that the Housing Element identify zones in the City where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a Conditional Use Permit. State law defines an emergency shelter as a means of housing with minimal
supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.

In 2020, the City adopted several new regulations to create a new umbrella term, ‘Interim Housing, ’ that encompasses a range of temporary housing including, but not limited to, emergency shelters, transitional housing, bridge
housing, and supportive services such as safe parking
sites. These regulations allow for emergency shelters in more areas, including by-right in multiple industrial zones and a commercial zone, as well as with a CUP in other
commercial, residential, and institutional zones. As a result, emergency shelters are now allowed either by right or
with an entitlement in every council district in Long Beach across more than 2,500 acres, which is a large proportion of the City’s acreage. Though properties that make up the 2,500 acres vary greatly in size, they include many large sites, and as described in Appendix C, the City’s commercial vacancy rates for some sub-markets, such as suburban
market shopping malls, are as high as 50% compared
to just 9% in LA, representing significant opportunity
for redevelopment. These sites are generally well served by public transit, particularly those along commercial
corridors many of which are state -designated high quality transit corridors. Sites are spread throughout the city and the majority of Long Beach is designated by the state as within a high quality transit area. Maps showing the full list of eligible zones that allow various interim housing uses can be found here. In addition to the City’s Multi- Service Center for the homeless in West Long Beach, the newly opened Atlantic Farms (2020) is a permanent shelter available in addition the seasonal winter shelter.

An analysis of the parcels within areas that now permits emergency shelters provides estimates for the typical parcel size and most common existing uses for said properties.

The analysis shows there are a multitude of opportunity sites throughout the City. With the recent code updates, emergency shelters are now allowed in a variety of zones and locations appropriate for human habitability, including in multi-family residential, commercial, and institutional zones found throughout the City, as shown on Figure D-3.

Given the zones where shelters are permitted, some of the largest and most opportune sites in the city are available for siting an emergency shelter.

The Continuum of Care Program, Program 4.1 in the
Housing Plan section of the Element discusses the services and facilities available at Century Villages at Cabrillo (CVC) and the City’s Health and Human Services Multi-Service
Center (MSC). CVC and the MSC are connected along
Santa Fe Avenue via a north/south bus connection. Bus
shelters and bus benches are found along Pacific Coast
Highway, Santa Fe Avenue, and Anaheim Street. According to the City’s Press Release # 100120, since 2015, the City of Long Beach has housed more than 5,000 individuals
experiencing homelessness, with an average of 1,000
individuals annually.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-23
DAppendix
January 2022
Figure D-3: Interim Housing Zoning Code Update
Zones Allowing Emergency Shelters

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-24
Appendix
D
January 2022
The CVC, located nearby in PD-31, is a collaborative
partnership of over a dozen agencies, providing housing and social services program for homeless people, children, and families. Built on a former naval housing site, new housing here ranges from emergency and transitional
shelters to permanent-affordable housing for singles,
families, Native Americans and veterans. Additionally,
support services include childcare, employment
counseling, mental health, and medical care. They also
have a program to help homeless children re-integrate
into the public school system in Long Beach. In 2019, the CVC served over 2,100 residents in a variety of emergency, transitional, and permanent housing settings, including over 500 children and over 1,000 veterans. Since 1997, the Multi-Service Center, a collaborative partnership between the City of Long Beach, the Port of Long Beach, and twelve public and private partner agencies has been located at 1301-1327 W. 12th Street. Services at the Center include:
showers, laundry, mail, medical clinic, employment
assistance, case management, and shelter and housing
placement assistance. The MSC serves almost 13,000 client visits every year.

In October 2020, the City opened the Atlantic Farms Bridge Housing Community (ABC) at 6841-6845 Atlantic Ave. in
North Long Beach- the first of a two-phase project that will include a state-of-the-art campus for housing, services, and a variety of supportive housing targeting individuals experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness.

According to the City’s press release, “the village-style development will help address a critical gap in the City’s Continuum of Care and offer a safe place and supportive resources for individuals experiencing homelessness. ” The

2.28-acre adult community contains dormitory style units with a total capacity of 125, with a temporary limit of 100 persons due to Covid-19. ABC is The site is operated by the non-profit organization, Volunteers of America, Los Angeles (VOALA). Access to the site will be provided through the Multi-Service Center (1301 W. 12th St.) or through outreach services.

The Atlantic Farms Bridge Housing Community is a
low-barrier facility designed to allow people access
whenever they are ready for support. The campus will
operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, year-round. It features:
» Intake, security and COVID-19 health screening space. » Spacious common areas, including:
– A kitchen
– A dining room
– A lounge
– Laundry facilities
» Gender-specific and gender-neutral restrooms and
showers.
» Case management/service connection offices.
» A family respite room (for emergency overnight use).
» Several outdoor amenities, including:
– A dining area
– A dog run and pet relief area
– Charging station
– Storage and parking
Additionally, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the City has operated four temporary shelters offering a variety of necessities and services, including medical and mental health assessments and resources, and transportation for essential errands such as medical appointments, pharmacy and laundromats. There are nearly 250 guests currently
residing at the City’s shelters, which are providing a safe place for those most in need during this unprecedented
public health crisis. The City has also instituted a number of new measures to protect persons experiencing
homelessness from COVID-19, including installing soap
dispensers, handwashing stations or hand sanitizer stations at strategic locations throughout the city, distributing sanitation kits, and conducting outreach in the community.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-25
DAppendix
January 2022
D.7 Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing
In compliance with Chapter 633 of Statutes 2007 (SB 2), jurisdictions are required to consider and treat transitional and supportive housing as residential use subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Section 50675.2(h)
of Health and Safety Code defines transitional housing
as buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that call for
the termination of assistance and recirculation of the
assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months. Section 50675.14(b) of Health and Safety Code defines supportive housing as housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 53260, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.

The City of Long Beach continues to support the conversion of surplus naval property to one of transitional housing facilities for homeless persons. The Century Villages at Cabrillo (CVC), as mentioned above, provides over 300 beds of transitional housing and services for men, women, and unaccompanied youth. The City of Long Beach regulates
transitional and supportive housing as a residential use in the same manner as similar uses in the same zone, as:
» Residential Care Facilities – if they meet the State
definition under the Lanterman Disability Services Act; » Dwelling Units – if they meet the California Building Code definition of a dwelling unit; or
» Special Group Residence – if they do not meet either of the above definitions.

In 2013, the City codified a Zoning Administrator
Interpretation to ensure that transitional and supportive housing is regulated as a residential use and subject to the same conditions for similar uses in the same zone.

The City also adopted 12 new Title 22 (UPLAN) zoning
districts in 2020 as the first new regulations to implement the 2019 Land Use Element update. These zones were
developed simultaneous to the interim housing update,
and although transitional and supportive housing is clearly allowed by-right in some of the UPLAN zoning districts, those uses are not listed in the use table for other UPLAN mixed-use districts. The intention was to allow these uses by-right in all districts. The UPLAN zoning districts will be expanded in 2022, and as outlined in Action 2.3.4, staff will analyze whether any amendments need to be made to
clarify that these uses are allowed in all mixed-use zones in order to ensure clarify and consistency as needed.

D.8 Farmworker/Workforce Housing
California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and
17021.6 requires agricultural employee (farmworker)
housing for six or fewer persons to be permitted by-right in single-family zones and by right for 12 units or 36
beds in agricultural zones. Since the City does not have an agricultural zoning district, the City must only allow farmworker employee housing for six or fewer persons by right in single-family zones.

The City does not currently have specific zoning regulations for farmworker housing.

See program 2.5 regarding workforce housing.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-26
Appendix
D
January 2022
E. Residential Care Facilities
The Long Beach Zoning Code defines residential care facility as “any family home, group care facility or similar facility as determined by the Director of the State Department
of Social Services. A residential care facility provides twenty-four (24) hour non-medical services, supervision or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual. Residential care facility includes board and care facilities, halfway houses, housing for wards of the juvenile court and the like. ” Residential care facilities are included under special group residences and are allowed in R4, CCR, CCN, and CHW
districts with a Conditional Use Permit. Residential Care facilities for 7 or more persons is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the CCR and CCN Zones.

In Long Beach, a “Group home” means any residential
care facility for six (6) or fewer persons who are mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped or supervised. A
group home must be licensed by the State under the
provisions of Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1400)
of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code. Group home does not include any facility for wards of the juvenile court.

The definition of “Single-Family” includes group homes, and therefore residential care facilities for six or fewer persons are allowed in any location where single-family units are allowed, with the same development standards, permit requirements, and parking requirements Based
on an analysis of the use code (Conditional Use Permit
required) and parking requirements for residential and
congregate care facilities for more than 6 persons, the City has determined these regulations may pose constraints.

The City added Action 2.3.2 to evaluate these is existing constraints and amend the Code to regulate use and
parking for large residential care facilities (more than 6 persons) in residential zones the same as other similar uses in the zone.

E.1 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
The City recognizes the need for housing for persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities). The City facilitates the development of housing for persons with disabilities via provisions for special group residences and group homes, depending on the size.
» Small Group Care Facilities . Facilities serving six or fewer persons are regulated under a “group home” ,
as defined above. In compliance with the Lanterman
Developmental Disabilities Services Act, the City of
Long Beach permits the siting of State-licensed small
group homes serving six or fewer persons by right in all residential zones.
» Special Group Residences. The Zoning Code defines
special group residences to include (but not be limited to): residential care facilities, convalescent hospitals, senior citizen housing, housing for persons with
disabilities, halfway houses, and communal housing.

Special group residences are allowed in R4, CCR, CCN,
and CHW districts with a Conditional Use Permit.

Social services in support of housing for persons with
disabilities are classified in the Zoning Code as Institutional uses. Social services with food distribution are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the CNA, CHW, and CCN Zones.

Social services without food distribution are permitted in the CNP , CNA, CNR, CCA, CCP , and CCR zones with an Administrative Use Permit and the CCN and CHW zones by
right.

The City of Long Beach encourages the development of
special group residences as noted below:
» Special group residences are eligible for a density bonus incentive of up to 100% above the density allowed in
the underlying zone district. In a non-residential zone, density shall be limited to one unit per 200 square feet of lot area, which translates into a density of approximately 217 units per acre.
» Handicapped housing, senior housing, and congregate
care facilities that are low rent have a reduced parking requirement of only one parking space per two
bedrooms. Residential care facilities require only one
space per bedroom.
» Over concentration of uses is prevented by Code Section

21.52.271, requiring 1 ½ mile distance between special
group uses.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-27
DAppendix
January 2022
The City contains several housing and supportive uses,
including 14 privately owned housing complexes for
elderly or non-elderly persons with disabilities.

Definition of Family
In 2015, the City of Long Beach revised the definition of family to “two or more persons that occupy a dwelling
unit and live together as a single housekeeping unit.

A family has established ties and familiarity with each other; jointly uses common areas, interacts with each
other, shares meals, household activities and chores,
expenses and responsibilities. Membership in a
family is fairly stable as opposed to transient. Family members have some control over who becomes a
member of the family, and the residential activities
of the family are conducted on a non-profit basis.

Typically, each member of a family has access to all
parts of the dwelling unit and the members of the
family have close social, economic, and psychological
commitments to one another. ”
The definition of family does not present a constraint
to housing for persons with disabilities.

Building Code
The City adopted the 2019 California Building Code,
effective on January 1, 2020. No unique restrictions
are in place that would constrain the development
of housing for persons with disabilities. Compliance
with provisions of the Building Code is reviewed and
enforced by the Building Division of the Development
Services Department as a part of the building permit
submittal.

Planning/Processing Fees
Group homes are permitted by right and no permit
fees are required. Special group care facilities (for
more than six persons) require a CUP and a processing
fee. However, given the number of large residential
care facilities located in the City, the City’s processing fee is not seen as a constraint to the development of
housing for persons with disabilities.

Reasonable Accommodation
It is the policy of the City, pursuant to the Federal
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, to provide
people with disabilities reasonable accommodation
in rules, policies, practices, and procedures that may
be necessary to ensure equal access to housing. The
City has adopted specific procedures in the Zoning
Code (Chapter 21.25, Division XIII) for processing
reasonable accommodation requests.

In order to make specific housing available to persons
with disabilities, a disabled person or representative
may request reasonable accommodation relating to
the various land use, zoning, or building laws, rules,
policies, practices and/or procedures of the City. If
an individual needs assistance in making the request
for reasonable accommodation, or appealing a
determination regarding reasonable accommodation,
the Development Services Department will provide
the assistance necessary to ensure that the process
is accessible to the applicant or representative. The
applicant is entitled to be represented at all stages
of the proceeding by a person designated by the
applicant.

A request for reasonable accommodation in laws,
rules, policies, practices and/or procedures may
be filed on an application form provided by the
Development Services Department at any time that
the accommodation may be necessary to ensure
equal access to housing.

When a request for reasonable accommodation is
filed with the Development Services Department,
it will be referred to the Zoning Administrator or
Building Official for review and consideration. The
Zoning Administrator or Building Official will issue
a written determination within 30 days and may
(1) grant the accommodation request; (2) grant
the accommodation request subject to specified
nondiscriminatory conditions; or (3) deny the request.

All written determinations will give notice of the
right to appeal and the right to request reasonable
accommodation on the appeals process, if necessary.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-28
Appendix
D
January 2022
The following findings must be analyzed, made, and
adopted before any action is taken to approve or
deny a request for reasonable accommodation:
◊ The housing will be used by an individual protected
under the Fair Housing Act.
◊ The request is necessary to make the housing
available to an individual protected under the Fair
Housing Act.
◊ The requested accommodation will not impose an
undue financial or administrative burden on the
City.
◊ The requested accommodation will not require a
fundamental alteration of the zoning or building
laws, policies and/or procedures of the City.
◊ For housing located in the coastal zone, a request
for reasonable accommodation will be approved
by the City if it is also consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). Where a request is
not consistent with the LCP , the City may waive
compliance if the City finds:
• The requested accommodation is consistent, to
the maximum extent feasible, with the LCP; and,
• There are no feasible alternative means for
providing an accommodation at the property
that would provide greater consistency with the
L C P.

The City defines a group home as one for no more than
six persons. A request for reasonable accommodation
relating to increased occupancy of a group home can
be filed with the Zoning Administrator. A hearing with
the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission
is required to act on a request to increase the number
of occupants for a group home. A decision must be
made within 30 days by the Zoning Administrator or
within 60 days by the Planning Commission.

F. Incentives for Affordable Housing
To encourage the development and conservation of
affordable housing, the City has adopted an enhanced
density bonus ordinance that goes above and beyond
state law (while leaving the option for a developer to still take advantage of state density bonus law), streamlined processes and procedures for affordable housing
development, impact fee waivers including a new waiver
for moderate-income units, as well as various other
incentives. These ordinances encourage higher density
housing that is affordable to special needs populations and remove potential constraints to development, while
preserving affordable units in the coastal zone.
» Density Incentives – To ensure ongoing compliance
with State density bonus regulations, Long Beach has
adopted the State density law by cross-referencing
Government Code Section 65916 et seq. in Chapter

21.63 (Incentives for Affordable Housing). By doing so, it provides a density bonus of up to 50% to facilitate the development of lower income housing, moderate-
income condominiums, and housing for seniors. The
City also adopted an Enhanced Density Bonus program
in September 2021 that offers density increases,
incentives, and concessions beyond those provided by
State law. This Enhanced program offers up to 100%
bonuses for areas near high-quality transit in exchange for the inclusion of affordable housing units and more
stringent no net loss provisions.
» Waiver of Fees – In addition to the density bonus, parks and recreation and transportation development fees are
waived for affordable housing if the criteria on length of affordability and income/affordability level are met.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-29
DAppendix
January 2022
» Relaxed Standards – In conjunction with the density
bonus ordinance, certain development standards may
be relaxed if increased density cannot be physically
accommodated on the site. This provision follows a
priority order specified in the Zoning Code and the
applicant must show that the density bonus cannot be
achieved with each sequential waiver before the next
waiver is allowed. The priority order is:
– Percentage of compact parking
– Tandem parking design limitations;
– Privacy standards;
– Private open space;
– Common open space;
– Height;
– Distance between buildings;
– Side yard setbacks;
– Rear yard setbacks;
– Number of parking spaces (but not less than one
space per unit); and
– Front setbacks.

If the developer believes that with the density bonus
and the additional incentives, the provision of lower
income housing, moderate income condominiums, or
senior citizen housing units is not financially feasible, then the developer may submit a project pro forma
demonstrating the deficiency.
» Long Beach Emergency Rental Assistance Program
(LB-ERAP) – In early 2021, the State legislature passed SB-91 to extend the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act. In
addition to providing a five-month extension on the
State’s eviction moratorium, SB-91 also developed a
rental assistance program funded by Federal stimulus
funds. LB-ERAP implements tenant protection laws
enacted by SB-91. This program provides rental and
utility assistance to income-qualified tenants, for both past-due bills and future payments. The program
prioritizes lower-income tenants who have been
unemployed for 90 days or more and more likely to be
at risk of housing instability.
» Inclusionary Housing – In January 2021, the City
adopted a new inclusionary housing policy, requiring
new residential projects with 9 or more units to set aside 10-11% of units for affordable housing (depending
on for sale or rental). The requirements apply in select portions of the City, such as Downtown and the Midtown
corridor, which follows the Long Beach Boulevard
corridor north to Wardlow Road, where the majority of
residential development is occurring. Developers have
the option to build on-site, within 2 miles of the site, or pay an in-lieu fee, contributing to a City affordable housing fund for new construction. The requirements
are only triggered in remaining portions of the City
when site plan review is required. Affordability would
be mandated for 55-years, consistent with affordability requirements for lower income units, such as units
receiving Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).

The City approved a phased approach, with the most
stringent affordability requirements and in-lieu fees
beginning in 2023.

Although compliant with State Law, the City should
continue to monitor the incentives provided to maintain and ensure effectiveness, including the recently adopted ADU Amnesty Ordinance.

