Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
228
The City of Santa Clarita Transit provides public transportation services to the City of Santa Clarita and nearby surrounding unincorporate d areas (Figure 42). The City of Santa Clarita Transit also provides commuter services to various communities in Los Angeles County including connections with Metro. Add itionally, the agency accommodates connections with Metrolink and the Antelope Valley Transit Authority at various transfer points within the city limits. The City of Santa Clarita Transit supports the needs of the disabled community by ensuring that all b us lines are accessible through wheelchair lifts, with at least two on each bus. In addition, the agency offers free fares on local routes and reduced fares on its commuter express lines to seniors 60 and over or disabled passengers with identification. Th e various services include:
• Commuter Express Service: The Transit Commuter Bus offers service to and from major places outside of the Santa Clarita Valley, including various locations in Los Angeles anFd the San Fernando Valley.
• Station Link Service: Station Link service provides services from the Santa Clarita Metrolink station to major local places of employment within the Santa Clarita Valley.
• Dial-A-Ride: For persons with special needs due to age or disabilities, the agency offers paratransit services for qualified elderly or special needs customers, as well as the general public. City residents who are at least 60 years of age or have a certified disability are eligible to use Dial-A-Ride anytime during regular service hours.
• Paratransit Services: Access Services Incorporated offers paratransit services for individuals whose disabilities prevent them from using regular buses or rail service.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
229
Figure 43: Bus Lines and Stops (shown as colored lines and dots) in Santa Clarita
Source: City of Santa Clarita Transit, 2021
Ride-dependent populations are defined as individuals who, for one reason or another, do not have the ability to transport themselves and therefore rely on other means (i.e., public transportation) for basic mob ility needs. Industry standards defines ride -dependent individuals as low -income, seniors, youth, persons with disabilities, and those with no or limited access to a personal vehicle.
The most recent Transit Development Plan for the City included an analysis to idendify areas with large populations or ride-dependent groups to help identify gaps between existing service and demand. The analysis identified an increase in ride dependent populations which translates to a strong and continuing demand for effecti ve transit options. frequency) and demand . While providing local fixed routes is useful in serving most populations (such as youth and low -income individuals), more individualized mobility options (such as dial-a-ride service) can be more effective for others (including some persons with disabilities or seniors). Santa Clarita Transit
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
230
currently operates 2 1 supplemental routes to local junior high schools and high schools as a means of providing affordable home -to-school transportation for the community’s yo uth, as well as a local dial -a-ride service for eligible seniors and persons with disabilities.
Routes 1/2, 4/14, and 5/6 serve the Santa Clarita Senior Center, while the dial -a- ride service is available to those qualifying individuals over the age of 60 who are unable to use the fixed -route system. Additional senior -oriented destination/trip generators (such as senior housing) and the routes serving them include:
• Belcaro (Route 7);
• Bouquet Canyon Seniors (Routes 3, 4/14);
• Canterbury Village Seniors (Routes 4/14, 5/6);
• Canyon Country Senior Apartments (Route 12);
• Castaic Lake Senior Village (Routes 1);
• Fountain Glen Apartments (Route 7);
• Friendly Valley (Routes 12);
• Orchard Arms (Routes 5/6);
• Pacifica Senior Living (Routes 5/6);
• Santa Clarita Convalescent Home (Route 12);
• Summerhill Villa (Routes 5/6);
• Sunrise at Sterling Canyon (Routes 5/6);
• Valencia Villas (4/14); and
• Whispering Oaks (Routes 4/14)
The Transit Development Plan i llustrated the relationship between transit demand and supply by quantifying aggregate demand (ride-dependent population as well as total residents) within individual census tracts in the Santa Clarita Valley. Figure 43provides a visual representation of the aggregate demand by identifying the ride - dependent distribution combined with block population information. This demand data was then contrasted with transit supply, quantifie d by representing each route alignment within the Santa Clarita Transit fixed -route service area. The analysis found high concentrations of ride -dependent persons residing in the south and southeast areas/portions of the Valley. These areas are currently s erved by Routes 12 and 5/6, along with several commuter routes (757, 795, 796, 797, and 799) and various school trippers. The Plan identified the need to maintain and expand transit service in areas with high concentrations of ride -dependent persons. The r eport included robust community outreach and an Operations Plan chapter that provided recommendations to meet the needs of the community and implementation measures to be taken by the City of Santa Clarita Transit Service.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
231
Figure 44: Ride-Dependent Population by Block Group in Santa Clarita
Source: The City of Santa Clarita Transit Development Plan, 2019
The City’s affordable housing units are universally well -served by public transit (Figure 44). As shown, most affordable housing projects in the City are situated along transit routes, with all but two being located within one -quarter mile of a bus stop, which are only slightly outside of the given radius and are still considered to be well- serviced by transit.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
232
Figure 45: Affordable Housing Near Public Transit
Source: Santa Clarita Analysis of Impediments, 2019
Economic Development and Access to Jobs
The TCAC Opportunity Map accounts for regional differences in access to opportunities and identifies economic outcomes for each census tract. A score of less than 0.25 is considered a less positive economic outcome, while scoring greater than
0.75 indicates higher access to opportunities.
The index is based on measurements of the following indicators:
• Poverty
• Adult Education
• Employment
• Job Proximity
The City has mixed ratings in terms of economic outcomes ( Figure 45). Areas with the lowest economic index scores are located in Newhall and Canyon Country, where other trends in segregation have been identified including higher rates of poverty, HUD minority concentration, and higher rates of children living in female headed households with no spouse present. Neighborhoods in the central part of the city (near the intersection of Sol edad Canyon Road and Whites canyon Road) and the
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
233
southern part of the city ( near intersection of Newall Ave and Lyons Ave) had a concentration of census tracts with less positive economic outcomes that overlapped with areas exhibiting a higher rate of persons with disabilities and a greater share of non-white residents compared to areas with more positive economic outcomes in the city. Likewise, m outcomes are universal throughout the Los Angeles County region with economic outcomes often reflecting other patterns of segregation ( Figure 46).
Program HP-4.11The following programs contain s implementing actions to provide services to address economic these disparities in these areas:. • The City will continue to promote the State’s rental and mortgage relief programs on the City website. (Program HP-2.10)
• The City will proactively promote the services of the Housing Rights Center in communities who are vulnerable to displacement, and maintain year-round informational postings at community centers and other municipal buildings near vulnerable communities (Program HP-2.10)
• The City will implement programs designed to increase the supply of affordable units in a range of sizes. (Programs HP-1.4: Affordable Housing Density Bonus, HP-1.7: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, HP- 2.1: Changes for Consistency with State Law, HP-3.7: Workforce Housing Program) Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
234
Figure 46: Economic Index Map of Santa Clarita
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2021, TCAC 2021
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
235
Figure 47: Economic Index Map of LA County Area
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2021, TCAC 2021
According to ESRI Community Analyst, 71 percent of the working population in Santa Clarita is employed in white collar industries. As of 2021, the top three sectors of the labor force in the City are in management, office administration, and sales. These are also the top three sectors of the labor force in Los Angeles County.
Employment Inflow/Outflow analyses highlight the movement of workers commuting into and out of selected geographies such as cities or counties (Figure 47). Movement captured by inflow/outflow diagrams shows both the employment level of a community and whether it is a net importer or exporter of workers.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
236
Figure 48: Inflow and Outflow Analysis of Santa Clarita
*Note: Arrows do not indicate directionality of worker flow Source: OntheMap.ces.census.gov, 2021
Data from On the Map identifies Santa Clarita as a net exporter of workers. A majority of those who live in Santa Clarita are employed outside of the C (52.8%), while 15.3 percent of residents work within the area. Non -residents who are employed within the City comprise of 31.8 percent of Santa Clarita’s workforce. In sum, twice as many people employed in Santa Clarita are from outside of the City. Further analysis of worker flow is needed to identify if there is a housing need for non -resident employees. The City continues to work on creating job opportunities locally through programs like the Jobs Creation overlay zone (JCOZ) for residents, thus reducing work trips outside of the City.
Santa Clarita has a wide range of ratings on the HUD Jobs Proximity Index, which quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a statistical area ( Figure 48). The Jobs Proximity Index is used in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program determination process; however, a recent study published by HUD found no evidence that HCV households in the labor force are more likely than those not in the labor force to locate closer to
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
237
jobs. In addition, the authors found no link between job proximity and greater earned incomes. However, HCV households are a diverse group, and proximity to jobs is worth acknowledging for households in the workforce without access to reliable transportation.
Figure 49: HUD Jobs Proximity Index Map of Santa Clarita and Surrounding Areas
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021
Areas with t he closest proximity to jobs in Santa Clarita are located in the northwestern census tracts, while areas a south have lower proximity to jobs.,, Many census tracts in the City have low job proxim ity ratings despite major employers being well -serviced by pu blic transit (Figure 53). From the northern and eastern regions of the City, there is little access to employment opportunities for residents within the neighborhoods, as observed by the lowest values in red. Areas in the eastern and southern part of Santa Clarita with lower job proximity scores larger share of non-white residents and also were more likely to have lower median incomes and higher rates of poverty compared to areas of high job proximity in the northwest of the city.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
238
As indicated by Figure 47, most residents are employed outside of the City. A number of development projects on the eastern portion of the City have been approved and/or are under construction that will create new, local job opportunities. These development projects include the Center at Needham Ranch, Vista Canyon, Sand Canyon Plaza, and the Plaza at Golden Valley. Intergovernmental cooperation will be necessary to ensure equity in transportation access to these new job opportunities, as the areas with lowest job proximity scores overlap with lower income areas bearing higher concentrations of Hispanic or Latino residents.
Figure 50: Public Transit and Major Employers
Source: Santa Clarita Analysis of Impediments, 2019
Disparities in Access to Opportunities: Contributing Factors The main disparities in access to opportunities in Santa Clarita are related to economic conditions and environmental health hazards which are more prevalent in Newhall and Canyon Country, areas with higher populations of protected classes.
The main factor that contributes to these issues are thePatterns of racial and ethnic concentration
L location and type of affordable housing.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
239
Environmental hazards: ozone levels, lead in housing, drinking water contaminants Patterns of segregation of lower and moderate- income households, female-headed households with children, and Hispanic residents in moderate resource areas of Newhall and Canyon Country To address this, the City will take the following actions:
• The City will prepare a feasibility study for an inclusionary housing ordinance (Program HP-1.7), which would provide affordable units within market-rate developments.
• The City will encourage collaboration between local governments and community land trusts as a mechanism to develop affordable housing in higher-opportunity areas and increase opportunities for community ownership of housing. (Program HP-2.10)
• The City will work with LACDA to develop a landlord education and outreach program that will include information on source of income discrimination and Housing Choice Voucher programs. (Program HP-2.10)
• The City will develop an outreach strategy that proactively connects tenants and those seeking rental housing with the information and resources they need. The City will seek to establish an affirmative marketing campaign aimed at promoting equal access to government assisted housing. (Program HP-
2.10)
4.5.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs
The HUD AFFH Guidebook defines ‘disproportionate housing needs’ as “a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of a member of any other relevant groups or the total population experienci ng the category of housing need in the applicable geographic area .” The analysis is completed by assessing cost burden, severe cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing.