See Program 1.10: Unpermitted Dwelling Unit Amnesty
Program and Program 2.1 Development Incentives.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-30
Appendix
D
January 2022
G. Replacement Policies
State Housing Element law requires a review of the City’s success in maintaining affordable units in the coastal zone.

Pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65590, “the
conversion or demolition of existing residential dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income…shall not be authorized unless provision has been made for the replacement of those dwelling units with
units for persons and families of low or moderate income. ” However, the GC further stipulates several exemptions to the replacement requirement. Specifically, GC 65590(b)(3) provides the following exemption:
“The conversion or demolition of a residential structure located within the jurisdiction of a local government
which has within the area encompassing the coastal zone, and three miles inland therefrom, less than 50 acres, in aggregate, of land which is vacant, privately owned and available for residential use. ”
The City of Long Beach is primarily built out with limited vacant, privately owned, residential land in or within three miles of the Coastal Zone. The most significant opportunities for residential use within three miles of the Coastal Zone has been in the Downtown area, generally parking lots that were formerly owned by the City’s redevelopment agency.

Nevertheless, the City of Long Beach adopted its own
ordinance (LBMC 21.61 - Maintenance of Low Income
Housing in the Coastal Zone) in 1988, providing for
one-for-one replacement for very low, low and moderate
income housing units removed by new construction or
conversion to other non-residential uses. Affordable units may be replaced on site in a new housing development,
off site, or through the payment of in lieu fees. These fees range from $10,000 to $30,000 per displaced unit. In 2021 the City amended its Ordinance to update the in lieu fees to reflect current replacement costs as well as to eliminate exemptions to replacement requirements; fees now range
from $127,000 to $404,000.

In the City’s Coastal Zone, since 1980, approximately 446 new units have been built. Additionally, 375 affordable units have been demolished and 54 affordable units have been converted to market-rate condominiums for a total
of 429 units. Through its replacement policy the City has provided 778 affordable units within the Coastal Zone or 3 miles of its boundaries since 1980, nearly double the required replacement credits of 429 units.

H. Condominium Conversion
In Long Beach, conversion of low-income apartments to
condominiums is regulated by LBMC 21.60, which requires that low- or very low-income households that would be
displaced be given 18-months prior written notice of
the intended displacement. A developer can reduce the
noticing requirements to only 3 months’ notice if they
set aside at least 10% of the converted apartments to
be affordable to low-income households or at least 5%
affordable for very low-income households, for a period of 10 years. Additionally, existing residents are given an opportunity to purchase a converted unit, and lower-
income households may receive relocation assistance of
up to $8,441 for relocation costs.

D.1.3 Building Codes and Enforcement
Long Beach has adopted building and safety codes in order to preserve public health, safety, and welfare. To implement these codes, the City has various code enforcement
programs designed to address building and neighborhood
conditions. These building codes and their enforcement
have the potential to significantly increase the cost of development, maintenance, and improvement of housing.
» Building Codes - Long Beach has adopted and enforces
the California Building Code (CBC) that establishes
standards pertaining to the construction of housing and inspection at various stages of construction to ensure
code compliance.
» Accessibility Codes - The Federal Fair Housing Act of 1998 and the American Disabilities Act (ADA) are federal laws that are intended to assist in the provision of safe and accessible housing. These regulations were codified in Title 24, Part 2, known as the California Building
Code and apply to newly constructed multi-family
dwelling units in building with three or more units or in condominium projects with four or more units. The City
of Long Beach has adopted and enforces compliance
with these standards to comply with federal law.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-31
DAppendix
January 2022
» City Code Enforcement - The City’s Development
Services Department enforces State and local regulations governing the maintenance of residential buildings.

The Code Enforcement Division administers programs
to facilitate neighborhood upgrading, including
property maintenance, weed abatement, and other
citywide programs. In addition, the City implements a
Neighborhood Improvement Strategy (NIS). The NIS
program aims to improve the quality of life in specific CDBG-targeted areas through a partnership of City staff, other agencies and neighborhood residents.
» Community Code Enforcement - The Community
Code Enforcement program is designed to customize
actions to fit the needs of a specific neighborhood.

Target areas under the program are selected upon the
presence of established, active community groups, and
the need for code enforcement to assist in stabilizing
and improving the neighborhood. The City provides
the community with an individual point of contact and
City staff members who can coordinate with various
governmental agencies in addressing multi-faceted
problems.

Building codes and their enforcement increase the cost
of housing investment and can impact the viability of
rehabilitating older properties required to be upgraded to current code standards. To the extent this makes the cost of housing production or rehabilitation economically infeasible, it could serve as a constraint. However, these regulations are similar to other cities in the region, provide minimum standards for safe and accessible housing, and
thus are not considered to be an undue constraint upon
housing investment. Additionally, in early 2021, the City adopted an informal dwelling unit amnesty program to
allow unpermitted dwelling units to be legalized through a by-right process in which they only have to meet basic health and life safety standards, instead of being required to come into compliance with today’s codes (see Program

6.6).

Furthermore, the 2021 International Building Code (IBC) contains three new construction types that allow the use of mass timber and cross-laminated timber (a type of mass timber) for buildings of taller heights, more stories above grade, and greater allowable areas compared to existing provisions. This update will alleviate the financial burden of expensive construction materials for taller product types, as timber is more affordable than steel.

Some nearby communities are considering making
modifications to the building code and limiting the use of combustible materials contradicting the above allowance of wood for more products, especially in fire-prone areas.

These types of local motions supplement the state and
national building code, a trade-off which can further
constrain housing development.

The City has adopted local amendments that augment and
enacts the state’s building standards code, including, but not limited to, green building standards, that the City has deemed is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. The City is:
» Traversed by the Newport-Inglewood Fault System, is
near the San Andreas Fault, and is surrounded by other
earthquake faults;
» Located in a region considered by experts to be one of the most active seismic regions in the world;
» Supported by a Fire Department whose resources could
be greatly delayed or overwhelmed in the event of a
seismic emergency;
» Within or near flood-prone areas that are capable of
maximizing public and private losses during times of
flooding in specified flood hazard areas;
» Impacted by an impermeable layer of clay that lies
between the City’s surface and the groundwater basin
underneath the City, preventing precipitation that falls locally from replenishing the basin; and
» Implementing initiatives, goals and actions to create a more sustainable Long Beach, and specifically calls out goals for green building and sustainable development,
urban nature, waste reduction, and water and energy
conservation.

The intent of the local amendments is to (1) minimize,
prevent and protect the community from natural hazards
such as earthquakes, floods, fires, etc., and (2) improve the health and welfare of the community through green
building and sustainable construction practices. Some of these amendments may increase building/development
costs. Though they could be seen as constraints in the short term, they have been deemed necessary to ensure
the long-term safety of the City and its residents and
are therefore not considered by the City to be undue
constraints.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-32
Appendix
D
January 2022
Long Beach’s Code Enforcement bureau operates primarily on a complaint-based system. Code Enforcement also
has a Proactive Rental Housing Inspection Program
(PRHIP), under which staff conduct periodic inspections of residential rental properties to assure compliance with all applicable building, housing, and sanitation codes and ordinances. Code Enforcement estimates at a 120-day
turnaround period to resolve most violations, depending on available staff resources. Procedurally, complaints
received by Code Enforcement are assigned to the area
inspector and the complaint is inspected within 2 weeks. If a violation is observed, an Administrative Citation Warning notice is given to the owner along with resource information on how to resolve the violation. The owner is given 20 to 30 days to correct their violations, and a reminder notice is given half-way through their compliance date, 10 to 15 days.

If resolved by the compliance date, the case is closed. If significant progress is made, an extension is granted. If no progress has been made, an Administrative Citation is made, and the case continues. After another 20 to 30 days period, a re-inspection is done again and if no progress has been made, a 2nd citation is given, and the case is referred to the City Prosecutor.

Code Enforcement provides informational resources to
those they cite, including an application for the City’s Home Improvement Rebate Program that provides rebates
for improvements to the exterior façade of owners homes, as well as information on the City of Long Beach’s Language Access Program which provides service to those who speak Spanish, Khmer, and Tagalog, the four Long Beach city
languages.

To ease the burden of code compliance on lower-income
households, in July 2021 the City Council has temporarily established a prohibition on lease terminations and
evictions that were previously permitted when a property was undergoing a substantial remodel . An action within Program 5.2 (Tenant Protection) of the 6th Cycle HEU
also directs staff to explore the feasibility of establishing this as a permanent program. Similarly, Program 5.3
(Home Rehabilitation) continues the provision of housing rehabilitation assistance to lower-income households in the form of the Home Improvement Grant Program, Multi-
Family Rehabilitation Loan program, and Lead-Based Paint Hazard Abatement program.

Lastly, Program 5.4 (Comprehensive Code Enforcement)
outlines the City’s commitment to ensuring code
enforcement does not result in the citation of households without the resources to address violations. Under this program, code enforcement activities will be paired with connections to social service and economic support that anticipates cultural differences, language barriers, and financial constraints. This program is also complemented by Program 6.6 (Unpermitted Dwelling Unit Amnesty
Program), adopted in January 2021, which provides
a pathway for ministerial legalization of unpermitted
dwelling units to maintain existing housing stock and
prevent displacement.

D.1.4 Permit, Processing, Procedures
A. Permits and Procedures
Communities can encourage needed reinvestment in
the housing stock by reducing the time and uncertainty
involved in obtaining development permits. Pursuant to
the State Permit Streamlining Act, governmental delays are recommended to be reduced by: (1) limiting processing
time in most cases to one year; and (2) by requiring
agencies to specify the information needed to complete an acceptable application. Table D-11 provides an overview of the permits, approvals, and review authority.

A.1 Site Plan Review
The requirements and process for Site Plan Review (SPR) are clearly specified in the City’s Zoning Code. SPR is required for all types of development, not only housing development. The interdepartmental committee that
conducts SPR includes planning, building, public works, fire, water, gas and police. The committee meets twice a month to provide feedback on and guide development
applications. Residential projects of less than five housing units typically do not require committee review. Projects with 5 to 49 units that comply with all standards and have no other zoning entitlements are only subject to Staff Site Plan Review. Planning Commission Site Plan Review
is required for developments with 50 or more units, and projects that require a Negative Declaration or Conditional Use Permit. The requirement for Planning Commission
review of projects with 50 or more units is waived for 100% affordable projects, thanks to a code amendment adopted in 2020.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-33
DAppendix
January 2022
A residential project of 50 or more units is also required to submit a conceptual site plan for review by staff prior to formal site plan review.

At the Site Plan Review, the review committee (either
staff or Planning Commission) can request reasonable
conditions for approval of the site plan, including:
» A revised site plan;
» Reduced building height, bulk or mass;
» Increased setbacks;
» Changes in building material;
» Changes in rooflines;
» Increased usable open space;
» Increased screening of garages, trash receptacles,
motors or mechanical equipment;
» Increased landscaping;
» Increased framing, molding or other detailing;
» Change in color; or
» Other changes or additions that are necessary to further the goals of the site plan review process.

Projects that undergo review by the SPR Committee must
meet the findings of LBMC 21.25.506 for approval of the project. The findings laid out for Site Plan Review approval of a development project consist of a determination that a project’s design is harmonious, consistent, complete
within itself, and compatible with neighboring structures and the community in which it is located. This finding is used to ensure a project is compatible as part of the review process to apply reasonable conditions of approval. The second finding is that the design of a project conforms to any applicable special design guidelines adopted by
the Planning Commission or specific plan requirements
(findings 1 and 2). The nature of these two findings can be considered constraints to housing projects in that
the findings do not specify concrete, quantitative data from which determinations can be made on a project’s
consistency with such standards. The first finding, in
particular, is subjective in nature and can create uncertainty for the developer of a housing development project when trying to design a project that meets code and that can also be found to be consistent, harmonious, and compatible
with neighboring structures and the community. The other four findings, which relate to whether the design of a project will remove mature or street trees, whether the project conforms with Transportation Demand Management
requirements, whether the project is consistent with
codified green building standards, and a finding related to compliance to no-net-loss requirements are objective in nature, which can better allow for a developer to address in the design of the project and the proposal. Lastly, finding #4 which requires there to be an essential nexus between the public improvement requirements and the likely
impacts of the proposed development.

According to the process flowchart provided by LBDS on
the Department website, projects which require Planning Commission approval take approximately 9.5 months
without continuances or appeals, and at least 14.5 months with continuances and appeals.

Most projects go through site plan review, and as reported in the Code Audit Report, there are concerns that the site plan review process, via the Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC), “is unnecessarily complicated, inconsistent,
requires too many potentially duplicative review meetings, and exercises too much discretion regarding architecture and design. ” One reason for these problems may be
because the threshold for site plan review is too low, which overburdens the SPRC caseload causing delays in review
and response to applicant questions. The conceptual site plan review process may not be working as intended, may be duplicative of the pre-application process, and should be evaluated for effectiveness and impact on project
approval. ”
To facilitate multi-family residential and mixed-use
developments, the City offers pre-application study
sessions with the Planning Commission at no cost to the applicants. These pre-application study sessions allow the applicants to gain an understanding in the City’s goals and objectives for the project site, and therefore be able to craft a project that can take advantage of the flexibility offered through the PD zoning regulations and address City issues and concerns.

In addition, the SPRC has authority the to waive certain development standards, including standards that may
make a critical difference to the feasibility of a project. The list of possible waivers includes requirements for open space, courtyard dimensions, and guest parking, among
others. Specific findings are necessary for such waivers, in addition to the required findings for approval.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-34
Appendix
D
January 2022
A.2 Development Services Center
Pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, the Permit
Center serves as a one-stop processing counter staffed
with representatives from various City departments. In
particular, the Planning Counter processes the following:
coastal permits, standards variances, conditional use
permits, subdivision maps, certificates of compliance, lot line adjustments, and condominium conversion permits.

Permits issued by other counters at the Center include
sewer permits, health permits, and all building, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical permits for new buildings and
additions/alterations to existing buildings. In many cases, developers can apply for permits via the City’s website. By offering a consolidated services center and web access, the City can effectively reduce the costs of processing routine permits and facilitate and encourage housing production.

The City of Long Beach is committed to governance
transparency by providing all Plans, Zoning Code, Building Code online. Additionally, the Department provides
informational bulletins, online applications and forms, as well as publishes a variety of data and documentation publicly online, including status of site plan committee project reviews.

A.3 Review and Approval Timelines
The Long Beach Department of Development Services
(LBDS) defines the development review process from
application submission until the Notice of Final Action.

According to the process flowchart provided by LBDS on
the Department website in 2020, projects which require
Planning Commission approval take approximately 9.5
months without continuances or appeals, and at least

14.5 months with continuances and appeals. Project
timelines can vary and are, in part, dictated by the level of environmental analysis required. Projects requiring an EIR can take longer; projects eligible to take advantage of CEQA streamlining provisions can experience, shortened
estimated timeline.

The general procedure for processing a Planning Permit
application begins by speaking with Planning staff to find out what planning discretionary actions and environmental clearances are required, calculating the fees based off the required permits and approvals, and preparing the
necessary plans. Once the plans are submitted and the
fees are paid, staff will review the submission materials and stay in contact with the applicant if any corrections are necessary. If the project requires a public hearing, staff will provide the applicant with a laminated 30” x 40” Notice of Public Hearing poster which must be displayed on site no later than 14 days before the hearing and will provide public notice of the hearing according to the Code requirements. The number of hearings required varies but once an approval is granted, there is a 10-day appeal period before the applicant can apply for building permits.

Lengthy review periods, multiple application revisions, and delays in approval can increase the time it takes to process development applications, increasing cost of
development. As noted above, the City complies with
permit streamlining requirements and has developed a
one-stop-shop for applications in effort to reduce delays.

However, there are additional factors within the City’s control that can contribute to delays and increased costs to housing development. Most significantly, the majority of properties in the city have not yet been rezoned to
implement the 2019 LUE PlaceTypes. In these cases,
development projects that are consistent with the LUE but inconsistent with the existing zoning require a discretionary zone change to move forward. This additional zone change can lead to associated delays from a City Council hearing and potential appeals, as well as an increase in the cost of the corresponding entitlement process (for further
discussion, see Sections D.1.1.A and D.1.1.B). Program(s) 1.1 in the Housing Plan directs the City to update the zoning regulations consistent with the LUE, eliminating this
constraint. Also, SB330 The Housing Crisis Act, authorizes approval of projects consistent with the General Plan, if the zoning regulations are in conflict with the General Plan.

This will help reduce delays in approving projects under the LUE while the City updates the zoning code.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-35
DAppendix
January 2022
Table D-11: Zoning Approval Procedures
Type of Procedure
Responsible Hearing Body Notice
Required
Hearing
Required
Chapter/
DivisionSPRC ZA PC CC
Zoning Regulations
Amendment Recommend Decision Yes Yes Chapter 21.25
(Division I)
Zone Change Recommend Decision Yes Yes Chapter 21.25
(Division I)
Conditional Use Permit Decision Appeal Yes Yes Chapter 21.25 (Division II)
Variance Decision Appeal1 Appeal1 Yes Yes Chapter 21.25 (Division III)
Administrative Use Permit Decision Appeal1 Appeal1 Yes Yes Chapter 21.25 (Division IV)
Site Plan Review (Initial
Hearing) Decision Decision/
Appeal2 Appeal2 No No Chapter 21.25
(Division V)
Classification of Uses Recommend Decision No No Chapter 21.25 (Division V)
Establishment of Planned
Development District Recommend Decision Yes Yes Chapter 21.25 (Division VII)
Special Setback Lines Recommend Decision Yes Yes Chapter 21.25 (Division VIII)
Local Coastal
Development Permit Decision Appeal1 Appeal1 Yes Yes Chapter 21.25 (Division IX)
Density Bonus (General
Plan) Decision Appeal Yes Yes
Determination of Applicable Law (Initial Hearing) Decision Appeal Yes Yes Chapter 21.25 (Division XI)
Interim Park Use Permit Decision Yes Yes Chapter 21.25
(Division XII)
Establishment of Specific
Plans Recommend Decision Yes Yes Chapter 21.25
(Division VII)
Key:

SPRC- Site Plan Review Committee ZA- Zoning Administrator PC- Planning Commission CC- City Council Notes:
1 The Zoning Administrator may refer such application to the Planning Commission for consideration. In this case, the City Council shall serve as the appeal body.
2 Planning Commission establishes types of projects subject to Planning Commission review. Such projects can be appealed to the City Council Source: Table 21-1 (Discretionary Review Responsibilities) Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-36
Appendix
D
January 2022
Delays can also occur through the City’s processing system.

The City’s Development Permit Center accepts applications both in person and online. Certain minor construction
projects can be reviewed in person at the public counter by appointment only, and all construction projects can
be submitted by email for plan check. According to
the City’s website, processing times for plan submittal intake up through inspection request for construction
projects will vary depending on the project type, size, and complexity, and take on average 2 to 4 months for most
construction projects that are submitted by email. The City offers faster permitting times for minor projects, such as minor additions. Multiple logistical processes within the City’s existing review systems contribute to obstacles in housing project approval. For example: staffing vacancies and turnover can lead to inconsistency in comment and
approval or delays in plan check; the existing software is inadequate and results in submittal and processing delays for applicant and staff; the inability to automate electronic plan checks increases processing time; and the difficulty in obtaining construction inspection appointments can result in occasional work site delays.

A sampling of 23 housing development projects that
were submitted to the City in the last 10 years (2010-
2020) were analyzed to calculate average processing
times at various project milestones. Based on the data, the average timeline for a housing development project
to obtain entitlement approval is 228 days. This timeline is driven by the level of review required for the projects, as well as the environmental review. The majority of the entitlements required Site Plan Review approval by the
Planning Commission at a public hearing. Additionally,
most of the projects required, at a minimum, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or a checklist to the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) to either the
Downtown area (PD-30) or the Midtown area as projects
proposed in these areas are subject to a Program EIR. The length of time between an applicant receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application
for building permits is 255 days on average, this includes projects that were subject to appeals filed by a third party, as well as projects with requested modifications to the original approved entitlement
The average time it takes for an entitled housing
development project to obtain building permit issuance
is 922 days. The latter timeline is more than four times the amount it takes for a housing development project to be entitled, which presents significant delays in an applicant beginning construction of a housing development.

Programs to streamline the plan check process can include additional staffing resources, an applicant guide to clarify the level of detail needed in the construction document set prior to plan check submittal, as well as what is to be expected in the review process by both Building and
Safety and Planning/Zoning as the building permit review is concurrent.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-37
DAppendix
January 2022
B. Permit and Development Fees
B.1 Planning Fees
Development service fees charged by local governments
contribute to the cost of maintaining, developing, and
improving housing. Long Beach collects fees to recover the costs of processing permits and providing the necessary services and infrastructure related to new development.

Table D-12 summarizes the common planning fees
charged for providing associated services for new housing development.

The City conducts an annual assessment of its service fees to ensure that they reflect the cost of providing services and attempts to keep fees in line with other communities.

Fees are generally increased based on a comparative
survey and increase in the Consumer Price Index. Fees are generally not waived, because they represent the actual cost for service, are a relatively minor portion of the total building valuation, and therefore are not considered to be an undue constraint upon the production or maintenance
of housing.

An analysis of typical projects the City’s Building and Safety Bureau has found that the City’s fee structure does not unnecessarily burden multi family development. The case study analysis suggests that mixed use and affordable
developments had significantly lower permit fees as a
percentage of their overall valuation compared to single family developments Table D-13 represents a review of fees associated with Single Family, Mixed-use residential, Affordable Housing, commercial conversion and expansion to residential (involves new construction), and commercial conversion to residential (no new construction); this
includes the per-unit permit costs and total permit costs as a percent of project valuation.

In general fire/life safety permits along with permits for mechanical and structural systems were required for
multiunit development. Inspection and certification of these systems are required by the building code and are reflective of the more complex systems that are required when compared with single family housing.

Table D-12: Development Services Fees
Services Provided Single- and Multi-Family Units1
Administrative Use Permit $3,380.22/permit
Conditional Use Permit – Major $7,812.42 / permit
Conditional Use Permit – Minor $4,485.60/ permit
Local Coastal Development Permit – With Other Planning Permit Required $1,105.38/ application
Local Coastal Development Permit – No Other Planning Permit Required $2,824.86/ application Modifications – No Hearing (SSPRC approval) $1,660.74/ modification Modifications – Zoning Administrator hearing $3,380.22/ modification Modifications – Planning Commission hearing $4,485.60/ modification Site Plan Review: Conceptual $5,537.58/ application plus $3.20/ 100 sq. ft.

Committee (staff ) Approval $6,648.30/ application plus $3.20/ 100 sq. ft.

Planning Commission Approval $10,028.52/ application plus $3.20 / 100 sq.

Standard Variance $4,485.60/ application
Zoning Amendments: Zoning Ordinance (map) $12,741.24/ zone change Tentative Maps: Condo Conversion $10,012.50 plus $181.56/ unit Final Maps: Condo Conversion $2,256.68/ application plus $175.15/ unit Vesting Final Map $2,256.68/ application plus $175.15/ unit or lot General Plan Amendment $12,741.24/ amendment
Note: 1 All fees include 6.8% surcharge. Source: City of Long Beach, Development Services Department, June 2020 Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-38
Appendix
D
January 2022
Table D-13: Permit Fees
Single
Family
Mixed Use
(Residential
component)
Affordable
Housing (below
market rate)
Affordable
Housing (below
market rate)
Conversion to
Residential (no
new construction)
Total Cost per unit to
pull permits: $30,408 $8,355 $17,446 $10,810 $9,205
Total Permit Cost $30,408 $1,821,473 $697,855 $302,704 $18,411 Project Valuation: $300,000 $40,000,00 $15,000,000 $2,000,000 $57,000 Permit Cost as share of
project valuation 10% 5% 5% 15% 32%
B.2 Impact Fees
In addition to planning fees, the City of Long Beach charges various development impact fees upon new development.

In contrast to service fees that recover the costs of
providing services, impact fees are intended to fund the improvements in infrastructure and services needed to
accommodate new housing development. For instance,
common examples include school fees, park and recreation fees, sewer fees, and transportation improvement fees.

Table D-14 below details these impact fees. School fees are set by the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) pursuant to State legislation. The City does not assess or collect the fees on behalf of LBUSD.

To ensure that development impact fees are reasonably
related to the costs to extend infrastructure, public
services, and facilities, the City conducts a periodic nexus study that links service costs to the actual impacts of the development. However, to ensure that fees do not
constrain the production of affordable housing, the City waives development impact fees – parks and recreation
and transportation improvement fees – for housing that is dedicated as affordable to lower income households.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-39
DAppendix
January 2022
Table D-14: Development Impact Fees
Services Provided Fee
School Impact Fee*
Level 1 $3.79 / sq. ft.

Level 2 (New Construction) $4.14 / sq. ft.

Sewer Capacity Fee
Required on new residential, nonresidential, or change of use (when additional sewer capacity is required) development for the purpose of construction, reconstruction, maintenance and operation of the Sewer System. $108.93
Required on new residential, nonresidential, or change of use (when additional sewer capacity is required) development as outlined in the Douglas Park Development Agreement for the purpose of construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and operation of the Sewer System.
$67.82
Fire Facilities Fee
Single-Family $496 / dwelling unit
Multi-Family $378 / dwelling unit
Accessory Dwelling Unit $241.74 / dwelling unit
Police Facilities Fee
Single-Family $703 / dwelling
Multi-Family $537 / unit
Accessory Dwelling Unit $342.86 / dwelling unit
Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee**
Single-Family $4,613.04 / dwelling unit
Multi-Family $3,562.78 / dwelling unit
Mobile Home Dwelling $2,619.63 / unit pad
Accessory Unit (Artist Studio, Caretakers Unit, Personage, ADU) $1,781.39 / dwelling unit Transportation Improvement Fee**
Residential $1,125.00 / dwelling unit
Accessory, up to 220 sq.ft.

Secondary, up to 640 sq.ft
$236.25 / dwelling unit
$663.75 / dwelling unit
Senior Citizen $663.00 / unit
Notes:
* Not assessed or collected by the City of Long Beach
** Exempt for housing that is affordable to low-income households Source: Development Services Department, City of Long Beach, 10/1/19 Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-40
Appendix
D
January 2022
D.1.5 Site Improvements
Site improvements are an important component of new
development and include water, sewer, circulation, and
other infrastructure needed to support development.

Long Beach requires pro-rata payments for off-site
extension of the water, sewer and storm drain systems,
and pro-rata payments for traffic signals. It requires the developer to construct all internal streets, sidewalks, curb, gutter, affected off-street arterials, and landscaping.

New residential construction will occur as infill, where infrastructure is in place. While these impact affordability, these requirements are deemed necessary to maintain the quality of life desired by City residents, and are consistent with the City’s General Plan goals to ensure that public services and facilities are in place at the time of need, thus avoiding the overloading of existing urban service systems.

A review of three typical projects that recently underwent the Site Plan Review process demonstrated that when
off-site conditions were imposed, conditions generally required the improvement of the public right-of-way.

For example, the projects required the improvement of
sidewalks, planting of street trees, construction of storm drain system connection, and provision of community
amenity spaces. An example of an on-site improvement
for one of these projects was the required installation of a lighted guest parking sign visible to motorists for improved public safety. The three projects reviewed ranged from 23 to 108 housing units and included Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and a zone change.

Off site improvements to the public right-of-way may
be conditioned, as deemed necessary by Public Works,
pursuant to LBMC 21.47.030. Sidewalk, parkway, curb and gutter, street tree, and bicycle trail improvements may be conditioned for any projects regardless of whether the development requires SPR, if the improvement is deemed
necessary by Public Works. The types of public right-of-way improvements required for residential projects depends
upon the number of housing units proposed, where 21
housing units is the threshold for roadway, traffic, street signage and lighting, and utility relocation improvements.

Table 47-2 of the municipal code summarizes the
dedication, reservation and improvement requirements
for all development projects. LBMC 21.47.040 provides
relief from such requirements provided that the dedication and/or improvement is not necessary for a public
purpose generated at least in part by the development
or that the cost of the dedication and/or improvement is proportionally excessive when compared to the scale of
the project or demand generated from the project.

Table 47-2 Summary of Dedication, Reservation and Improvement Requirements for All Development Projects Right-of-Way Improvements
Projects
Reservation
(applies
only to
designated
highways)
Dedication
(streets,
highways and
alleys)
Sidewalk,
Parkways, Curb
and Gutter,
Street Trees, and
Bicycle Trail
Alley Paving,
Alley
Lighting,
Utilities
Relocation
Roadway
Paving, Traffic
Signals, and
Street Signs,
Street Lights,
and Utilities
Relocation
Residential projects with 21 units
or more and all nonresidential
projects requiring Site Plan Review
- X X X X
Residential projects requiring Site
Plan Review with less than 21 units - X X X -
Projects not requiring Site Plan
Review but located on major,
minor, or secondary highway

X - X - -
All other projects - - X - -
Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-41
DAppendix
January 2022
Table D-15: Housing Type (2010-2019)
Unit Type 2000 2010 2019
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent
Single Detached 69,014 40% 74,257 42% 70,123 40%
Single Attached 10,093 6% 10,105 6% 7,675 4%
Total Single-Family 79,107 46% 84,362 48% 77,798 44%
Two to Four 23,386 14% 21,610 12% 23,821 14%
Five Plus 66,637 39% 67,418 38% 71,786 41%
Total Multi-Family 90,023 53% 89,028 51% 95,607 55%
Mobile Homes & Other 2,529 1% 2,342 1% 2,464 1%
Total Housing Units 171,659 100% 175,732 100% 175,869 100% Source: Department of Finance, Table E-5, City/County Population and Housing Estimates Section D.2 Non-Governmental
Constraints
The City is dedicated to helping meet the housing needs of all residents in Long Beach. The City’s housing stock, however, is impacted by a number of factors that can either incentivize or limit the development, maintenance, and
improvement of housing. In order to achieve its housing goals, the City reviewed these factors, which can consist of both non-governmental (i.e. market) constraints and
governmental constraints, which are within the City’s
ability to influence. This section provides a summary of the review of these non-governmental constraints.

D.2.1 Housing Context
A. Housing Types in Long Beach
The City’s housing consists of a variety of housing types.

In 2019, Long Beach has a total of 175,869 housing units in the city, 44% of which were single-family houses, 55% of which were multi-family, and 1% of which were mobile homes.

Since 2010, overall housing stock in Long Beach has not changed, though the housing mix has shifted to fewer
single-family houses and more multi-family units. The stock of single-family houses decreased by 8%, while the stock of multi-family homes, concentrated in the Downtown, grew
by 7%, averaging about 731 new units per year citywide.

Across the City’s single-family houses, the majority are single-family detached. Less traditional forms of housing, such as mobile homes, consisted of approximately 1% of
the City’s housing stock.

B. Housing Type by Geography
Given current and historical zoning and real estate
investment patterns, certain types of housing are more
prevalent in certain areas of the city. High-density multi- family housing is concentrated in the Downtown, the Traffic Circle Area, and along Marina Pacifica. Medium- and low- density multi-family housing surrounds the Downtown
in the southern part of the city. Single family housing is largely located in the northern portion and eastern half of the city as depicted in Figure D-4.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-42
Appendix
D
January 2022
Figure D-4: Housing Type by Census Tracts
Housing Element Update 6th Cycle
Long Beach, CA
Housing Type
by Census Tract
0 0.5 1
Miles VERSION: FINALDATE: 6/17/2021 SCALE: 1 to 90,000
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table DP04
High-Density Multifamily Attached
Medium-Density Multifamily Attached
Low-Density Multifamily Attached
Single Family Detached
No Data
Census Tracts
0 0.5 1
Miles
Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-43
DAppendix
January 2022
C. Age of Housing Stock
Overall, the City has an older housing stock. 70% of
housing in Long Beach is over 50 years old, compared to just 61% across LA County. Cities with an aging housing stock need to ensure its housing does not fall into disrepair to continue to provide a healthy, safe living space. Older units have historically served as a source of market-rate naturally occurring affordable housing. This process,
known as “filtering” , requires the construction of new housing to replace the aging stock. In markets with a lack of new construction, even older housing can continue to command premium rents. There are a number of factors
that influence filtering that can contribute to a shortage of entry-level housing. This includes taxation benefits of long-term ownership of Proposition 13, which results in overconsumption of housing. Because of patterns of
urban development, older housing tends to be closer
to employment locations. With increasing pressure on
transportation systems, there is a premium on housing
locations near employment.

Table D-16: Housing Units by Year Built
Year Built
Housing
Units
Added
Total
Housing
Units
% of
Housing
1939 or earlier 39,822 23%
1940-1949 22,293 62,115 36%
1950-1959 37,932 100,047 58%
1960-1969 23,462 123,509 71%
1970-1979 21,781 145,290 84%
1980-1989 13,279 158,569 91%
1990-1999 8,747 167,316 96%
2000-2009 4,494 171,810 99%
2010 or later 1,622 173,432 100%
Source: ACS 2018 1-year Estimates, Table B25036
Figure D-5: Number of Building Permits
Source: Census Building Permits Survey
Source: ACS 1-year Estimates, Table DP04
D. Building Permit Activity
Since 2000, Long Beach has permitted a total of 8,065
units, or an average of 403 units per year. (Note: building permit figures are distinct from the number of housing
units physically constructed.) Much of the permits were issued from 2017 to 2019, during which over 2,500 units have been permitted in Long Beach, with the majority for projects permitted in the Downtown area.

E. Vacancy Rate
Despite strong housing production in the past several
years, the housing market in Long Beach continues to be strained. Evidence of increased housing pressure can be seen in the city’s vacancy rate. A low vacancy rate indicates there are too few units to meet the demand for housing.

Per real estate industry standards, healthy housing markets have a vacancy rate of 5% for rental properties and 1.5% for ownership properties. In 2018, Long Beach’s vacancy rate was 4.1% for rental properties and 0.5% for ownership properties, suggesting low inventory and greater demand for housing.

Since the 2008 Recession, vacancy rates for both ownership and rental properties have fallen below what is considered a healthy vacancy rate. As a result, prices increase and make housing unaffordable for many.

Figure D-6: Vacancy Rates
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-44
Appendix
D
January 2022
62 64
67 65
56 61
66 62
67 55
62 67
Housing Element Update 6th Cycle
Long Beach, CA
Median Unit Age
by ZIP Code
0 0.5 1
Miles VERSION: FINALDATE: 6/17/2021 SCALE: 1 to 90,000
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, T able B25035
67 66
65 64
62 61
56 55
ZIP Codes
0 0.5 1
Miles
Figure D-7: Average Age of Units by Zip Code
Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-45
DAppendix
January 2022
D.2.2 Market Activity
A. Market Overview: Home Value Single Family
As of February 2020, the median home value for a single- family home in Long Beach was $666,500. After dropping
$329,100 in April 2012, Long Beach home values have
rebounded and continued rising. Since 2010, Long Beach
home values are typically slightly above but have generally kept pace with the County as a whole.

Figure D-8: Median Home
Home values range wildly across the city, from $515,000 in 90810 to $1.2 million in 90803. Home values are generally higher in the east side of Long Beach, which includes the 90803 neighborhoods of Belmont Shores and Marina
Pacifica.

Source: Zillow Home Value Index, Aug 2020
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-46
Appendix
D
January 2022
$505,700
$744,400
$514,900 $718,600
$556,800
$705,300
$1,202,500
$514,500
$583,100
$614,700
$913,400
$583,100
Housing Element Update 6th Cycle
Long Beach, CA
Home Value index
by ZIP Code
0 0.5 1
Miles VERSION: FINALDATE: 6/17/2021 SCALE: 1 to 90,000
Source: Zillow Home Value Index, Aug 2020
$505,700
$514,500
$514,900
$556,800
$583,100
$614,700
$705,300
$718,600
744400
913400
1202500
ZIP Codes
0 0.5 1
Miles
Figure D-9: Zillow Home Value Index by Zip Code
Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-47
DAppendix
January 2022
Higher rents can offset the cost of development. Thus,
areas that command higher rents are more likely to attract private market-rate development. Areas with the highest rents are located in the east side, which include 90815 (Los Altos), 90803 (Belmont Shore and Marina Pacifica), and
90808 (Lakewood Village and Rancho Estates).