The City’s 2019 Analysis of Impediments found that 52 percent of Santa Clarit a households experience ‘housing problems’ at higher rates than the County overall.
Findings also revealed that non -white, minority households in the City experience housing problems at higher rates than non-white, minority households in the County.
Data i ndicates that renters, elderly, and large (7+ persons) households may be subject to disproportionate housing problems, including affordability and adequate physical needs. Renters in both the City and the County experience housing problems at a greater rate than owners.
Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is most commonly measured as the percentage of gross income spent on housing, with 30 percent a commonly accepted threshold for 'cost burden' Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
240
and 50 percent the threshold for 'severe cos t burden.' Renter- and owner-occupied households in Santa Clarita experience housing cost burdens at similar, if not slightly lower, rates than households across Los Angeles County. However, a lower -income household spending the same percent of income on h ousing as a higher -income household will likely experience a greater 'cost burden.' As seen in Table 47, renters experience ‘cost burden’ and ‘severe cost burden’ at higher rates than owners in both the City and the County. Additionally, ACS data shows that the majority of renters earn less than the median annual income, while the majority of owners earn more than the median annual income. Some of the implications of high -cost burden can include housing -induced poverty, where overspending on housing leaves households little financial resources fo r other expenditures, and reduced savings which can impact asset accumulation.
As seen in other sections of the Assessment of Fair Housing, census tracts in Newhall and Canyon Country are disproportionately affected by cost burden for renters and homeowners (Figure 50, Figure 51). Cost burden in these areas is more likely to seriously i mpact households ’ financial wellbeing, as these areas also experience higher rates of poverty, lower household incomes, and have higher percentages of children living in female -headed households without a spouse or partner. Actions taken under Program HP-4.11 1.7, HP-2.10, and HP-3.7 seek to address these issues by supporting affordable housing development and bringing services to these areas to support equitable economic outcomes.
Local knowledge has indicated that the reason for severe cost burden for renters in the northeast area of the City is likely due to the presence of the College of the Canyons campus, which does not have student housing. Students are often underemployed and rely on financial aid, student loans, or family support which often are not reflected in their individual incomes . This could skew the representation of the data in this area.
Table 47: Cost Burden & Severe Cost Burden by Tenure in the City and County Cost burden > 30% Cost Burden >50%
Santa Clarita
Owner-Occupied 30.54% 12.16%
Renter-Occupied 54.77% 25.74%
Los Angeles County
Owner-Occupied 34.98% 16.26%
Renter-Occupied 54.16% 29.34%
Source: HUD CHAS Data; ACS 2013-2017
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
241
Figure 51: Percent of Renters Overpaying for Housing in Santa Clarita by Census Tract
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
242
Figure 52: Percent of Owners Overpaying for Housing in Santa Clarita by Census Tract
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room, including dining and living rooms, but excluding bathrooms and kitchen.
Overcrowding has been correlated with increased risks of contracting communicable diseases, higher rates of respiratory illness, and greater vulnerability to being homeless. Residential crowding reflects demographic and socioeconomic conditions.
Older-adult immigrant and recent immigrant communities, families with low incomes and renter-occupied households are more likely to experience household crowding.
A form of residential overcrowding known as "doubling up" is co-residing with family members or friends for economic reasons . Doubling up is the most commonly reported living situation for families and individuals before the onset of homelessness. (California Health and Human Services).
According to the 2019 5 -year ACS estimates, a lower percentage of households in Santa Clarita (3.8%) are livi ng in overcrowded conditions than the County (6.6%).
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
243
Census tracts in the Newhall and Canyon Country areas have the highest rates of overcrowding in the City ( Figure 52). This issue overlaps with other socioeconomic disparities including higher rates of poverty, children living in female headed households with no spouse or partner present, HUD minority concentration, and lower economic and environmental index scores. Programs HP-4.11 has been initiated1.7, HP-2.10, and HP-1.6 seek to overcome disparate trends in these areas.
Figure 53: Percent of Overcrowded Households in Santa Clarita by Census Tract
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021
Regionally, census tracts with overcrowded households are concentrated in urban areas, particularly in the City of Los Angeles , San Fernando, and El Monte ( Figure 53). Areas in the northern and western Los Angeles tracts have lower rates of overcrowding. However, in the Los Angeles’ Gateway Cities region and Central LA region, high rates of overcrowding ar e the majority. Santa Clarita has less cases of overcrowding than the surrounding areas overall.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
244
Figure 54: Overcrowding in Santa Clarita and the Surrounding Areas Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021
Severe overcrowding is defined a s more than 1.51 persons per room. One census tract in the Newhall area has a high concentration of severely overcrowded households, 30.4 percent, compared to the rest of the City which broadly reports less than 5.0 percent of households being severely ove rcrowded ( Figure 54). Census tracts in the Newhall and Canyon Country areas have the highest rates of severe overcrowding in the City . This issue overlaps with other so cioeconomic disparities including higher rates of poverty, children living in female -headed households with no spouse or partner present, HUD minority concentration, and lower economic and environmental index scores. Programs HP-1.6, HP-1.7, and HP-2.104.11 haves been initiated included to overcome disparate trends in these areas.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
245
Figure 55: Severe Overcrowding in Santa Clarita
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021
Substandard Housing
The American Community Survey includes questions that are used to indicate ‘substandard housing’ as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 24, §
5.425). In Santa Clarita, 2.6 percent of occupied housing lacks either telephone service, plumbing facilities, or complete kitche n facilities; 3.7 percent of occupied homes in Los Angeles County experience the same issues. The rate of substandard housing within surrounding jurisdictions differed slightly compared to Santa Clarita.