Figure D-10: Median Rents Over Time
B. Market Overview: Rental
Rental housing rates for Long Beach have trended similarly to the County. As shown below, the median rental unit in Long Beach in 2018 is $1,252. Since 2010, Long Beach rents grew by 21% while rents in LA County grew by 24%.

Source: ACS 5-year Estimates, Table DP04
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-48
Appendix
D
January 2022
1212
1175
1865
1832
1307
1411
1703
1147
1189
1360
1455
1189
Housing Element Update 6th Cycle
Long Beach, CA
Median Rent
by ZIP Code
0 0.5 1
Miles VERSION: FINALDATE: 6/17/2021 SCALE: 1 to 90,000
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, T able DP04
1,147
1,175
1,189
1,212
1,307
1,360
1,411
1,455
1,703
1,832
1,865
ZIP Codes 0 0.5 1
Miles
Figure D-11: Median Rent by Zipcode
Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-49
DAppendix
January 2022
C. Risk of Displacement
Governmental and market constraints on new
development have continually stymied housing supply,
especially affordable housing. Low levels of housing result in greater demand for available units and ultimately higher market rents. With rapidly rising rental rates across the city, residents in some areas are more at risk of displacement relative to others. The following graph depicts the
displacement risk of residents by census tract. This risk is measured through two variables: the proportion of renters paying 30% or more of their income in rent, and the
proportion of households earning 70% or less of AMI. Each census tract is grouped into three categories:
» High risk of displacement, relative to others: These census tracts were above the median for both variables
» Moderate risk of displacement, relative to others: These census tracts were above the median for one of the
variables
» Low risk of displacement, relative to others: These
census tracts were below the median for both variables
Housing Element Update 6th Cycle
Long Beach, CA
Displacement Risk
by Census Tract
0 0.5 1
Miles VERSION: FINALDATE: 6/17/2021 SCALE: 1 to 90,000
High
Moderate
Low
No Data
Census Tracts
0 0.5 1
Miles
Figure D-12: Displacement Risk by Census Tract
Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-50
Appendix
D
January 2022
Census tracts with the highest risk of displacement
(where households scored above the median on both
housing cost burden and the percentage of households
earning 70% or less of the AMI) are on the west side of Long Beach, particularly in North Long Beach, Cambodia
Town, Eastside, and East Village. This assessment generally overlaps with the geographic segregation of communities of color in Long Beach (as shown in the Needs Assessment Figure D-2).

D. Development Costs and Timing
The cost of development is one of the biggest factors
influencing the rate and type of housing produced. Major development costs include construction costs, soft costs (such as permitting costs, impact fees, and contractor fees), and the cost of land. The amount of time a developer waits between receiving entitlements and applying for building permits can also add to the cost.

D.1 Capital Costs: Hard
According to a March 2020 report published by the
Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley,
construction costs for multifamily housing in California have climbed 25% between 2009 and 2018. This increase
is in part due to the higher cost of building materials, such as wood, concrete, and steel, as well as prevailing wage requirements. Construction costs can vary depending on
the type of development, ranging from the most expensive steel-frame Type I construction to the more affordable
wood-frame Type V. Due to the smaller scale, single-family houses tend to be more expensive to construct on a PSF
basis than multi-family. The cost of construction in the Long Beach area is about $168 per square foot. This cost can fluctuate depending on the type and quality of amenities to the property, such as expensive interior finishes, fireplace, swimming pool, etc. In addition, hard costs can also include a demolition expense if there are existing structures on-site, or costs for land improvements that must be made before development, such as remediation or infrastructure. The cost of parking can also have a large impact on the total cost of development.

The cost of labor has also soared. The construction sector has not been able to expand to meet the demand for new
housing. The Terner Center found that, between 2009 and 2018, the number of permitted units has increased by 430 percent while the number of workers in the construction industry has only grown by 32%. In addition to the worker shortage, projects with prevailing wage requirements cost an average of $30 more per square foot. The Terner Center found that it is more expensive to build in Los Angeles (and its surrounding areas) and in the Bay Area than in other regions of California, even for similar projects.

Overall, construction costs are similar across the region, so it is not considered a constraint that is particular to the City of Long Beach. They are, however, a relevant constraint to development in the Southern California region, impacting both market-rate and below market-rate housing.

D.2 Capital Costs: Soft
Soft costs are the costs that are not directly incurred by the physical construction of the development. These
costs include services for architectural, consultant, and legal services, as well as permitting requirements and
impact fees. They generally range from 15-30% of total
development costs, but can fluctuate depending on local fees and exactions.

For a more detailed list of permit and exactions, please refer to Table D-12 and D-14.

D.3 Land Costs
The cost of land can often constrain development,
particularly if future market rents are not expected to be high enough to justify the land sale or redevelopment
opportunity. In the past, the Long Beach Redevelopment
Agency would write-down the cost of Agency-owned land
for developers in exchange for affordable housing. Since its dissolution in 2012 and the subsequent loss of funding, the City has not had a mechanism by which to reduce the cost of land for development.

Typical land cost estimates in Long Beach range between $30 to $70 per square foot. The cost of land is similarly high across the Southern California region. In Long Beach, much of the land cost is driven by the reverence of single- family home development, constraining net new housing
supply and propelling property values. Higher land costs can impede development feasibility to produce lower cost housing due to prevailing rental rates.

Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-51
DAppendix
January 2022
process. A housing development project that includes a Lot Merger request and that also requires review by the Site Plan Review Committee can move forward with Site
Plan Review first for design review of the project and upon approval, the Lot Merger part of request can be processed on-consent by the Zoning Administrator.

In terms of common ownership, the City’s findings for
approval of a lot merger require contiguous parcels held by the same owner. Therefore, the Lot Mergers the City has processed have involved parcels that are owned by the
same property owner.

An additional analysis of the residential projects requiring lot mergers over the past 5 years returned 9 such projects.

Of those 9 projects; 2 were in Quarter 4 of 2021 and are still under review, 6 were approved with an average approval
date 2 months from the submittal of the application. This analysis provides an adequate reflection of the streamlined approval process for lot mergers.

On average, the merged sites were 33,253 square feet
in size, with the nine projects range from 15,000 square feet (involving an adaptive reuse of existing hotel rooms to micro-units as part of the Micro-Unit Pilot Program) to 50,002 square feet. Only three of the projects were larger than an acre in size. The sites are located in a variety of LUE PlaceTypes and zones including the Downtown and
Midtown plans as well as the R-4-N residential zoning
district. LUE PlaceTypes represented include Downtown,
Transit-Oriented Development – Low (TOD-L), Transit-
Oriented Development – Moderate (TOD-M), and Multi-
Family Residential – Moderate (MFR-M).

Lastly, the City is currently in the process of updating its Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20). One of the goals of that update is to make the lot merger process more
administrative, which will reduce the processing time and cost associated with lot mergers. The change will also allow the Zoning Administrator the discretion to allow
a lot tie, for example for an affordable housing is under a strict timelines. As part of this update, Staff is also seeking to make the lot mergers process more user-friendly than it currently is by codifying what shall be submitted with a lot merger application such as a title report etc., and what details to include in the exhibits such as the legal description(s) and plat map itself to help minimize the processing time for lot mergers.

D.4 Development and Timing
A sampling of 23 housing development projects that were submitted to the City in the last 10 years (2010-2020) were analyzed to calculate average processing times at various project milestones. Based on the data, the average timeline for a housing development project to obtain entitlement approval is 228 days. The length of time between an
applicant receiving approval for a housing development
and submittal of an application for building permits is 255 days on average, this includes projects that were
subject to appeals filed by a third party, as well as projects with requested modifications to the original approved
entitlement.

An analysis of the aforementioned sampling showed
that approximately 39% of those residential entitlements included a lot merger or lot consolidation component. Of the 39% that included a lot merger or lot consolidation, 5 of the 9 projects were also 100% affordable projects while the remaining projects were market rate. 44% of sites in the inventory are single-parcel sites, while another 40% only contain 2 parcels. Using a front-end method of filtering out sites, staff filtered out sites with more than 3 unique property owners. Yet, 6 the 9 lot mergers analyzed involved more than 3 lots, while 2 involved 3 lots and only one
merger involved 2 lots. Thus the City does not anticipate that lot consolidation will be a significant obstacle to development where needed for sites in the Site Inventory.

Application requirements for a lot merger and clearly
and transparently outlined in the City’s Planning Permit Application to help applicants understand the review
process:
» Lot Merger, Lot Line Adjustment, Certificate of
Compliance:
» Revised Legal Description
» Plat Map showing changes to lot lines
» Wet Stamp by California-licensed Land Surveyor (or
Civil Engineer licensed before January 1, 1982, license numbers 33965 and lower)
Planning application fees were recently updated in
September of 2021, and the lot merger fee is now inclusive of the required Certificate of Compliance, totaling
$1,636.20. The Lot Merger review process entails review by the Zoning Administrator. When Lot Mergers are agendized for Zoning Administrator review, they are generally
processed on consent, which helps to also streamline the Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-52
Appendix
D
January 2022
F. Availability of Financing
The availability of financing can impact rates of home ownership. The ability to secure financing can be influenced by several factors, including creditworthiness, debt-to-income ratio, and the restrictiveness of mortgage lending standards.

Reviewing data collected through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) can reveal the role the lending market has had on local home sales.

Table D-17: Home Loan Approvals
2019 2011
Total
Applications
%
Approved
%
Denied
%
Withdrawn
or
Incomplete
Total
Applications
%
Approved
%
Denied
%
Withdrawn
or
Incomplete
Government-
backed 791 74% 9% 17% 1,899 72.2% 13.1% 14.6%
Conventional 3,863 75% 7% 18% 2,737 75.7% 12.2% 12.1%
Refinancings 11,380 64% 14% 22% 10,962 66.8% 19.2% 14.0% Home
Improvement 1,289 42% 44% 14% 464 57.3% 29.5% 13.1%
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2019 Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2019
The total number of government-backed and conventional
loan applications in 2019 is similar to the total in 2011.

However, the economic recovery since the Recession has
led to an uptick in the number of conventional loans and a lessened reliance on government ones. Compared to the home loan data collected in the prior housing element,
the number of government-backed mortgage applications
more than halved, from 1,899 in 2011 to 791 in 2019.

During the same period, conventional loans increased 41% from 2,737 in 2011 to 3,863 in 2019. The increased number of conventional loans may also be due to the maximum
allowable mortgage delineated by the federal government that may be lower than the market rate-cost of housing in Long Beach.

The approval rates of both the government-backed and
conventional loans is about 75%, which is comparable to the rates in 2011.

In competitive housing environments when purchasing a
new home may be out of reach for some, home renovations can be a desirable and more affordable way to add value to property. The number of home improvement applications
rose 178% from 464 in 2011 to 1,289 in 2019. Despite the larger appetite, approval rates dropped to just 42% from 67% eight years ago.

The HMDA data suggests a lack of a linear relationship
between the percentage of non-white population in a
community and the rate of home loan denials in the city of Long Beach. When subjected to an ordinary least squares regression, the data indicated a correlation coefficient (R-squared) of 6%. Note: the demographic data reflects
the area for which a home loan was applied, and not
demographic data of the applicant.

Figure D-13: Home Loan Denials vs. Non-White Population by Census Tract
Appendix | Housing Constraints
D-53
DAppendix
January 2022
While HMDA data was initially collected to determine the extent of racial discrimination in the mortgage lending industry, much of the discrimination now is more subtle than the use of racial covenants and redlining by financial institutions from decades prior. Today, many minority
applicants face higher interest rates and refinance fees than white borrows. This type of discrimination may not be visible in the HMDA data.

G. Foreclosures
Foreclosures have declined since its peak in 2008. In 2018, Long Beach had 58 foreclosures.

Figure D-14: Foreclosures in Long Beach since 2000
The impact of COVID-19 on the housing market is as of
yet to be determined, but the number of foreclosures may increase in tandem with the high rates of unemployment
or the high rates of rent non-payment across the country, which could prevent borrowers from paying their mortgage on-time.

Section D.3 Environmental and
Infrastructure Constraints
Environmental issues and infrastructure capacity or other limitations could possibly affect the type and amount
of residential development in a given location. If not
addressed, these types of constraints could preclude a
jurisdiction from facilitating the development of housing that is needed to meet its RHNA assignment. None of
the sites being used to address the City’s new RHNA
targets have environmental or infrastructure constraints.

Nevertheless, this section addresses the environmental and infrastructure constraints in the City of Long Beach and the actions that have been taken to mitigate these constraints with regard to the potential development of housing.

D.3.1 City Infrastructure
Long Beach was incorporated 133 years ago in 1888. Today, the City is highly urbanized and fully developed. The only remaining theoretically developable parcels (assuming
that parks, beaches, and wetlands will be preserved) are either brown fields or other lands that can be recycled for new uses. No new streets are needed; water, sewer and
power lines service all properties.

The City has demonstrated that there is sufficient existing and planned infrastructure capacity, including water,
wastewater treatment services, stormwater drainage,
telecommunications facilities, and solid waste to facilitate the City’s RHNA. This capacity was demonstrated through the 2019 Land Use Element (LUE) Program Environmental
Impact Report (PEIR), and subsequently analyzed as part of the LUE PEIR Addendum prepared for 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. The LUE PEIR confirmed sufficient capacity for the LUE anticipated buildout of 28,524 housing units, and the proposed Housing Element update is designed to
facilitate a smaller but similar number of future housing units (the RHNA allocation of 26,502 units) already
identified and contemplated through the approved LUE,
in the same general locations focusing new housing near transit and along commercial corridors.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
D-54
Appendix
D
January 2022
The analysis for the Housing Element found that the
increase in expected water demand under the proposed
project would be the same as the LUE and water supplies under the proposed project are expected to be sufficient to meet all demands through the horizon year 2040 during normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year hydrologic conditions. In terms of wastewater impacts, the demand
for wastewater treatment services related to construction of new housing facilitated by the Housing Element and LUE would be temporary, would generate minimal wastewater,
and impacts would be less than significant. The increase in the wastewater flow during operation for an additional 28,524 housing units represents approximately 4 percent of the remaining capacity of existing County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD) facilities and
therefore can be accommodated. The City also has adequate storm drain system capacity to handle impacts related to stormwater drainage during construction and operation
of projects facilitated by the Housing Element Update and future rezoning. In terms of wireless telecommunications facilities, the City has sufficient capacity to accommodate future development proposed under the proposed
project and similar to the existing market conditions,
Spectrum Communications, Frontier Communications,
and AT&T U-Verse would extend existing services to meet the increased demand for telephone, internet, and cable services as future developments are proposed. Lastly,
sufficient landfill capacity exists in the region to serve solid waste generated by projects facilitated by the HEU.

There are no known constraints with respect to needed
infrastructure able to support additional housing
development. However, like most developed communities,
one of the City’s major challenges is to maintain this
infrastructure in good condition and working at optimal levels to serve the needs of residents and businesses. The long and short term Capital Improvement Programs are
designed to address these maintenance concerns.

D.3.2 Geologic Conditions
Located directly adjacent to and between the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, with eight miles of coastline, the City is situated on a coastal plain with relatively unstable soils (i.e., terrace deposits). The potential for flooding and liquefaction are an ongoing concern for the City,
and steps have been taken to mitigate these hazards. For instance, following the discovery of oil here in the 1920s, by the 1950s areas along the downtown and in the port
experienced severe subsidence when oil and gas resources were extracted. In 1958, a full-scale water injection system was initiated to repressurize and stabilize these areas.

With this Wilmington Oil Field underlying the coastline a very important national resource, and oil operations
continuing for the foreseeable future, this water injection system is maintained to protect the developments on the surface above – including a lot of new housing recently constructed in the City’s downtown. Similarly, following severe storms and flooding in the City’s early history, an extensive breakwater was constructed to protect lives
and properties situated on the peninsula and along the
shoreline. Although studies are planned to examine the
reconfiguration of this breakwater in order to allow more surf and better offshore water quality, it is not expected that alterations to the breakwater would impact any
potential development sites.

Although potential land subsidence is an issue, the most pervasive geologic hazard in Long Beach is that of an
earthquake. The City is bisected diagonally across the
center by the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone. Again,
because of the relatively unstable soils beneath the surface in some areas, a major earthquake along this fault could cause widespread devastation. In fact, the City experienced such a quake in 1933 where lives were lost and many
buildings destroyed. Learning from that episode, the City has developed a reputation for applying strict building standards, and initiating and supporting State legislation to protect lives and property from potential earthquake damage. The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of
1973 was adopted to mitigate the potential impacts from an earthquake by requiring buildings to be set back from the fault zone. Further, several years ago levees along both the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers were raised and improved to mitigate exposure to flooding should
an earthquake occur. Portions of Long Beach have been
evaluated for flood risk.

Appendix | Review of Past Accomplishments
E-1
EAppendix
January 2022
Appendix E: Review of Past Accomplishments
Program-Specific Review
Table E-1 below reviews the City’s progress in implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element. Table E-2 at the end summarizes the City’s progress toward the quantified objectives established in the 2013-2021 Housing Element.

Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing Assistance to, and Preservation of, Affordable Units Preservation of
At-Risk Unit
Annually monitor status of the 1,600
affordable housing units in 21 projects
that are at risk of converting to market rate.

Seek to preserve these affordable units for
extremely low income households and
very low income households.

In the event that a property is scheduled
for conversion, coordinate with the
property owner to ensure that proper
noticing is circulated to the at-risk tenants
and that tenant education is provided
regarding their options, such as other
affordable housing developments and
City programs, and special HUD Section
8 vouchers for tenants displaced due to
expiration of project-based Section 8
assistance.