About 4 percent of occupied housing units in the City of Los Angeles, 2.7 percent in Lancaster and 2.4 percent in Palmdale were considered substandard , according to the U.S Census Bureau. Local data from City staff responsible for Community Preservation indicates that an estimated 4 percent of units will require rehabilitation in the next 10 years. The areas staff identified include Newhall, Canyon Country, and Saugus which are older and have a history of code enforcement. The most recent CHAS data indicates that lower income households experience substandar d housing at higher rates than moderate and above moderate-income households (Table 48).
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
246
Program HP-2.10 and HP-3.24.11 implements actions to conduct outreach in lower income areas of the City and to increase awareness of implement the Handyworker Program which provides grants to qualified applicants up to $5,000 to help pay for necessary repairs to their homes.
Table 48: Substandard Housing and Household Income
Source: CHAS, 2021
Homelessness
The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA)conducts annual point-in-time surveys of homeless populations. According to the LAHSA, there were 63,706 homeless individuals in Los Angeles County in 2020, 46,090 of which were reported as unsheltered. Of the total homeless population in Los Angele s County, Hispanic/Latino (36%) comprised the largest share of homeless persons in the region, followed by Black/African American (34%), White (25%), Multi -Racial/Other (2%), and Asian (1%). The same survey identified 168 people reported as experiencing homelessness in Santa Clarita in 2020, a 35 percent decline from 2019 (Figure 55). 103 homeless residents surveyed were reported as unsheltered, with almost 75 percent of those individuals reporting that they live in a vehicle (car, van , or recreational vehicle). Of the 65 sheltered individuals, 87.7 percent reported being sheltered in emergency shelters and 12.3 percent reported being in transitional housing.
Services for homeless individuals in Santa Clarita are provided by homeless services provider Bridge to Home. Brid ge to Home operates year -round 24/7 services for up to 60 people at any given time and has an approved proposal to expand its services.
The Santa Clarita Community Task Force on Homelessness also works toward completing action items from the Community Plan to Address Homelessness. Program HP-4.11 continuesThe City supports for the Task Force on Homelessness to implement the Community Plan to Address Homelessness, including supporting the Shared Housing Program, which will offer innovative housing solutions that add to the stock of attainable, sustainable housing, by establishing shared living arrangements between home seekers and those with space in existing housing
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
247
Figure 56: Los Angeles County Point-In-Time Homeless Count Results in Santa Clarita
Source: LAHSA, 2021
Displacement
UCLA’s Urban Displacement Project defines residential displacement as “the process by which a household is forced to move from its residence - or is prevented from
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
248
moving into a neighborhood that was previously accessible to them because of conditions beyo nd their control.” As part of this project, the UCLA team has an interactive map that displays changes in neighborhood characteristics that may indicate displacement. Two key factors in visualizing displacement are the loss of low- income households and inc reases in rent. According to the Urban Displacement Project, five census tracts in the City are at risk of displacement ( Figure 56). The proactive community preservation program is in place to prevent displacement in the City. Place -based strategies in the most vulnerable areas will seek to reduce the likelihood of displacement including actions taken under Progams HP-2.10 and HP-
1.64.11. The Newhall area is currently undergoing revitalization led by the Old Town Newhall Specific Plan which utilizes both physical and policy initiatives to increase transit - oriented development, increase mixed uses, and create a variety of housing types .
To overcome any risk of investment -driven displacement, the plan will implement City policies, state mandates, and housing incentives that facilitate the development of necessary low - and moderate -income dwellings. The Plan identifies the risk of displacement due to proposed redevelopment . The Plan , in conjunction with the General Plan, outlines specific actions to overcome that risk . Actions taken under Programs HP-2.7 and HP 2.10 HP-4.11 will ensure that the Old Town Newhall Specific Plan includes measures to reduce the risk of investment- driven displacement.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
249
Figure 57: Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement in Santa Clarita
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021
Additionally, the vulnerable tracts identified in Figure 56 are at risk of disaster-driven displacement from either flood risk, fire risk, or both (Figure 57, Figure 58). The most destructive flooding event in recent history in the City occurred in 2005 when flooding caused significant damage to a mobile home park and other residen tial sites near Newhall Creek. Additionally, unhoused residents are particularly vulnerable to disaster-driven displacement.
FEMA programs can help residents in the immediate aftermath of a disaster but certain communities such as disabled, elderly, or res idents without a local support network may face additional challenges if they find themselves displaced by disaster.
Policies in the City’s Safety Element seek to overcome these risks including the prioritization of c limate mitigation actions and retrofits in neighborhoods that currently experience social or environmental injustice or bear a disproportionate burden of potential public health impacts, cooperation with other agencies to ensure adequate shelter for homeless persons to limit their exposure to accidental injury and illness, and the implementation of the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act to ensure safe travel paths and accommodations for persons with disabilities.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
250
Figure 58: Fire Severity Zones in Santa Clarita
Source: The State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2021
Figure 59: Subsidized Housing, Mobile Home Parks and Flood Risk in Santa Clarita
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
251
Policies in the City’s Safety Element seek to overcome these risks including the prioritization of climate mitigation actions and retrofits in neighborhoods that currently experience social or environmental injustice or bear a disproportionate burden of potential public health impacts.
Housing Affordability
According to data from Zillow.com, a real estate and rental market website that uses a specific methodology to calculate typical home values, Santa Clarita’s typical home values are slightly lower than surrounding Los Angeles County with values increasing at a similar exponential rate between 2012 and 2021 (Figure 59).
As is being experienced across much of the state, home values in the City have increased dramatically during the post -pandemic recovery, increasing nearly 18 percent in the last year alone. Additional data from the Southland Regional Association of Realtor s indicates the home sales prices in the Santa Clarita Valley region have risen 28 percent in the last year. The Southland Regional Association of Realtors’ Income-to-Loan guide indicates that a loan applicant would need an income of $156,788 to obtain a l oan for a single -family home in the Santa Clarita Valley region. The most recent 5-year ACS estimates the median income in the City of Santa Clarita to be $99,666.