In the event that a property is scheduled for
conversion, contact qualified, non-profit
entities, from the State’s qualified entities
list, to inform them of the opportunity to
acquire affordable units. Also inform them
of financial assistance available through
City, State, and federal programs.

In the event that a property is scheduled
for conversion, explore the possibility of
using available housing funds to acquire
or facilitate the acquisition of the units to
preserve affordability.

Support the property owners’ application
for tax credits or other funding sources that
would extend the properties’ affordability
period.

Support the property owners’ application
for Section 8 contract renewal with HUD.

Ongoing
Since 2014, a total of 1,017 affordable
units in the following projects has been
preserved and extended for an additional
55 years:
» New Hope Home: Preservation of 140
Senior Units. Development Services
(DS) supported and assisted with
funding applications.
» Sea Mist Tower, 1451 Atlantic:

Preservation of 75 Senior Veteran Units.

DS amended previous agreements, and
supported and assisted with funding
applications.
» Covenant Manor, 600 E. 4th Street:

Preservation of 100 Senior Units. DS
amended previous agreements, and
supported and assisted with funding
applications.
» Brethren Manor, 3333 Pacific:

Preservation of 295 Senior Units. Health
and Human Services (HHS) provided
tenant protection vouchers and
coordinated with the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). DS supported and assisted with
funding applications.
» American Goldstar Manor, 3021
Goldstar Drive: Preservation of 283
Senior Veteran Units. HHS provided
tenant protection vouchers and
coordinated with HUD.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
E-2
Appendix
E
January 2022
Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing Assistance to, and Preservation of, Affordable Units (continued) Preservation of
At-Risk Unit
Extend affordability through acquisition/
rehabilitation efforts.

Provide tenant education and information
on special Section 8 voucher assistance
set aside by the HACLB for residents
displaced or impacted by the conversion
of federally assisted housing projects.

Ongoing
» Beachwood Apartments, 475 W.
5th Street and 505 West 6th Street:

Preservation of 45 Family and Disabled
Units. Rehabilitation began in
December 2017. DS/The LBCIC provided
$2.1 million in funding, amended
previous agreements, supported and
assisted with funding applications, and
provided $246,522 in Developer Impact
Fee waivers.
» Sara’s Apartments, 240 W. 7th Street:

Preservation of 29 Disabled and
Senior Units. DS amended previous
agreements, supported and assisted
with funding applications, and
facilitated the provision of Project‐
Based Vouchers for the project.
» Federation Tower Apartments, 3799
E. Willow Street: Preservation of
50 Disabled and Senior Units. DS
supported and assisted with funding
applications.

The City maintains a list of all assisted
housing developments within the City and
continues to work with property owners to
renew their participation in the Section 8
program.

Housing Choice
Voucher (aka
Section 8 Rental
Assistance)
Encourage property owners to accept
Housing Choice Vouchers, including
working with owners of new rental
developments.

Seek to raise the payment standard to
expand the stock of eligible rentals, when
necessary.

Ongoing
The Housing Authority currently has
an allocation of 6,713 Housing Choice
Vouchers. Average utilization of allocated
vouchers was 85 percent in 2017 and 2018
and over 90 percent in 2019, and funds in
excess of 100 percent of the Authorized
Budget Authority were spent. Efforts to
encourage owner acceptance are ongoing.

For the 2021-2029 Housing Element,
Outreach and education will be expanded
to promote the new State law on source of
income protection (SB 329 and SB 222).

Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Appendix | Review of Past Accomplishments
E-3
EAppendix
January 2022
Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing Assistance to, and Preservation of, Affordable Units (continued) First Right of
Refusal for
Displaced
Lower Income
Households
By 2016, explore local options to extend
first right of refusal to lower income
households displaced by private
development. Survey other cities to
benchmark their requirements for first
right of refusal. Report findings to the
Planning Commission and City Council in
2017 as part of the Annual Report to HCD
for Housing Element Implementation.

Factors to be evaluated may include, but
are not limited to:
» Applicable projects (minimum size of
projects subject to the requirement);
» Income levels of displaced tenants and
if priority should be established;
» Terms and conditions offered; and
» Length of offer.
2016
In 2017, Development Services (DS) staff
began working with the City Attorney’s
office to include first right of refusal for
displaced lower-income households
in pending updates to the Coastal
Zone In-Lieu Fee Ordinance and the
Condominium Conversion Ordinance.

In 2019, DS conducted public outreach
relating to the pending updates, including
surveys of other cities’ coastal zone lower‐
income housing ordinances. The update
to this policy was recommended by the
Planning Commission on October 1,
2020 and was presented before the City
Council January 19, 2021. The Mello Act
revisions were refined to align with the
City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and
the updated Mello Act provisions and fees
were adopted by City Council on July 13,
2021. With the passage of AB 1482 in 2019,
the City Council instructed staff to work
on a new Tenant Relocation Assistance
Ordinance that will be consistent with
state law.

Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Housing Element | City of Long Beach
E-4
Appendix
E
January 2022
Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing for Special Needs Residents
Continuum of
Care
Develop new efficiency units on remaining
land at the Villages at Cabrillo with at least
half of these units targeted to extremely
low income households and the remainder
targeted to very low income households.

Continue to support services and programs
that are part of the Continuum of Care
system for the homeless through the City’s
annual funding allocation process.

Ongoing
The City and its community partners
continue to provide 1,679 Emergency/
Transitional program beds, Permanent
Supportive Housing with a capacity of
854 persons (beds), and Rapid Rehousing
for 28 persons. Overall, the City’s housing
inventory for the homeless is 2,561
beds. Furthermore, the Century Village
at Cabrillo is the process of updating its
master plan to expand housing on site.

In June 2017, DS received a $491,233 grant
from HUD for the FY 2017/2018 Emergency
Solutions Grant (ESG) Program to increase
the effectiveness of the ESG program and
facilitate the connection with the Long
Beach CoC, DS coordinates with HHS to
administer and oversee the program. ESG
funds provide support to two emergency
shelter programs, street outreach and
Rapid Rehousing services for homeless
households.

In February 2019, HHS was awarded
$8,467,853 in 2018 CoC grant funding
by HUD. The 2018 CoC award provided
one‐year funding to support 20 currently
operating projects providing a mixture
of housing and supportive services and
two projects for strategic planning and
enhanced monitoring activities.

In 2020, the City also received $8.1 million
in CDBG-CV and $15.3 million in ESG-CV
funds from HUD to address the impacts of
the Coronavirus. Initial funding focuses on
providing emergency housing assistance
to prevent homelessness. Implementation
of these programs are underway.

Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Appendix | Review of Past Accomplishments
E-5
EAppendix
January 2022
Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing for Special Needs Residents (continued)
Zoning Code
Update for
Special Needs
Housing
Emergency Shelters: In 2013, the City
amended the Zoning Code to permit
emergency shelters by right via a
ministerial approval process in the Port – IP
zone and in PD-31 (Villages at Cabrillo). The
City will explore additional opportunities
for allowing emergency shelters in
PD-29 and the IL (Light Industrial) zone.

Potential inclusion of sites for emergency
shelters will be evaluated as part of the
PD-29 Specific Plan update in 2014.

Inclusion of emergency shelters in the IL
zone or as an overlay in portions of the
IL zone will be recommended in 2015.

Factors to consider include availability
of vacant and underutilized properties,
access to supportive services and public
transportation, as well as compatibility
with surrounding uses. Annually, monitor
the effectiveness of the various zones for
by-right emergency shelters and pursue
alternative strategies as necessary.

Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing: By
the end of 2014, amend the Zoning Code
to incorporate SRO housing under the
provisions for Special Group Residence.

Conditions for approval will be objective
and pertain to performance standards
such as parking, management, and
security. Such conditions will be similar
to those required for other Special Group
Residence uses in the same zone.

Definition of Family: Amend the Zoning
Code by the end of 2014 to revise the
definition of family to “any group of
individuals living together based on
personal relationships. ”
2014
Emergency shelters are allowed by right in
the Port‐Related Industrial Zoning District.

The City continues to monitor its zoning
regulations to ensure the provision of
a range of housing options to the City’s
special needs population.

In 2020, the City adopted a zoning code
update to increase the areas where
emergency shelters and other interim
housing uses are permitted. Additionally,
the City has recently updated the zoning
code to add new definitions, as well as
update existing ones, for uses related to
interim housing and allow said uses in
more districts. Examples of these include
safe parking sites and social service offices.

In 2015, the Zoning Code was amended
to include a definition of SRO and include
SRO housing under the definition of
Special Group Residence.

In 2015, the Zoning Code was amended to
revise the definition of family.

The City has also recently updated its
Zoning Code to address the provision
of special needs housing relating to
Low Barrier Navigation Center (AB
101), Emergency Shelter (AB 139), and
Supportive Housing (AB 2162).

Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Housing Element | City of Long Beach
E-6
Appendix
E
January 2022
Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing for Special Needs Residents (continued)
Family Self
Sufficiency
Continue to implement the Family
Self-Sufficiency Program.

Promote program at City website,
newsletters, and brochures at public
counters.

Ongoing
In 2019, 17 participants graduated from
the program, and a total of $857,159 in
escrow funds were disbursed. A total of
484 participants have completed this
program to date. This program can serve
up to 674 participants.

HOPWA Tenant-
Based Rental
Assistance
Continue to provide assistance to
108 households through the HOPWA
Long-Term Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance and 120 households through
the Short-Term Assistance Program.

Petition for increased funding for program.

Promote program at City website,
newsletters, and brochures at public
counters.

Ongoing
In 2019, the HACLB was awarded $1.25
million in grant funds for the HOPWA
program. There are currently a total of 46
households receiving rental assistance and
supportive services/case management.

Universal
Design
Evaluate the feasibility of providing
additional density bonuses or other
incentives for new developments that
include universal design (beyond required
ADA standards) by 2017 as part of the
tri-annual update of the Building Code.
2017
The updated Land Use Element and
Urban Design Element, adopted in 2019,
integrate universal design into the policy
framework for future development of the
City. The City will further evaluate bonuses
or requirements for universal design
through building code updates to occur
as a result of Land Use and Urban Design
Elements implementation.

HOME Security
Deposit
Assistance
Provide security deposit assistance to
350 homeless households. This program
benefits primarily extremely low income
households.

Promote program to nonprofit service
providers.

Ongoing
This program assists between 20 and 40
households annually over the last four
years. While the number of households
assisted annually has decreased in recent
years due to funding availability and
difficulty in locating affordable housing,
this program remains an important
component of the City’s overall housing
strategy.

Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Appendix | Review of Past Accomplishments
E-7
EAppendix
January 2022
Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing for Special Needs Residents (continued)
VASH (Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing)
Lease up all 495 allocated vouchers by
2014 and pursue additional funding in the
future.
2014 /
Ongoing
HACLB continues to work closely with
the local VA office that provides referrals
to the rental assistance program. HACLB
currently administers 830 VASH vouchers
with an average lease rate of 80 percent.

For the 2021-2029 Housing Element,
Outreach and education will be expanded
to promote the new State law on source of
income protection (SB 329 and SB 222).

Continuum of
Care Permanent
Supportive
Housing
Continue to provide voucher assistance to
disabled veterans and pursue additional
funding in the future.

Ongoing
HACLB continues to work closely with
US Veterans Initiative and Mental Health
America placing hard to serve persons
with disabilities through Continuum of
Care grants. Of the 94 rental assistance
vouchers allocated for SPC and SNAP , 32 of
these vouchers have been designated to
US Vets and 62 vouchers to Mental Health
America. Specifically, 75 units were leased
in 2019, and the lease up rate for the COC
program was 80 percent.

Project-Based
Vouchers
Continue to utilize project-based vouchers
to provide affordable housing for youth
aging out of the foster care system,
homeless households, and lower income
households.

Ongoing
HACLB continues to award project-based
vouchers in the following projects:

American Gold Star Manor (Seniors &
Veterans), Cabrillo Gateway (Homeless
& Disabled), Long Beach & 21st (Seniors),
Palace Apartments (Emancipated Foster
Youth 18-23 yrs. old)
Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Housing Element | City of Long Beach
E-8
Appendix
E
January 2022
Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement
Home
Rehabilitation
Provide rehabilitation assistance to 3,032
households (up to 80% AMI) as following:
» 250 households with Owner-Occupied
Rehabilitation Loans
» 350 households with Multi-Family
Rehabilitation Loans
» 2,000 households with Home
Improvement Rebates
» 32 households with Mobile Home
Repair Grants
» 400 households with Tool Rental
Assistance
Promote programs via City newsletters,
website, and brochures at public counters.

Pursue additional funding at State and
Federal levels to support rehabilitation
activities.

Ongoing
As of FY 2019, the City assisted over 300
single‐family and mobile home owners
with rehabilitation loans:
» 245 Single‐Family Rehabilitation Loans
completed
» 54 Mobile Home Rehabilitation Loans
completed
In June 2017, the State withdrew remaining
funds for the CalHome Rehabilitation Loan
Program. The City continued processing
applicants who were approved before
this time and completed all loans through
FY19.

Since 2014, a total of 156 units in 13
projects have been rehabilitated through
the Multi‐Family Rehabilitation Loan
Program.

All funding was expended for the Mobile
Home Repair Grant program as of 2019. In
total, 20 mobile home repair grants were
completed.

The City no longer provides a direct Tool
Rental Assistance Program and instead
allows property owners to request a
reimbursement for rented tools as part of
the Home Improvement Rebate Program.

Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Appendix | Review of Past Accomplishments
E-9
EAppendix
January 2022
Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement (continued)
Neighborhood
Resources
As funding permits, continue to support
neighborhood and community groups
with services and technical support.

Advertise services available via City
website and newsletter.

Ongoing
The City continues to provide annual
funding to the Neighborhood Resource
Center. Annually, close to 40,000 residents
are assisted with a variety of programs
and services. Specifically, through the
Neighborhood Resource Center, the
City assists neighborhood associations
and community groups. Services
included providing neighborhood
publication assistance, neighborhood
project assistance, providing supplies
for neighborhood projects and events,
access to meeting room space, and the
community computer lab.

The City’s Place-Based Neighborhood
Improvement Strategy (PBNIS) will be
incorporated into the 2021-2029 Housing
Element.

Comprehensive
Code
Enforcement
Continue to perform inspections and
train residents in nuisance abatement
procedures.

Inspect an average of 5,500 multi-family
units annually to correct code violations.

Connect City housing rehabilitation
programs with code enforcement efforts
to ensure assistance is provided to lower
income households in making the code
corrections and improvements.

Conclude research on rental escrow
program, Franchise Tax Board Substandard
Housing program, and other alternative
approaches, and report findings to the
City Council by the end of 2014. Research
should include an analysis on the nature
and extent of code violations and extent of
persistent non-compliance. Each program
option will be evaluated based on factors
such as cost implications, effectiveness,
and administrative burden. By the end
of 2015, develop a strategy to implement
one or more of the program options that
focus on addressing habitability issues.

Ongoing
2014-2015
The Proactive Rental Housing Inspection
Program ordinance has been in place since
2015. This ordinance addresses habitability
issues through a proactive approach in
which the City identifies issues without
residents having to call to complain.

The City’s Intensive Code Enforcement
programs work with the Place-Based
Neighborhood Improvement Strategy
to address blighting conditions in these
neighborhoods.

The City’s Place-Based Neighborhood
Improvement Strategy (PBNIS) will be
incorporated into the 2021-2029 Housing
Element.

Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Housing Element | City of Long Beach
E-10
Appendix
E
January 2022
Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement (continued)
Neighborhood
Improvement
Services
Continue to implement various
neighborhood improvement programs,
such as Neighborhood Partners,
Urban Forestry, Home Improvement
Rebates, Neighborhood Clean Up, and
Neighborhood Leadership.

Ongoing
Annually, the Home Improvement Rebate
Program completed exterior repairs and
upgrades for about 130 to 150 households.

The Neighborhood Leadership Program
creates a substantial leverage of CDBG
funding in additional human capital and
community support. This investment in the
capacity building of residents, primarily
from CDBG‐eligible neighborhoods,
continues to pay dividends in the form
of residents’ enhanced ability to improve
their neighborhoods even ten years after
graduation from the program.

The Neighborhood Partners Program
was rolled into the Place‐Based
Neighborhood Improvement Strategy
(PBNIS) as part of 2017-2021 HUD Five
Year Consolidated Plan. PBNIS leverages
existing CDBG programs and new funding
to implement thoughtful infrastructure
and beautification projects in five selected
areas of the City.

The Housing and Neighborhood Services
Bureau’s Urban Forestry program
continues to implement the “I Dig Long
Beach – 6,000 Trees by 2020” initiative and
has expanded the initiative with a $1.26
million grant from CAL FIRE.

Foreclosure
Registry
Ongoing implementation of the
Foreclosure Registry Ordinance. Ongoing
With the unknown long-term economic
impacts of COVID-19, foreclosures
may increase in the upcoming years,
requiring continued efforts in foreclosure
prevention. However, this registry is not
included in the Housing Element as a
specific housing program.

Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Appendix | Review of Past Accomplishments
E-11
EAppendix
January 2022
Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement (continued)
Lead-Based
Paint Hazard
Abatement
The LHC Program has established the
following work program for FY 2012 – FY
2015:
» Enroll 205 housing units into the
program and obtain owner consent to
inspect units for lead hazards.
» Conduct assessment on 195 units.
» Complete abatement for 185 units.
» Conduct 20 outreach events.

Ongoing
The LHC Program completed the FY 2015 –
FY 2018 program and was awarded a new
grant of $4.1 million for lead hazard control
in low‐income housing throughout the
City for FY 2019‐2022. In the last program:
» Cumulative lead assessments were
conducted in 207 low‐income
residential units for the 2015‐2018
grant period, 44 assessments in 2018.
» Lead abatement was completed in 198
units for the 2015‐ 2018 grant period,
69 units were abated in calendar year
2018.
» To build public awareness regarding
the lead abatement program, staff
participated in more than 50 outreach
events.