Figure 60: Home Value in the City and the County Over Time Source: Zillow, 2021
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
252
Data from Zillow also revealed an increase in rental rates in the City of 6 percent over the last five years. The average rental rate for studio, one - and two- bedroom apartments in the City is $1,300, $1,750, and $2,450, respectively.
As seen in Table 49, many block groups with HUD defined minority concentration, cannot afford the average rent for a one -bedroom rental in the City without falling into a housing cost -burden where total housing costs exceed 30 percent of gross monthly income (HUD).
Table 49: Minority Concentration Areas and Affordability of Average Rent Census
Tract/
Area
Block
Group
Median
Income
Ability to afford Average Rent without Cost-
Burden
Studio/$1300 1-BR/ $1700 2-BR/$2450
9200.36
Canyon
Country
1 $59,667 Yes No No
2 $61,667 Yes No No
3 $109,886 Yes Yes Yes
4 $81,667 Yes Yes No
9200.37
Canyon
Country
1 $69,986 Yes Yes No
2 $49,487 No No No
3 $58,250 Yes No No
9203.36
Newhall
3 $44,040 No No No
4 $51,875 No No No
9203.37
Newhall
1 $48,750 No No No
2 $70,250 Yes Yes No
3 $77,240 Yes Yes No
4 $44,306 No No No
Source: ACS 2015-2019; Zillow Average Rental Cost in Santa Clarita
Disproportionate Housing Needs: Contributing Factors
Fair housing issues related to disproportionate housing needs in Santa Clarita include displacement, overcrowding, and overpayment, primarily in Newhall and Canyon Country areas. The highest priority factors that contribute to these issues are the location and availability of affordable housing in a range of sizes and the displacement of residents due to economic pressures. In addition to the programs described in 4.5.3 to increase the availability and integration of affordable housing and the City’s continued work with the Santa Clarita Community Task Force on Homelessness, the Committee on Housing, and implementing the Community Plan to Address Homelessness the City will take the following actions:
• The City will review the Old Town Newhall Specific Plan, which governs land- use decisions where there are identified populations that are vulnerable to displacement, to ensure it includes anti-displacement measures (e.g.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
253
relocation assistance for projects which displace lower income residents and first right of return to existing residents). (Program HP-1.6) • The City will require replacement housing units subject to the requirements of Government Code Section 65915(c)(3) for sites on the City’s Sites Inventory (Program HP-2.7)
• The City will continue to promote the State’s rental and mortgage relief programs on the City website. (Program HP-2.10)
• The City will proactively promote the services of the Housing Rights Center in communities who are vulnerable to displacement, and maintain year-round informational postings at community centers and other municipal buildings near vulnerable communities (Program HP-2.10)
• The City will implement programs designed to increase the supply of affordable units in a range of sizes. (Programs HP-1.4: Affordable Housing Density Bonus, HP-1.7: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, HP- 2.1: Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types, HP-3.7: Workforce Housing Program) Patterns of racial and ethnic concentration
Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
Investment-driven risk of displacement
Disaster-driven risk of displacement
Location and type of affordable housing
Unaffordable rents and sale prices
Discriminatory lending practices
Cost of repairs or rehabilitation
4.5.6 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence In an effort to identify racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (RECAPs), HUD has identified census tracts with a majority non-White population (greater than 50 percent) that have either a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower.
In Los Angeles County, RECAP clusters have become smaller over time, with RECAPs scattered in sections of Palmdale, Long Beach, and San Fernando. Larger RECAP clusters can be seen in the central portion of the City of Los Angeles.
Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty
According to the 2009 -2013 HUD estimates there are no RECAPs in Santa Clarita.
The areas where the most people experience poverty have largely stayed the same or expanded, while the more affluent areas have not seen an increase in the percentage of people experiencing poverty. Over the last decade, the same areas in Newhall and Canyon Country a re the most impacted by poverty, have higher concentrations of minority populations, experience more disparities in access to Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
254
opportunities, and have disproportionate housing needs including overcrowding, risk of displacement, and higher incidents of substandard housing.
Figure 61: Percent of Population Below Poverty Level in Los Angeles County, San Fernando Valley SCAG Subregion, and Santa Clarita, ACS 5- Year Estimates 2010-2014
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
255
Figure 62: Percent of Population Below Poverty Level in Los Angeles County, San Fernando Valley SCAG Subregion, and Santa Clarita, ACS 5-Year Estimates 2015-2019
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
256
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
While racially /ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and segregation (RECAPs) have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated, a key to fair housing choice. According to a policy paper published by HUD, RCAA is defined as affluent, white communities. According to HUD's policy paper, whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States and “in the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, conversely, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, white communities.”
RCAAs have not been studied extensively nor has a standard definition be en published by HCD or HUD . This fair housing assessment uses the percent white population and median household income as proxies to identify potential areas of affluence. As Figure 62 shows, census tracts in the city with a large white population (over 50 percent) tend to be in areas where household median incomes are above the state median income however, that is not always the case.
Figure 63: Percentage of White Population and Median Incomes by Census Block Group
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
257
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021
Another way to visualize this data is by looking at how median incomes have changed over the last decade in relationship to the percentage of the non -white population.
Figure 63 and Figure 64 show the median incomes for census block groups in Santa Clarita from the ACS 5- year estimates from 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 respectively.
The graduated circles represent the percentage of the total non -white populations from 2010 and 2018 respectively. Smaller circles in dicate higher percentages of White alone, non-Hispanic populations and larger circles indicate higher percentages of non-White populations.