The LHC Program has established the
following work program for FY 2019 – FY
2022:
» Enroll 205 housing units into the
program and obtain owner consent to
inspect units for lead hazards.
» Conduct assessments on 205 units.
» Complete abatements on 200 units.
» In 2019, 21 units were enrolled and
abatement on 2 units was completed.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
E-12
Appendix
E
January 2022
Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing Production
Affordable
Housing
Development
Assistance
Annually monitor availability of State
and federal funding and partner with
affordable housing developers, if
necessary, in applying for additional funds.

Identify qualified nonprofit developers
for partnership in affordable housing
construction and acquisition/
rehabilitation projects.

Prepare and implement a Housing Action
Plan (HAP) in 2015. The HAP will cover a
range of topics, including the following:
» Address the potential uses of a variety
of funding sources available to the
City (see Program 4.4, Housing Funds).

Specifically, establish a priority in which
the City should use available funds to
assist in the rehabilitation of existing
housing stock or for investing in new
construction projects
» Establish a strategy for the development
of sites currently owned by the LBCIC,
particularly those in transit-oriented
neighborhoods.
» Establish target populations for various
programs, i.e. senior, disabled, veterans,
families, etc.
» Devise appropriate strategies for
different neighborhoods.
» Incorporate a priority for funding
to preserve and promote housing
affordable to lower income households
in transit rich neighborhoods and
other targeted growth areas, and
update the HAP every five years or as
needed thereafter to reflect changes in
conditions and new opportunities.

Ongoing
2015
The City completed the Housing Action
Plan (HAP) in 2016, which outlined the
priority in utilizing the Housing Successor
Agency funds and agency-owned
properties. All six properties identified in
the HAP have been disposed for residential
development.

The City’s Housing Assets funds have been
allocated. The City will be developing a
plan, specifically on the use of inclusionary
housing in-lieu fee.

Staff continued to monitor federal and
state funding programs, specifically the
Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities program, CalHOME program,
and Permanent Local Housing Allocation
program. The Long Beach Community
Investment Company (LBCIC) continues to
provide assistance to housing developers.

Recent Projects:
» Vistas Del Puerto Apartments ‐ 48 units
for families & homeless households.

LBCIC provided $2.825M in funding.
» Las Ventanas ‐ 101 units for low‐ and
very‐low income households. LBCIC
provided $3.5M in funding and assisted
in successful application for $13.976M
in AHSC funding.
» The Spark at Midtown ‐ 95 units for
homeless & family households. LBCIC
provided $3 million in funding.
» The Beacon ‐ 160 units for veteran/
senior households. LBCIC provided
$12.3M in funding.
» Washington Homes ‐ Acquisition
and rehabilitation of a single‐family
residence housing three individuals
with developmental disabilities earning
up to 50% of AMI. DS/LBCIC provided
$252,800 in funding.

Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Appendix | Review of Past Accomplishments
E-13
EAppendix
January 2022
Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing Production (continued)
Affordable
Housing
Development
Assistance
(continued)
Continue to provide funding to help
gap-finance affordable housing. Priority
in funding is granted to projects housing
special needs groups (such as the elderly
and the disabled, including those with
developmental disabilities) and/or
enriched with supportive services such as
childcare, health programs, job training,
and financial and legal counseling.

Recent Projects (continued):
» Redondo Homes ‐ Acquisition and
Rehabilitation of five units for individuals
with developmental disabilities earning
50% AMI. DS/LBCIC provided $875,920
in funding.

Underway
» 14th Street between Pine/Pacific
– 11 Units (For Sale – Family). The
LBCIC approved a Disposition and
Development Agreement with Habitat
for Humanity and a loan in the amount
of $990,000 to the project.
» 469 West Apartments (Magnolia &
PCH) – 40 units of homeless/extremely
low‐ income housing proposed. The
LBCIC approved a Disposition and
Development Agreement with LINC
Housing and a loan in the amount of
$2,250,000 to the project.
» 1500 E. Anaheim Street – 88 Units
(Rental – Family & Special Needs). The
LBCIC approved a $4,000,000 Loan
Agreement with BRIDGE Housing.
» Woodbridge Apartments (1117 Elm
Avenue and 421 W. 33rd Street) – 49
Units (Rental – Family). The LBCIC
approved a $1,100,000 Loan Agreement
with Century Affordable Housing
Development.
» 9th Street Homes ‐ Acquisition of
a single‐family residence housing
four individuals with developmental
disabilities earning 50% AMI. DS/LBCIC
to provide $151,676 in funding.
» Sunfield Homes ‐ Acquisition of a
single‐family residence housing
four individuals with developmental
disabilities earning 50% AMI. DS/LBCIC
to provide $150,000 in funding.
» Keynote Homes ‐ Acquisition of a
single‐family residence housing
four individuals with developmental
disabilities earning 50% AMI. DS/LBCIC
to provide $150,000 in funding.

Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Housing Element | City of Long Beach
E-14
Appendix
E
January 2022
Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing Production (continued)
Affordable
Housing
Development
Assistance
(continued)
Underway (continued)
» Clark Apartments ‐ 7 units (Rental ‐
Special Needs) ‐ LBCIC approved a
$1,180,000 loan agreement with HOPE
to provide housing to individuals with
developmental disabilities earning 50%
AMI.

Adequate Sites
Maintain an adequate sites inventory for
the remaining RHNA of 7,048 units (886
extremely low income units; 887 very low
income units; 1,066 low income units;
1,170 moderate income units; and 3,039
above moderate income units).

Identify additional opportunities for
housing through updates to the following:

Land Use Element and PD-29 by 2014.

Monitor development trends to ensure
availability of sites for residential uses.

Provide sites inventory to interested
developers and to assist in identifying
additional opportunities for residential
development.

Provide technical and financial assistance
to developers of low and moderate
income housing.

Ongoing
2014
Ongoing
The City continues to track and maintain an
adequate sites inventory for the remaining
RHNA. The Long Beach Housing Dash
Boards track the City’s progress in meeting
its Housing Element targets.

In 2017, the City Council adopted a set
of 29 policy recommendations relating
to revenue tools and incentives for the
production of affordable and workforce
housing, after a public outreach and policy
development process led by the Mayor’s
Affordable and Workforce Housing Study
Group and assisted by City staff.

The Land Use Element update, adopted in
December 2019, includes potential new
housing opportunities along commercial
corridors as well as increased density
opportunities within some existing
multifamily housing areas. The Midtown
Specific Plan was adopted in 2016 (an
update of PD‐29), and encourages
medium to high‐density transit‐oriented
development along Long Beach Boulevard,
particularly surrounding Metro Rail
(A-Line) stops. These efforts will increase
housing opportunities and locate housing
near transportation, employment, goods
and services.

Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Appendix | Review of Past Accomplishments
E-15
EAppendix
January 2022
Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing Production (continued)
Adequate Sites
(continued) Ongoing
In July 2020, the City Council adopted
an Inclusionary Housing Policy which
will apply to residential projects starting
construction after January 1, 2021 within
the Downtown area.

As part of the 2021-2029 Housing
Element update, the City undertook a
comprehensive and elaborate review of
its vacant and underutilized sites with
potential for residential development.

Adaptive Reuse
Adopt revisions to the Municipal Code
in 2014 to encourage adaptive reuse
and once adopted, promote adaptive
reuse to property owners and interested
developers.
2014
The adaptive reuse program became
effective January 1, 2014, as part of the new
Building Standards Code. The Adaptive
Reuse Program and Ordinance streamlines
the development process for the adaptive
reuse of existing historic structures. Reuse
of the Edison building is a recent example
of adaptive reuse in Long Beach. The City
aggressively markets the program and
assists developers through the process.

Affordable
Housing
Funding
Opportunities
On an annual basis as part of the City’s
budget process, the City will regularly
evaluate opportunities to direct funding
to the Housing Fund.

In accordance with AB 1484, establish
an amortization schedule to repay
approximately $16.3 million in debt owed
the Housing Fund from the Downtown
Project area related to deferred housing
set-aside payments by early 2014, subject
to approval by the State Department of
Finance.

In accordance with AB 1484, establish
an amortization schedule by the end of
2014 to repay approximately $8.1 million
in debt owed the Housing Fund from the
former Redevelopment Agency related
to the advance of funds as allowed by AB
x4 26 (SERAF), subject to approval by the
State Department of Finance.
2014
2014
As of 2016, all of the SERAF debt has
been repaid to the Housing Fund. In FY
2016, the final payment was made on the
Downtown Project Area debt, providing a
full repayment to the Housing Fund.

In FY 2016, the Successor Agency and
Oversight Board authorized the former
Redevelopment Agency Debt to the
City as an enforceable obligation, and
submitted it to the State Department of
Finance for approval. Twenty percent of
any repayments of the City debt must
be deposited into the Housing Fund.

Disbursements have been deposited into
the Housing Fund in FY16 and FY17 and
will continue through 2019.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
E-16
Appendix
E
January 2022
Program Objective Timeframe Status
Housing Production (continued)
Affordable
Housing
Funding
Opportunities
(continued)
AB 1484 allows a former redevelopment
agency to repay loans received from its
host city. Under AB 1484, when this debt
is reestablished and payments begin, a
portion of the loan repayment, no less
than 20%, must be used for low and
moderate income housing purposes. The
City of Long Beach intends to reestablish
this debt by 2020, subject to approval by
the State Department of Finance.

By the end of 2015, research potential
redirection of condominium conversion
fees for deposit into the Housing Trust
Fund. On an annual basis, research eligible
funding sources, including State Prop 1C
programs, for deposit into the Housing
Trust Fund.

By the end of 2015, conduct a financial
analysis and nexus study to review the
viability of the Coastal Zone in-lieu fee
and consider revisions to the fee structure,
if necessary, as part of the FY2016-2017
budget process and master fee schedule
update.

Annually monitor the availability of State
and federal funding and pursue additional
funding as appropriate. Continue
to partner with affordable housing
developers and other supportive service
providers in funding applications.
2020
2015
Ongoing
2015
Ongoing
In December 2018, the City Council
adopted recommendations prepared by
the Everyone Home Task Force to address
homelessness in the City, including
directing staff to explore the feasibility
of dedicated funding for housing for
homeless and precariously housed people,
including a bond measure, parcel tax, and
tax incentives.

DS has conducted a nexus study to update
fees for the Coastal Zone In‐Lieu Fee
Program which was presented before the
City Council for adoption on January 19,
2021 and adopted on July 13, 2021.

Staff reviews all available state and federal
funds for housing on an ongoing basis. In
FY17, the City was a joint applicant for two
applications for Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program
funding. One project was awarded $13.95
million in AHSC funds.

The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance,
adopted in January 2021, includes in‐lieu
fees for developers that choose not to
include affordable units within a project
that falls under the requirements of the
ordinance.

Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Appendix | Review of Past Accomplishments
E-17
EAppendix
January 2022
Program Objective Timeframe Status
Homeownership Opportunity
City First-Time
Homebuyer
Assistance
Assist 25 lower income households with
homebuyer assistance.

Promote programs via City newsletters,
website, and brochures at public counters.

Pursue additional funding from State
housing programs; annually explore
funding opportunities with State HCD.

Promote program to City residents by
providing information on City website,
public counters, and other community
locations.

Ongoing
The LBCIC has provided 16 second
mortgage loans to very low‐ and low‐
income first‐ time homebuyers. This
program is currently discontinued.

Information on state and county programs
is promoted on the DS website, to
interested homebuyers, realtors, and
lenders.

Mitigation of Government Constraints
Development
Incentives
Continue to offer regulatory incentives
to accommodate the development of
accessible and affordable housing.

Monitor development trends to determine
the continued adequacy of incentives
in facilitating affordable housing and
augment incentives as necessary.

Promote incentives to interested
developers and provide technical
assistance through pre-application
meetings in the use of various incentives.

Ongoing
DS continues to offer a pre‐application
process whereby developers can gain
early‐input on potential development
projects and have any fees paid applied
to their future Site Plan Review fees.

This process provides early input to
developers at minimal cost. The City also
tracks development activity and assists
developers with both the planning and
building application and funding process.

The adoption of the Midtown Specific
Plan also incentivizes and streamlines TOD
development.

Fair and Equal Housing Opportunity
Fair Housing
Continue to participate in fair housing
programs and support fair housing
services and tenant/landlord counseling
services.

Promote programs via City newsletters,
website, and brochures at public counters.

Ongoing
DS has renewed its contract with the Long
Beach Fair Housing Foundation to provide
fair housing services and tenant/landlord
consulting services. In 2016, DS prepared
an updated Assessment of Fair Housing
(AFH), which was approved by HUD in
April 2017.

The 2021-2029 Housing Element
will incorporate the findings and
recommendations of the AFH.

Monitoring and Review
Annual Report Present annual progress report to the City Council and submit to HCD. Ongoing
DS continues to present the Annual
Progress Report to City Council and submit
it to HCD.

Table E-1: Review of Progress in Implementing the 2013-2021 Housing Element (continued) Housing Element | City of Long Beach
E-18
Appendix
E
January 2022
Table E-2: Accomplishments vs. Objectives
New Construction Rehabilitation Preservation Housing Assistance RHNA
(1/1/14-
10/1/21)
Constructed
(1/1/14-
12/31/19)
Objectives Rehabilitated Objectives Preserved Objectives Households Assisted
Extremely
Low
Income
(0-30%
MFI)
886
410
1,010
800 1,017
4,656
Very Low
Income
(31-50%
MFI)
887 1,060 4,308
Low
Income
(51-80%
MFI)
1,066 177 1,167 0 0 71
Moderate
Income
(81-120%
MFI)
1,170 39 0 0 0 0 0 0
Above
Moderate
Income
(>120%
MFI)
3,039 2,592 0 0 0 0 0 0
Notes:

Housing rehabilitation includes:

Housing Rehabilitation
LBP Abatement
Housing assistance includes the following programs:

Housing Choice Vouchers
Family Self-Sufficiency
HOPWA Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
HOME Security Deposit Assistance
VASH
Project Based Vouchers
First-Time Homebuyers Programs
Appendix | Review of Past Accomplishments
E-19
EAppendix
January 2022
Cumulative Impacts on Addressing
Special Needs
The City of Long Beach had worked diligently over the past eight years to address the housing needs of special needs populations through a variety of actions:
» Preservation of at-risk housing: The City extended
affordability for a number of affordable housing projects that are targeted for special needs groups. These
include: New Hope Home (seniors); Sea Mist Tower
(senior veterans); Covenant Manor (seniors); Brethren
Manor (seniors); American Goldstar Manor (senior
veterans); Beachwood Apartments (disabled); Sara’s
Apartments (seniors and disabled); Federation Tower
(seniors and disabled).
» Continuum of Care: The Long Beach CoC continues to
provide 1,679 Emergency/Transitional program beds,
Permanent Supportive Housing with a capacity of 854
persons (beds), and Rapid Rehousing for 28 persons.

Overall, the City’s housing inventory for the homeless is 2,561 beds.
» Zoning revisions for special needs housing: The City
revised the Zoning Code to address the provision
of emergency shelters and single-room occupancy
housing,
» Housing assistance for special needs populations: These include Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) for
persons with HIV/AIDS and Veterans Affairs Supportive
Housing (VASH) vouchers for veterans.
» Expansion of affordable housing opportunities through new construction and acquisition/rehabilitation:

The City has supported the expansion of affordable
housing for special needs populations. For example,
the City is effective in its use of HOME CHDO funds
with partners including Home Ownership for Personal
Empowerment (HOPE). HOPE creates permanent
affordable housing for persons with developmental
disabilities by acquiring and rehabilitating single-family homes and small multi-family buildings to deliver safe
housing with onsite social services, while providing a new sense of self-sufficiency for this vulnerable population.

In partnership with the City, HOPE has acquired and
rehabilitated a total of 46 units. The rehabilitation of these units consists of upgrading accessibility features and other improvements to support the safety, comfort,
and independence of residents. The following is a list of projects developed by HOPE:

◊ 116 Redondo Ave - 7 units
◊ 6711 E 9th St - 4 units
◊ 4734 Sunfield Ave – 4 units
◊ 6127 E Keynote St – 4 units
◊ 817 Daisy Avenue – 7 units
◊ 4410-12 Banner – 7 units
◊ 2800 Baltic Ave – 3 units
◊ 1402 E. Washington – 3 units
◊ 4713 Clark Ave – 7 units

These projects are scattered citywide, with over 70% of the projects in highest and high resource areas, therefore addressing the first goal of the City’s Assessment of Fair Housing to preserve affordable housing in low-income
neighborhoods and expand affordable housing
citywide.

For the 6th cycle Housing Element update, the City will continue its efforts in addressing the housing needs of special needs group, with an emphasis on those with
extremely low incomes. The City will also expand its efforts on enhancing tenant protection services and programs.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
E-20
Appendix
E
January 2022
This page left intentionally blank
Appendix | Fair Housing Assessment
F-1
FAppendix
January 2022
Appendix F: Fair Housing
Assessment
A. Introduction and Overview of
AB 686
In 2017, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) into California state law. AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. The Bill added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element which includes the following components:
» A summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and outreach
capacity;
» An analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities,
» An assessment of contributing factors; and
» An identification of fair housing goals and actions.

For generations, Long Beach communities of color and
housing advocates have been fighting to address inequities in access to quality, affordable housing for all Long Beach residents. In recent years, thanks to community advocacy, city leadership and policy direction, and a greater
recognition of housing as primary a social determinant
of health, the City has taken steps to better understand, recognize and begin to address fair housing issues through changes in policy, including through the 2016 Assessment of Fair Housing, the 2020 Framework for Reconciliation, and in development of the 2021 Housing Element update
which has been:
» Grounded in an assessment of fair housing issues
» Informed by community voices and priorities, and
» Designed to address fair housing issues through specific goals, policies, programs and measurable actions
B. Assessment of Fair Housing Issues

1. History of Fair Housing Issues & City
Response
Fair housing has been an issue in Long Beach since before the City was founded. The first stewards of the land in Long Beach were the Tongva/Gabrielino people dating back
over 5,000 years. In 1784, Spanish War veteran Jose Manuel Nieto was granted 300,000 acres of land that was later
divided into smaller areas, including Rancho Los Cerritos and Rancho Los Alamitos in what is current day Long
Beach. Settlement on Tongva land brought new diseases,
causing the death and displacement of many indigenous
people. (Timeline Of Racial Inequities In Long Beach).