While median incomes have increased in almost all areas of the city, the areas with the lowest median incomes have the highest percentages of non-White populations, while the areas with the highest median incomes tend to have lower percentages of non-white populations. While incomes have risen across most census block groups in the City, these maps indicate increasing segregation of non-white populations in the areas of Newhall and in some portions of Canyon Country , which have been repeatedly identified as experiencing higher rates of poverty, more disparities in access to opportunities, a nd have disproportionate housing needs including overcrowding, risk of displacement, and higher incidents of substandard housing.
Similar to Santa Clarita , increasing median income trends and ethnic/racial composition have changed across the region. Median income levels across urbanized neighborhoods in northern Los Angeles County including Sylmar, Pacoima, Granada Hills, the cities of San Fernando , Palmdale and Lancaster had increased when comparing 2010 and 2015 ACS 5 - year estimates. In addition, ethnic/racial demographics across communities in the throughout northern Los Angeles County has also change d, as the total percentage of non -White population significantly increased during this time. To contrast, high income areas of concentrated affluence within Santa Clarita and the surrounding region experienced increasing median incomes, however the percent of total non-white population increase at a slower rate compared to areas with lower median incomes.
However, there does appear to be improvement outside of those areas as the City becomes increasingly diverse over time. New revitalization strategies imp lemented through the Oldtown Newhall Specific Plan aim to transform the area to better meet the needs of the community while reducing the risk of displacement. The Specific Plan is guided by design principles for transit-oriented development and will create a more diverse set of housing choices. Additionally, the Plan will create new economic opportunities that will continue to bring economic opportunities to the area. Likewise, recent investment in Canyon Country has brought new development to the community including the opening of the Canyon Country Community Center which offers multi-generational services, programs, and activities to the community.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
258
Figure 64: Median Income and Percent of Non-White Population by Block Group in 2010
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
259
Figure 65: Median Income and Percent of Non-White Population by Block Group in 2019
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
260
R/ECAP and RCAA: Contributing Factors
While there are no RECAPs in Santa Clarita, areas of the City have higher concentrations of poverty and of racial and ethnic minorities. The main factor that contributes to this issue is the Patterns of Racial and Ethnic Concentration Lending discrimination
Llocation and type of affordable housing, and programs to address this issue are described in 4.5.3, Integration and Segregation.
Median Household Income
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
261
APPENDIX A: SCAG LOCAL HOUSING DATA
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
262
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
263
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
264
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
265
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
266
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
267
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
268
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
269
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
270
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
271
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
272
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
273
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
274
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
275
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
276
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
277
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
278
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
279
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
280
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
281
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
282
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
283
APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The City of Santa Clarita values community input and offers numerous opportunities for residents and community stakeholders to provide input on housing and community development issues. Government Code Section 65583(c)(7) requires that “The local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.”
Public Outreach
Santa Clarita’s Housing Element Update has incl uded the following public outreach efforts:
March 2021: The City established a dedicated website for the Housing Element Update with information on the update process, RHNA, upcoming events, frequently asked questions, and how to get involve d. The website also includes a link to the survey in English and Spanish, a s well as a dedicated email address, and phone number for more information.
January – September 2021: Consultants facilitated stakeholder meetings for the Housing Element Update with local and regional non-profit and for -profit housing providers, service providers, and community groups.
April – September 2021: An online community opinion survey was conducted in English and Spanish to collect input from Santa Clarita residents, housing and service providers, and other interested parties . This survey was advertised through June 2021 and received responses through September 2021. Most of the survey responses were received from April through May 2021 . The survey asked questions regarding current living situations and opinions on various housing issues and approaches.
Outreach efforts during this time included focused outreach to grocery stores and Mexican restaurants in the Old Town Newhall and Canyon County areas.
April 29, 2021: The City conducted a virtual community workshop to introduce major elements of the Housing Element Update process and outline the City’s current Regional Housing Need Assessment requirements. The public was invited to provide initial comments regarding the Housing Element Update process and general housing needs in the City. Public comments received at this meeting are summarized in Table
51. June 1 – June 30, 2021: The City posted a Housing Element Update informational flyer, in English and Spanish, at all City Libraries. The flyer included information about the Housing Element Update and advertised the dedicated website for the Housing Element Update and the online survey. The City also advertised the Housing Element Update on all City buses during the month of June 2021. Digital fliers, in English and Spanish, were displayed on the onboard widescreen monitors and included the Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
284
address to the dedicated Housing Element Update website, as well as a QR Code link to the Housing Element Update website.
June 15, 2021: The City held a public study session meeting with the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission to introduce the Housing Element process and seek initial input from the Planning Commission. The staff presentation covered important housing topics including affordable housing, Housing Element requirements, RHNA, new housing laws, demographics, project objectives, a nd survey results. Public comments received at this meeting are summarized in Table 51.
Community Opinion Survey Results
An important component of the public outreach effort included an online community engagement survey (via SurveyMonkey) . A link to the survey is available on the City’s Housing Element Update webpage in both English and Spanish. The purpose of the survey was to collect input from Santa Cl arita residents, housing and services providers, and other interested parties. The survey asked questions regarding current living situations and opinions on various housing issues and approaches. This survey was circulated from April 2021 through September 2021, and a total of 83 responses were received. A copy of the survey and the survey results are included in Appendix C: Community Engagement Materials.
Stakeholder Outreach
Upon initiating the Housing Element update, consultants met with several housi ng advocacy groups and providers and invited them to share their insight on regional conditions, constraints, outreach, and housing needs. These groups include the following:
• Affordable Housing LA
• Southern California Non-Profit Housing
• CA YIMBY (Yes in My Back Yard)
Later, w hile developing the Housing Strategy, consultants reached out via email messaging to a n additional list of local stakeholders, inviting them to share their opinions and insight on housing needs, constraints, and strategies fo r the City of Santa Clarita. The list of stakeholders included contacts on the list of stakeholders who participated in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, a contact list of non -profit organizations maintained by the City, and other key community stakeholders as defined by The Department of Housing and Community Development Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance. The consultants intended to engage diverse segments of the community including homeless service agencies, advocacy g roups, housing and communit y development providers, churches, community service organizations that serve lower -income or ethnic minority populations, and senior living centers.