The 20th century history of race and suburbanization
in Long Beach was fraught with many forms of housing
discrimination — from blockbusting and redlining along
racial lines to discrimination against senior citizens and members of the LGBTQ community. The pressures of real
estate prices, urban renewal efforts, and aging housing stock, combined with a postwar eastward expansion of
new deed-restricted residential communities, created a
significant housing gap between low-income and middle-
class residents. Thanks to the hard work of organizations like the Fair Housing Foundation and community advocates,
Long Beach made significant progress in becoming a more diverse and integrated community, yet much work remains to fully address fair housing issues that continue today.

Two New Deal housing initiatives, the Home Owners
Loan Corporation (HOLC, founded in 1933) and the
Federal Housing Administration (FHA, founded in 1934),
were created by the federal government to encourage
homeownership and protect homeowners at risk of
foreclosure during the Great Depression. In practice,
they only provided protection for the White community.

Through an overt practice of denying mortgages based
upon race and ethnicity, the FHA played a significant role in the legalization and institutionalization of racism and segregation throughout the country including in Long
Beach.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
F-2
Appendix
F
January 2022
The 1939 HOLC “redlining” map of Long Beach (see image
below) shows redlined neighborhoods of the Central
area, West Long Beach, and the area north of Anaheim to the Signal Hill Oil Fields and eastward to the Pacific Coast Highway (see map). Those same areas of Long Beach are
still the areas with the highest concentrations of people of color, along with North Long Beach, and still experience the greatest disproportionate fair housing issues today, including overcrowding and overpayment.

White flight 1, and the practices of deed restrictions, redlining, and other discriminatory policies meant that minority populations coming to Long Beach during
and after World War II – including the large influx of
African Americans moving to the area for employment
opportunities and the 1,000 Japanese Americans returning to Long Beach after incarceration – faced segregated
housing conditions. Many public housing projects in
Long Beach, which largely housed people of color, were
demolished in the post-World War II period. Discriminatory practices embedded in governmental housing policies
also presented obstacles to prospective African American homebuyers.

In the decades after the war, Long Beach was “transformed into a booming bedroom community of 10,000 homes. ” 2
Virtually all of the new housing developments were subject to restrictive covenants and off limits to people of color. 3 Prior to the 1960s, Long Beach landlords and sellers could legally refuse to sell or rent to these populations. This included in neighborhoods with existing housing stock as well as new postwar housing developments.
1 White flight refers to the large-scale migration of White people from areas becoming more racially or ethno-culturally diverse. Starting in the 1950s and 1960s, the term became popular in the United States specifically in reference to White residents leaving racially mixed urban regions to more racially homogeneous suburban communities.
2City of Long Beach, Development Services Department, City of Long Beach: Citywide Historic Context Statement, prepared by Sapphos Environmental, Inc., July 10, 2009, 49.
3A notable exception to this is Lakewood Rancho Estates, which at the time of its development in 1953 was outside the city limits of Long Beach. The Lakewood Rancho Estates tract was designed by Cliff May with architect Chris Choate. The planned community consisted of 600 dwellings on tree-lined streets and surrounded by large traffic arteries on all sides. The development catered to the middle-class, offering homes at $11,000. Telephone interviews with original owners revealed that a few Latina/o families purchased homes in the development. No long-time residents remembered any African American or Japanese American neighbors living in the tract or attending nearby schools. However, if deed restrictions were present for the tract, they were selectively enforced. Note that the original CC&Rs were inaccessible for this project due to COVID-19 restrictions which limited access to archives.
1939 Redlining Map. Source: LaDale Winling and urbanoasis.org Appendix | Fair Housing Assessment
F-3
FAppendix
January 2022
African Americans who did not live in public housing
during and immediately after World War II primarily resided in the Central neighborhood. Those who were able to
purchase homes in the area faced the continued impacts
of the Central neighborhood having been redlined, as well as additional lending restrictions that continued the racist practices put in place in the 1930s, including “contract sales. ” Because FHA restrictions would not insure the homes of Black buyers, these policies often resulted in the sale of homes on inflated “installment plans” in which no equity accumulated. The contracts provided that the ownership
would transfer to purchasers after fifteen or twenty years, but if a single monthly payment was late, the seller could evict the would-be owner, who had accumulated no equity in the process. Contract sales often resulted in couples working double shifts to make payments and to defer
maintenance. It also meant that people were tied to their properties long-term, with no ability to move. In his memoir, Ernest McBride, Sr. (1909-2007) related his own experience with a contract sale for the purchase of his house at 1461 Lemon Avenue (extant; Long Beach Historic Landmark).

In the book, McBride details extensive negotiations with the realtor, who inflated the price of the house. Ultimately, he purchased it for $9,500, with $3,000 down and $90 per month.4
As described in the City of Long Beach Historic Context Statement, vast acres of agricultural lands to the north and northeast of downtown Long Beach were redeveloped as
suburban residential neighborhoods after World War II. 5 Large swaths of land were annexed into the city from the 1950s – 1970s. This was a transformational period that
increased the area of the city by 15 square miles—a 50
percent increase in Long Beach’s physical footprint. This area, which became known as East Long Beach, developed
differently than pre-World War II Long Beach, mirroring the postwar development patterns across Southern California as an influx of residents created an unprecedented demand for new single-family housing.

The dramatic expansion of Long Beach in the post-World
War II era comprised approximately 188 annexations, large and small, the vast majority of which took place during the 1950s. The rapid pace continued during the 1960s,
but activity slowed significantly during the 1970s. As a result of all of this activity, developers changed the face of residential development in Long Beach.

The City of Long Beach had already started to annex
surrounding land in the late 1940s; however, activity was slow until the ensuing decades. Between 1945 and 1949,
1,018 acres were annexed into the City. Only three of
these annexations were in excess of 100 acres. Between
1950 and 1959, 6,987 acres were added to Long Beach—
approximately six times the acreage of the previous period.

The 325–acre Lakewood Rancho Estates, designed by Cliff May with architect Chris Choate and annexed in 1953,
represented a significant addition to the city. Eight other annexations during this period were in excess of 200 acres each, including some non-residential acreage, notably the land comprising the present-day CSULB and El Dorado
Park. Other large annexations from the period were located around CSULB, including Bixby Hill and the area south of 7th Street (now University Park Estates and Bixby Village).

These additions were primarily located to the northeast of downtown, transforming former agricultural lands into the ultimate California cash crop: tract houses. Many of these neighborhoods were subject to single-family residential zoning, which made it illegal to build multi-family residences on parcels in the new subdivisions. Although the zoning laws were “adopted ostensibly to preserve neighborhood
character, they have also had the effect of perpetuating or increasing racial and economic segregation. ” 6 Even after the Fair Housing Act was enacted in 1968, these restrictive zoning laws effectively perpetuated housing segregation in postwar subdivisions like those in East Long Beach.

According to census data from the 1950s and 1960s, the
large postwar annexations on the east side of Long Beach were not populated by communities of color, as they
4McBride and Nash, Fighting for the People, 72-75.
5Sapphos Environmental, Inc., City of Long Beach Historic Context Statement, July 10, 2009, 121. While this is not a comprehensive list of Long Beach tract development during the postwar period, it does represent the broad patterns of home development and suburbanization that characterized Long Beach in the mid-20th century.
6Will White, “The History and Future of Single Family Zoning, ” United Way Bay Area, April 15, 2021, https://www.uwba.org/blog/stories/the-history-and- future-of-single-family-zoning (accessed September 2021).

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
F-4
Appendix
F
January 2022
were systematically excluded both by policies and market practices such as blockbusting and racial covenants. Even decades after restrictive covenants were deemed illegal to enforce, many covenants are still on record today, and residential neighborhoods in East Long Beach remained
segregated due to a multitude of factors including
the implicit racial bias in the homebuying process,
little opportunity for development or redevelopment
in those low-density neighborhoods, and the lack of
intergenerational wealth for people of color today whose families were excluded from purchasing homes during this period.

Available housing stock for African Americans in Long
Beach received another blow in 1963, when Long Beach
City College acquired property for campus expansion. 7 In the process, 120 African American families lost their homes north of Pacific Coast Highway and east of Orange Avenue.

Real estate agents steered those families to the integrated Westside, fueling blockbusting practices that the West Side Neighbors group and activists mobilized against. This also exhibited a historical trend of large institutions developing in predominantly community of color neighborhoods
where community members had less political voice and
less ability to oppose such efforts despite the displacement impacts.

One of the more common vehicles for the displacement of diverse communities was the construction of the federal interstate highway system. As described in the book The Color of Law, “in many cases, state and local governments with federal acquiescence, designed interstate highway
routes to destroy urban African American communities. ” 8 The creation of the Long Beach Freeway (Interstate 710) in the early 1950s was largely an exception to this rule, as it was constructed on county-owned land associated with
the Los Angeles River. In addition, the construction of the San Diego Freeway (I-405) from 1957-1960 also resulted in relatively little displacement when compared with other freeways, as a portion of the freeway cut through property associated with the Long Beach Airport. However, 23
dwellings near Atherton Street and Studebaker Road were removed as part of the project.9
7Day and Tucker, The Heritage of African Americans in Long Beach, 3. 8Rothstein, The Color of Law, 133.
9 “City Joins Freeway Move Plea, ” Independent Press-Telegram, February 11, 1958, 17. 10“Demolition Asked for Vacant Homes, ” Independent Press-Telegram, August 12, 1966, B1.

The construction of State Route 91 in the late 1960s, on the other hand, cut through a relatively well-populated area of the city. A review of historic aerial photographs of North Long Beach before and after construction of the 91 reveals the bifurcation of some neighborhoods and housing
developments and the loss of many buildings. The State
Highways Division began to acquire property north of
Artesia Boulevard in the northernmost part of the city in the early 1960s. However, due to budgetary issues, the actual removal of many of the structures was delayed and by the mid-1960s, the area of vacant homes attracted squatters, vice, and squalor. 10 Known as the Artesia Freeway, State Route 91 opened in September of 1970, displacing many
African Americans and other residents.

Redevelopment Agencies played a major role in shaping
low-income communities of color in cities throughout
the country, making significant public investments and
oftentimes leading to wholesale displacement of existing residents and businesses. The Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (LBRDA) was established in 1961 to promote
economic renewal in local neighborhoods. Its work
changed city streetscapes by altering various residential areas and commercial corridors. The City of Long Beach’s first focus of Redevelopment was west of Downtown.

Subsequent LBRDA projects included Downtown Long
Beach, Long Beach Boulevard, Pine Avenue, Atlantic
Avenue, the Westside, Central Long Beach, the Poly High School neighborhood, Los Altos, Bixby Knolls, North Long Beach, and “brownfields project” areas with industrial or petroleum pollution, among others. In short, the LBRDA’s work affected many areas of the City of Long Beach. The LBRDA was dissolved in 2012 through legislation by the
State of California. At that time, it controlled 40% of the City’s land, and millions of property tax dollars (Historical Society of Long Beach).

Appendix | Fair Housing Assessment
F-5
FAppendix
January 2022
As early as 1969, a few African American families started moving into North Long Beach and were met with the
same blockbusting tactics used in other neighborhoods. By 1976, these blockbusting efforts were largely unsuccessful and North Long Beach became integrated with a mix of
White, African American, Latina/o, and Asian American
residents.11 The Independent Press-Telegram estimated that approximately 10 percent of North Long Beach’s population consisted of middle-class African Americans.12
According to a 1975 study conducted by the Center for New Corporate Priorities (CNCP), redlining was actively practiced in Long Beach, including in North Long Beach, the Westside, and Zaferia (see image on right). In 1976, redlining was once again at the forefront of the fight for fair housing in the city.

During this period, banks refused to fund mortgages in
certain areas of the city due to discriminatory attitudes and the assumption of deterioration of neighborhoods in black neighborhoods and communities of color including North
Long Beach, West Long Beach, and the Wrigley district. 13 The Ad Hoc Coalition on Redlining called on city officials to crack down on redlining and withdraw city business
from financial institutions that practiced it. In support of their position, the coalition cited a report submitted by Jan Taylor, a CSULB student who confirmed through interviews with realtors that redlining was taking place in the city.

The impacts of these discriminatory policies practices are still seen in segregation patterns, patterns of neighborhood investment and displacement, and more generally fair
housing issues in the City of Long Beach still today. The City is taking important steps in beginning to further
acknowledge this history through development the Race & Suburbanization Context Statement, efforts related to the Racial Reconciliation Framework, and in considering policy decisions such as the Housing Element Update. The City is developing Equity Action Plans to better identify inequities and institutionalize the consideration of equity impacts in policy decisions including those related to housing. This backdrop informs the Housing Element Update and specific policies and programs that are included based on the fair housing assessment data and feedback from communities
most impacted by the housing crisis.

Restrictive zoning and land use policies have played a role in perpetuating patterns of segregation and exclusion
in Long Beach. As regulations and practices to address fair housing issues became better institutionalized in the late 1970s, a steep decline in housing production took
place in Long Beach that continued until 2010. Although population growth was also slowing in the 1970s, it began spiking again significantly in the 1980s with the increase in Southeast Asian and Latino communities in Long Beach.

As the graph below shows, housing production has not
kept up with population growth since around 1970. This is 1975 Redlining Map (redlined areas indicated in gray).

Source: Independent Press-Telegram.
11“Natives, Newcomers Find Niche in Long Beach Neighborhoods, ” Los Angeles Times, December 23, 1979. 12Charles Sutton, “Middle Class Blacks Find Haven in North L.B., ” Independent Press-Telegram, May 18, 1976.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
F-6
Appendix
F
January 2022
a major contributing factor to the high rate of household overcrowding in Long Beach that disproportionately
impacts communities and neighborhoods of color
in Central, West and North Long Beach. A 2015
analysis showed that not only does overcrowding still
disproportionately impact these areas today, but also age of housing stock and lack of public and private investment disproportionately impact Central, West and North Long
Beach. Based on building permit data from 2015, these
areas experienced disproportionately lower private
and public sector investment based on building permit
valuation data. For example, although 26% of single-family residential houses were in that geography, only 16% of the investment value behind permits for single family houses were pulled for within that geography, and although that area represented 46% of the City’s commercial properties, only 33% of commercial permit value was whiten that
geography (conversely, multi-family residential investment was on par, at 56% of properties at 56% of building
permit valuation). This analysis helped inform the City’s Consolidated Plan update at the time including to focus resources in place-based improvements for R/ECAP areas
where commercial and residential rebate programs have
been focused in these areas and are being used at a much higher rate than previously. The analysis also informed the ongoing allocation of additional code enforcement
resources in those areas through the formation of a Code Enforcement Designated Area (CE-DA) where CDBG funds
are now being focused in areas of greatest need within
CDBG.

Housing development was constrained by increasingly
restrictive zoning and land use regulations designed to address community outrage and pushback over new
housing such as “crackerboxes” developed predominantly
for the increasing community of color populations. Zoning regulations throughout many parts of Long Beach have
not been updated since the 1980s. Efforts to reverse
such restrictions began in specific areas though “planned development” districts, most notable the Downtown
Plan, and expanded through a citywide effort to update
land use regulations began in 2004 but was not adopted
until December 2019 through the Land Use Element (LUE)
update that took 15 years to get adopted. The City is
now underway with developing new zones and rezoning
properties to implement the LUE framework to support
housing and a mix of compatible uses throughout the City.

At the same time that housing production reduced
dramatically, the City’s economy transitioned away from manufacturing (much of which had been tied to the
defense and aerospace industries) towards employment
in lower paying sectors including retail services, logistics and hospitality. As the economy of the city underwent these structural changes, Long Beach experienced rapid
demographic shifts . This has left large segments of the community inadequately served by current policies
and institutions related to either housing or economic
development. The racial and ethnic composition of Long
Beach underwent structural change at the same time that the city experienced the bulk of its deindustrialization and decline in manufacturing employment. In 1980 Long
Beach was a majority white community, with the white
population representing 68% of the city’s total population.

By 2000 the city became a majority minority city with the nonwhite population accounting for 67% of the city’s
population. Together, these factors have led to increasing levels of inequality in Long Beach over the last 30 years. (Long Beach Equitable Growth Profile).

In 2012, the City adopted the Downtown Plan which has
led to thousands of new housing units but did not an
inclusionary housing requirement for which housing
advocates fought hard to be incorporated into the plan.

Although an inclusionary housing requirement was not
included at the time, many housing advocates stayed
involved in the 2013 housing element update and served as representatives on the 2016 Mayor’s Affordable & Workforce Housing Policy Study Group through which formal policy
direction was adopted to develop an inclusionary housing requirement (see more details in the section below).

In 2015, staff from multiple departments across the City began participating in training as part of the Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE). Staff began to develop tools and analysis to better understand, communicate, and take steps to begin addressing the impacts of government’s role in perpetuating structural and systemic racism. This included staff undergoing training and strategic planning exercises that included examination of local history.

Through the process of reviewing literature and speaking with community leaders, staff honed in on the histories and continuing challenges related to unfair housing practices and outcomes in Long Beach. For example, examination
of historical redlining maps revealed that many of the fair Appendix | Fair Housing Assessment
F-7
FAppendix
January 2022
housing issues experienced today, such as overcrowding
and threats of displacement, are experienced in the same communities that were historically redlined and are still predominantly communities of color today.

In 2016, the City of Long Beach completed an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) in accordance with the Federal
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule of 2016 (see more details in the section below). The Long Beach AFH
was reviewed and approved by HUD. As part of the AFH
development, the City conducted a series of outreach
events and a fair housing survey to obtain input on fair housing issues and impediments to fair housing choice.