Four messages were sent out inviting community organizations and businesses to stakeholder interviews.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
285
• Message A: Distributed to List 1; 99 non-profit community organizations identified by the City and additional community stakeholders identified by the consultant.
• Message B: Distributed to List 2; nine organizations that typically apply for and/or are funded CDBG grants.
• Message C: Distributed to List 3; specific stakeholders identified by the consultant
• Message D: Distributed to List 4; contacts that had been identified by other stakeholders.
These contact lists and outreach messages can be found in their entirety within Appendix C: Community Engagement Materials.
Additionally, the City of Santa Clarita received a letter on October 26, 2020 from representatives of Abundant Housing LA that details best practices f or the site inventory analysis and policy recommendations for consideration in the Housing Element update. These comments are also addressed in Table 50.
Stakeholder Interviews
Table 50 below outlines stakeholder comments that were received and interviews that were held during the public outreach period.
Table 50: Summary and Response to Stakeholder Input
Organization
Contact
Date Of
Communication
Summary of Comments Responses
Abundant Housing LA
Leonora Camner-
Executive Director
Anthony Dedousis-
Director Of Policy and
Research
October 26, 2020
Memo on Requirements and Best
Practices for Housing Element
Updates: The Site Inventory
• Realistic Capacity methods
• Safe Harbor ADU
methodology
• AFFH Requirements
• No Net Loss
Checklist of Core Policy
Recommendations
The Sites Inventory uses conservative
development estimates based on
recent development trends in the City.
Programs were included to address No
Net Loss, including Program HP-1.123:
Administrative List of Additional Sites,
which has been discussed and
recommended by HCD staff.
No housing sites were identified in low
resource areas, most sites were in
moderate resource areas. Programs
are included to invest in lower
resource areas.
ADU assumptions were based on HCD
safe harbor numbers.
Southern California
Non-Profit Housing
Alan Greentree
High cost of housing and land is the
biggest constraint
Churches were included in outreach.
Program HP-1.910: Publish
Information about Housing Sites
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
286
January 22, 2021
Do not have many members actively
building in Santa Clarita; other
markets get more attention
Churches can help to get the word
out to hard-to-reach populations
Program HP-2.5: Collaboratione with
Non-Profit Affordable Housing
Developers
Abundant Housing LA
Leonora Camner-
Executive Director
Anthony Dedousis-
Director Of Policy and
Research
February 25, 2021
Missing-middle housing is a low-
cost solution; see examples of by-
right 4-plexing in Sacramento
Suggestions:
Land Trusts and Community
Ownership
Tax Increment Financing
Use revenue from greenfield land
declared a park to fund Affordable
Housing development
Real Estate Transfer Tax; see
example in Culver City
4.3.7 Planning and Zoning Incentives
includes information on “Missing-
Middle” Zoning Incentives
Program HP-1.98: Minimum
Residential Densities may assist in
enabling missing-middle housing
Policy H3.45: Monitor the status of at-
risk units and work with partners to
preserve at-risk units.
Policy H3.76 addresses the Workforce
Housing partnership opportunities
Milestone Housing
Marcus Griffin
February 19, 2021
High land values are barriers to
development
Suggestions:
Lot consolidation program
Public/Private Partnerships
Potential for mixed-income
developments
Program HP-1.6: Graduated Density
Zoning and Site Consolidation—Old
Town Newhall facilitates small site
development
Program HP-3.5: Preservation of At-
Risk Housing utilizes public/private
partnerships
Program HP-1.7: Inclusionary Housing
Feasibility Study Program pursues a
mixed-income housing program
CA YIMBY
Jes Mcbride
May 5, 2021
Need to limit ADU assumptions to
HCD’s "safe harbor” allowances. CA
YIMBY will be checking inventory
carefully.
ADU assumptions limited to safe
harbor numbers.
Finally Family Homes
Christina Dronen
August 27, 2021
Many precariously housed and
vulnerable foster youth, transitional
youth, and students
Some City residents dislike housing
solutions proposed for transitional
housing
Transitional housing should include
services and amenities, like laundry
and job programs
Youth owned-and-occupied tiny
houses on wheels would be a good
Programs addressing these comments
include:
Program HP-4.3: Homeless Case
Management
Program HP-4.112.1: Fair Housing
ProgramsChanges for Consistency with
State Law & Actions
Program HP-4.54: Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice/Fair Housing Analysis
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
287
solution to house transitional age
foster youth
Family Promise
Roche Vermaak
August 30, 2021
Has heard it would be easier to
build affordable and transitional
housing in unincorporated County
than City
HOAs and community attitudes
make it hard to run transitional
housing in City
Building/buying and running
transitional and supportive housing
is cheaper than paying for hotel
vouchers
Rent control is needed in City
Very few areas where Section 8
Vouchers are accepted in the City
Programs addressing these comments
include:
Program HP-4.3: Homeless Case
Management
Program HP-4.11: Fair Housing
Programs & Actions
Program HP-4.45: Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice/Fair Housing Analysis
Program HP-3.6: Mobilehome Rent
Adjustment Policies
Objective H4-1: Reduce or remove
governmental constraints and
restrictions on housing and housing
occupancy while preserving public
health and safety.
Objective H2-2: Eliminate unneeded
regulatory constraints to the
production of housing, especially
affordable housing.