Outreach was conducted in multiple languages – English, Spanish, Khmer, and Tagalog. Major community concerns
included:
» Lack of affordable housing
» The need for inclusionary housing
» Threats of displacement are serious
» There is a lack of ability to age in place
» Eviction protections are needed
» Rent control and stabilization are needed
» Access to capital and financial resources is limited
» There is a need affordable housing in desirable
neighborhoods
» There is not enough available housing
In January 2017, building upon the GARE trainings
and equity conversations related to housing and other
community priorities such as violence prevention, the City of Long Beach became the first city in Southern California to establish a municipal Office of Equity, which was set up within the City’s Health Department. The Office of Equity became involved in many housing related policy discussions such as supporting an equity analysis of the City’s proposed Land Use Element update, and the office helped inform
many of the added equity-focused policies in the Land Use Element which were added in 2017 and 2018 based on
both community feedback and recommendations from the
Office. The Office of Equity has conducted several trainings with Planning staff since 2017 to ensure staff are better equipped to understand and address equity issues related to planning, land use and housing. In 2019, the Land Use Element was adopted and the City began working on a
Race & Suburbanization Historic Context statement update focused primarily on fair housing issues in the post-World War II period in Long Beach. The document is now in draft form and was informed by primary and secondary research including interviews of community leaders from the period.

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, was killed by four Minneapolis Police Officers. The incident was captured on video for the world to see. Across the
nation, including in Long Beach, people took to the
streets in public outcry to condemn the violence and
racial inequities that have systematically and historically impacted Black people. In June 2020, the Long Beach
City Council engaged in a conversation about racism as a public health crisis, the need to restore public trust in City government, and how to reconcile the enormous gap in
the experiences and health outcomes of impacted and
vulnerable people with current City policies, especially the Black community. City staff were directed to conduct a four-step process of acknowledging the existence and
longstanding impacts of systemic racism in America and
in Long Beach; listening to community members’ accounts and experiences of inequity and harm caused by racial
injustice; convening stakeholders to evaluate the feedback and shape policy, budgetary, charter, and programmatic
reform ideas; and catalyzing action by presenting a plan with immediate, short-term, medium-term, and long term
recommendations.

During the listening process conducted in the summer
of 2020, Long Beach community members expressed
outrage over inequities causally related to our land use system, including from lack of access to quality and
affordable housing, well-paying jobs, environmentally
safe neighborhoods, and healthy food. The community
survey conducted as part of that process actually found that “housing discrimination/redlining” was the top survey conducted as part of that process actually found that
“housing discrimination/redlining” was the top way in
which people in Long Beach who responded to the survey
have experienced racism.

Based on this feedback, the City Council unanimously
adopted the Racial Equity and Reconciliation Initiative – Initial Report on August 11, 2020. The report details actions to address anti-Black racism, advance racial equity, and create a vision for Long Beach’s future where race does Housing Element | City of Long Beach
F-8
Appendix
F
January 2022
not determine social and economic outcomes. The goals
and strategies of the initial report include actions related to government/infrastructure, public safety and policing, violence prevention, health equity and economic inclusion.

Many of the Framework for Reconciliation strategies and actions focus on addressing the housing crisis, lack of access to quality jobs, environmental racism, lack of access to healthy food and health resources, and lack of access to parks and open space in communities of color in Long Beach, all of which relate directly to land use policy and practices.

At the time the Framework was developed and adopted,
Planning was already well underway with the Uptown
Planning Land Use and Neighborhood Strategy (UPLAN), a
collaborative effort between the City and the North Long Beach community to come up with laws and policies to
guide future development and create a new vision in North Long Beach. UPLAN represents a planning process done
through an equity framework that geographically prioritizes communities of color with the greatest need for new
strategies from the LUE, including flexibility and incentives for community-prioritized needs. UPLAN is the first process for implementing the LUE through development of new
zones tailored to meet the specific community goals
prioritized by North Long Beach residents. UPLAN’s equity framework is focused on both the planning process and
the changes in planning regulations. North Long Beach
was prioritized first as a 93% person of color community with the largest number of black residents in the City.

UPLAN has been grounded in a community empowerment
and capacity building process in which communities most impacted by planning decisions, including young people
and people of color, were prioritized in the process and had their voices and feedback uplifted, leading to special regulations incentivizing grocery stores, banks, more
affordable housing, locally-serving jobs, civic institutions and other identified needs. UPLAN also includes strategies to help residents, workers, and businesses to remain in North Long Beach. This model is now being replicated
in Central Long Beach through the Anaheim Corridor
Zoning Improvement Plan (ACZIP). See also Housing
Element Program 6.10: Zoning Code Updates Tailored to
Disadvantaged Communities.

In addition to feedback from the North Long
Beach community that has informed the UPLAN
recommendations, North Long Beach community
members called for new housing opportunity to be created across all parts of the city. Relatedly, the issue of housing segregation came up time and again through the Long
Beach racial reconciliation process in 2020. Although Long Beach is one of the most diverse cities in the country, it also remains one of the most segregated cities in the country.

Although there are a multitude of equity-focused policies and strategies in the LUE/UDE, the fact remains that historic patterns of development have resulted in concentrated
poverty and racial segregation and implementation of the General Plan in the future should focus on remedying the legacy of exclusionary zoning and redlining. The areas with limited opportunity for new housing are those with the
best schools, the greatest amount of parks and open space and the healthiest environments.

All of this context has been foundational as the City began the process of developing the Housing Element update in 2020. From the inception of the process, fair housing issues were spotlighted such as through the Housing Element
Virtual Open House (still available on the project website in English and Spanish), which highlights inequities related to race, place, and other disproportionate housing needs.

In addition to consideration of extensive community input for the housing element, Staff reviewed and drew from
recent policy recommendations and initiatives as the basis for the draft Housing Element, including the Assessment of Fair Housing, the Framework for Reconciliation, the
Mayor’s Affordable & Workforce Housing report and the
Land Use Element update. Recognizing the urgency
related to affordable housing needed in high opportunity areas, in 2021 the City adopted two key strategies that have been identified as solutions by the Community and have
worked in other jurisdictions-- an Inclusionary Housing Requirement (applied to the Downtown and Midtown
Long Beach areas), and the Enhanced Density Bonus that
applies citywide. Although the City did not have a legal basis for adopting an inclusionary housing requirement
citywide, the Housing Element calls for the City to monitor the impacts of the ordinance and in 20204 re-evaluate to see if sufficient development facilitated by the LUE update and EDB can allow for expansion of the inclusionary
housing requirement.

Appendix | Fair Housing Assessment
F-9
FAppendix
January 2022
In 2020 and 2021, the City has allocated significant new investments to address fair housing issues in Long Beach through the Long Beach Recovery Act and other COVID-
recovery related funding. Investment commitments are
described throughout the Housing Element including
funding to support community land trusts, rental assistance, first time homebuyer assistance, an expanded tenant right to counsel program, and housing resource navigators.

Looking ahead, fair housing issues prioritized by the
Long Beach community and evidenced through data are
addressed in the Housing Element update and continue to be priorities of Planning staff, the City and decision makers:
» Lack of enough affordable housing
» Threats of eviction and displacement
» Racial disparities in housing ownership
» The need affordable housing in desirable neighborhoods » Overall lack of sufficient housing stock to meet
community need

2. Assessment of Fair Housing
The City of Long Beach completed an Assessment of Fair
Housing (AFH) in accordance with the Federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule of 2016. The Long Beach
AFH was reviewed and approved by HUD. As part of
the AFH development, the City conducted a series of
outreach events to obtain input on fair housing issues and impediments to fair housing choice. These included:
» Four workshops in 2016 throughout four areas of Long
Beach
– Martin Luther King Jr. Park (R/ECAP)
– Houghton Park
– Admiral Kidd Park (R/ECAP)
– Chavez Park
» Door-to-door outreach
– Martin Luther King Jr. Park (R/ECAP)
– Central Area (R/ECAP)
– Carmelitos Housing Development (R/ECAP)
– Houghton Park
– Admiral Kidd Park (R/ECAP)
– Silverado Park (R/ECAP)
– Orizaba Park (R/ECAP)
– South Wrigley Area (R/ECAP)
» Neighborhood Group Meetings
– Global Refugee Awareness Healing Center (R/ECAP)
– College Square Park
– Houghton Park Neighborhood Association
– East Village Association (R/ECAP Adjacent)
– Hamilton Neighborhood Association
– Wrigley Area Neighborhood Alliance (WANA) (R/
ECAP Adjacent)
– Semillas de Esperanza
– Washington School Neighborhood Association (R/
ECAP Adjacent)
– Deforest Park Association
– North Alamitos Neighborhood Association (R/ECAP
Adjacent)
– AOC7 Neighborhood Association (R/ECAP)
» Stakeholder Meetings
– Long Beach Community Investment Company
(LBCIC)
– Carmelitos Housing Development (R/ECAP)
– Plymouth West Senior Apartments
– Apartment Association, California Southern Cities
– Continuum of Care General Membership
– Small Business Development Center at Long Beach
City College
– Habitat for Humanity of Greater Los Angeles
– Long Beach Minister’s Alliance
– The LGBTQ Center Long Beach
– The Guidance Center
– City of Long Beach departments
– First Bank
– Housing Long Beach
– Century Villages at Cabrillo
– Housing Authority Resident Advisory Board
– Citizens Advisory Commission on Disabilities
– Disabled Resource Center
– Fair Housing Foundation of Long Beach
– Mayor’s Affordable and Workforce Housing Study
Group
» Fair Housing Survey

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
F-10
Appendix
F
January 2022
Outreach for public meetings was conducted in multiple
languages – English, Spanish, Khmer, and Tagalog.

Summary of Key Comments
» Over-arching agreement that the issues and problems
of affordability are not only local, but state, national and even global issues and problem as well.
– Lack of affordable housing
– Need inclusionary housing
– Displacement
– Ability to age in place
– Eviction protection
– Rent control and stabilization
» General agreement that while there may be some
discrimination still taking place, the idea/definition of fair housing in outdated.
» Fair housing education on tenant rights
» Access to resources and services
– Access to capital and financial resource is limited
– Need affordable housing in desirable neighborhoods
– Available housing is limited; should limit AirBnB and condo conversion
– Increase inspection on Section 8 units
– Lack of public and private investments
Survey Results
A total of 388 responses were received:
» Ethnicity: 36% Hispanic/64% Non-Hispanic
» Race: 1.4% American Indian; 1.6% Native Hawaiian;

12.6% Asian; 45.1% White; 20.6% Black; and 18.7% Other
» Disability: 23.5% with disability
» Experience with Discrimination: 26.5% Yes
» Perpetrator: 85.3% landlords
» Basis of Discrimination: Race 42.6%; 30.9% Source of
Income; Familial Status 29.4%; 17.6% Color; 14.7%
Gender; 13.2% Marital Status
Some of these priorities are addressed in the City’s
most recent consolidated plan process that focuses
place-based investment in R/ECAPs and funding for
fair housing enforcement. Most others are woven into
and have informed the 2021 Housing Element Update,
such as proposed monitoring and expansion of the
inclusionary housing program; strategies for increasing access to affordable housing in high resource areas;
anti-displacement strategies; stronger eviction protections through the substantial remodel program; rental housing division to study local rent stabilization.

Appendix | Fair Housing Assessment
F-11
FAppendix
January 2022

3.Affordable & Workforce Housing Taskforce
Policy Guidance
The 2017 Report on Revenue Tools and Incentives for the Production of Affordable and Workforce Housing was
developed through an extensive community process guided by a group of community leaders and housing advocates.

The 29 policy recommendations adopted through this
process have served as a primary framework guiding
staff efforts around housing policy and program updates in the years since. In January 2016, Mayor Robert Garcia issued a call to action to address the increasingly tenuous challenge of producing affordable and workforce housing for the residents of Long Beach. In February 2016, a group of area housing leaders and advocates were assembled to comprise the ad hoc Affordable and Workforce Housing
Study Group (Study Group). Area housing leaders and
advocates were assembled to comprise the Study Group,
which was chaired by former California Assemblywoman
Bonnie Lowenthal, included representatives from Housing Long Beach; Building Healthy Communities Long Beach
(now Long Beach Forward), Facilitation Lab; the Homeless Services Advisory Committee;, Century Housing; The LGBTQ Center Long Beach; and California State University, Long Beach. Many of these representatives and organizations were involved with the Downtown Plan and the 2013
Housing Element update (see history section above).

The Study Group, along with City staff, participated in multiple discussion about a variety of housing issues, and studied housing production tools in use throughout the
county. The Study Group worked with staff to prepare the Report on Revenue Tools and Incentives for the Production of Affordable and Workforce Housing. The goal of the
Housing Report was to recommend policies that may
increase the production of affordable and workforce
housing. The Housing Report was developed through a
collaborative process that included research, input from the Study Group, community meetings with stakeholders
and industry experts, and public study sessions. The Study Group held over 15 meetings between February 2016 and
February 2017 to discuss issues, review data, and formulate a list of potential policy items for consideration.

In the fall of 2016, the Study Group and City staff hosted a series of community meetings, which were intended
to facilitate conversation between affordable housing
advocacy groups, the development community, and the
public. Two roundtable meetings were held, one featuring a panel of housing advocates, and another featuring a
panel of housing developers. Additionally, a community
forum and resource fair offered opportunities for the public to provide comments on housing issues, and learn more
about a variety of housing programs and services offered by the Departments of Development Services and Health
and Human Services.

The final Housing Report includes 29 policy
recommendations, which the City Council adopted on May
2, 2017. Since adoption of these recommendations, staff has taken the necessary steps to implement many of the
key recommendations, including:
» 3.2. Immediately begin the development of an
inclusionary housing policy to encourage mixed-
income housing. Focus an inclusionary ordinance on
homeownership units until such time as the legality
of rental units is determined. Inclusionary housing
ordinance adopted by City Council: February 2, 2021.
» 1.4. Promote Density Bonus incentives- The City’s
Enhanced Density Bonus, which is a local ordinance
tailored to the Long Beach context, was adopted by
City Council on October 5, 2021. The Enhanced Density
Bonus Ordinance also includes no-net-loss requirements
that exceed the State’s requirements.
» 1.3. Waive developer impact fees for affordable housing- Although the city already waived impact fees for
low-income units, as part of the 2021 Enhanced Density
Bonus Ordinance, amendments to certain impact
fees were made to exempt moderate income units in
affordable development projects from such impact fees.

The municipal code amendments establishing such
exemptions were adopted by City Council on October
5, 2021.
» 3.11. Allow micro-units as a method for encouraging
housing production- the ordinance establishing a
micro-unit pilot program was adopted by City Council
on December 8, 2020.

Housing Element | City of Long Beach
F-12
Appendix
F
January 2022
» 2.3. Conduct a financial analysis and nexus study to
review the viability of the Coastal Zone in-lieu fee (LBMC

21.61), and consider revisions to the fee structure.

Amendments to LBMC Chapter 21.61 (Maintenance
of Low Income Housing in the Coastal Zone) to limit
exceptions to the requirements to replace affordable
units and to increase in-lieu fees for Coastal Zone areas of Long Beach were adopted by City Council on July 20,
2021.
» 3.10. Encourage the use of shipping container
construction for housing-- On August 19, 2021, the
Planning Commission took action with regards to
shipping containers as building materials for residential structures, in order to allow the use of steel shipping container materials for dwelling units through a
ministerial process rather than a discretionary process.

To maximize local efforts, this housing element is informed by other recent City initiatives, including the Mayor’s Taskforce on Workforce & Affordable Housing. As part
of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, many of the
policies listed above are early implementation measures of the Housing Element and are further supported through
programs and policies in the plan. Policies in the Housing Element that stem from recommendations of the Mayor’s
Taskforce on Affordable & Workforce Housing include:
» HE Policy 1.11: Utilize inclusionary housing and enhanced density bonuses that expand upon the density bonus
and development standard concessions and incentives
offered as tools to facilitate the development of more
affordable housing, with a mix of affordability levels
within mixed-income housing (p. 53).
» HE Policy 1.12: Provide incentives for housing that is accessible and affordable to lower income households,
seniors, and disabled persons (including persons with
developmental disabilities), such as through density
bonus incentive programs that offer bonuses and
concessions beyond those offered by the State Density
Bonus Statute (Government Code Section 65915) (p. 53).
» HE Policy 1.13: Promote mixed income and/or mixed-
generation housing that fosters integration of residents of different socioeconomic backgrounds.
» HE Policy 2.1: Evaluate existing zoning and design
policies, impact fees and other regulations for their impact on housing construction cost through
unnecessary delays or logistical roadblocks.
» HE Policy 2.3: Offer financial and/or regulatory
incentives, such as density bonuses and fee reductions
or waivers, where feasible, to reduce the costs and/or to remove impediments to developing affordable housing,
particularly near transit.
» HE Policy 2.4: Utilize hybrid zoning and other planning tools to allow flexible residential development standards in designated areas.
» HE Policy 2.6: Provide density bonus incentives beyond those offered by the State Density Bonus Statute
(Government Code Section 65915) to further facilitate
the construction of affordable housing as part of
mixed-income, multi-family housing development
citywide, while also offering no net loss protections that exceed those required by the State and the City’s local ordinance.
» HE Policy 6.4: Require at minimum the replacement
of housing units that are demolished because of
proposed development at the same or greater levels of
affordability based on deed restrictions or incomes of
previous tenants.
» HE Policy 1.7: Encourage residential development
along transit corridors, in the downtown and close to employment, transportation and activity centers;
and encourage infill and mixed-use developments in
designated districts in alignment with the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) to minimize carbon
emissions by focusing new housing near transit and
jobs.
» HE Policy 6.17: Maximize the preservation and
replacement of affordable housing units through no net
loss and other strategies.
» HE Policy 2.5: Explore removing minimum unit size
requirements, based on results of the micro-unit pilot
program, as a means to provide market-rate units
that are affordable by virtue of their housing typology and can provide more affordable housing options for
students and young professionals.
» HE Policy 4.6: Proactively seek out new models and
approaches for the provision of affordable housing, such as co-housing, micro units, motel/hotel conversions,
and assisted living facilities.

Long Beach City CouncilFebruary 8, 2022

Long Beach City Council
February 8, 2022