Bridge To Home
Peggy Edwards
September 2, 2021
High need for workforce/ low-
income/ affordable housing
High need for community education
about affordable housing and
subsidy programs
Unique opportunities for success as
a city doing greenfield development
Funding needed to run housing
programs
Objective H2-3: Increase opportunities
for the production of affordable
housing.
Policy H3.4: Monitor the status of at-
risk units and work with partners to
preserve at-risk units
Policy H3.67 Workforce Housing
partnership opportunities
Unique opportunities for success
described throughout Section 1
Southland Regional
Association of Realtors
Nancy Starczyk
Bob Khalsa
September 2, 2021
Cost of land is the top constraint in
the area, it is not unique to Santa
Clarita
Lower development costs than LA
City due to faster approvals
Top request in City is single story
homes for aging residents
Younger people and senior residents
are more interested in amenities
and location (entertainment,
transportation, hospital access)
Incorporated feedback in Section 4,
discussion of governmental and
nongovernmental needs, and needs for
senior residents
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
288
Multifamily development needs to
be near amenities, especially
groceries
Shared list of 19 ideas for building
more housing
Santa Clarita
Affordable Housing
Committee
Renee Roque
September 2, 2021
Affordable Housing Committee has
ideas but needs funding and action
Section 8 Vouchers not accepted in
City
Stigma of affordable housing needs
to be addressed
Affordable Housing developers have
told the committee the City is not
doing enough (land, tax credits,
etc.) to bring them in
Objective H2-3: Increase opportunities
for the production of affordable
housing.
SCV Boys and Girls
Club
Matthew Nelson
September 3, 2021
Biggest housing issue: people living
in City pushed out due to cost
Multiple families living in the same
home due to rent
Workforce cannot afford to live
here; they commute in and
contribute to the traffic
People make too much to qualify for
childcare tuition but still do not
make enough for rent
Contributed to discussion on special
housing needs
SCV Senior Center
Robin Clough
September 3, 2021
Seniors are “aging into poverty” -
rent increases faster than Social
Security increases
Senior housing needs to be near
amenities (transportation, grocery
stores), and should not have stairs
Senior housing solution ideas
include building ADUs and renting
out houses, small studio
apartments, congregated home care
facilities
Affordable Housing Committee has
good ideas but no action or funding
Contributed to discussion on senior
housing needs
SCV Chamber of
Commerce
John Musella
September 7, 2021
Supply remains strong, but
affordability waning and more low-
wage workers commuting to SCV
Recent transit-oriented development
ending a 15-year “apartment
drought”
Podium construction is happening
less than the region overall due to
Contributed to discussion
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
289
lower area rents diminishing
developers’ confidence in ability to
recoup costs
Community Comments
In addition to the survey described above, community members had regular opportunities to express their input on the Housing Element, including a City Planning Commission meeting, and a Housing Element workshop. In addition, comments could be submitted using the email and phone contact information provided on the dedicated Housing Element webpage and giving feedback on publicly released drafts.
Public input was then taken into consideration and incorporated into the Housing Element where appropriate.
The City received public comments from multiple members of the local construction industry expressing support for a policy requiring developments in the area to utilize a local “skilled and trained workforce” for construction.
Public Feedback on Draft Housing Element
(Reserved)
Table 51: Summary and Incorporation of Community Comments Summary of Comment How Comment was Addressed
April 29, 2021: Virtual Community Workshop
Would rezoning to allow higher
density projects be required?
Staff indicated the City did not intend to rezone;
adequate capacity to meet regional needs is available
under current zoning.
What are additional public outreach
efforts that will be conducted in the
future?
Public outreach is ongoing; consultants provided
examples of non-profit and service agencies to be
interviewed. Graphic of all community input
opportunities was shown.
How does the City plan to address the
need to allow an increase in lower
income units?
Several programs will be proposed, including
consideration of a focused density bonus program and
an inclusionary housing requirement.
June 15, 2021: Public Study Session
Support for a policy requiring
developments in the area to utilize a
local “skilled and trained workforce”
for construction
Comment letters have been provided to the City Council
for consideration.
How will progress towards
accomplishing Housing Element
Programs be measured so people can
see, understand, and follow?
Feedback mechanism built into Annual Progress Report.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
290
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
291
APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MATERIALS
Stakeholder Outreach Messaging
August 25, 2021: Stakeholders in List 1 Received the Following Message:
Message A:
Hello,
As you may know, Santa Clarita is currently undergoing its Housing Element update.
I am [____] and I am working with 4LEAF, Inc. to assist the City of Santa Clarita in this process. In order to develop housing policies that best reflect the experience and opinions of residents and stakeholders in th e City, we are holding stakeholder interviews to gather input and we would greatly appreciate your involvement. If you are available to do so, please use this link to sign up for one of the following times to meet with us via Zoom and discuss how we can best plan for housing in the City of Santa Clarita:
Friday August 27 at 1 pm
Monday August 30 at 9:30 am
Wednesday September 1 at 9:30 am
If you are not available at those times, please feel free to reply with your comments in written form or to set up an alternative meeting time. Additionally, if you know of other organizations that would like to make their voices heard, please let us know as well!
Thank you, and we look forward to working together to make Santa Clarita the best it can be. Your time and feedback are appreciated
This email is sent by 4LEAF staff. 4LEAF, Inc. is the consulting team that has been chosen to assist the City in the update of its Housing Element, as well as the City’s Public Safety and Health Element. 4LEAF is a full-service firm that has been providing services to numerous public agencies across California for more than 20 years. You may find more information about 4LEAF here: https://www.4leafinc.com/
August 25, 2021: Stakeholders in List 2 Received the Following Message:
Message B:
Hello!
As you may know, Santa Clarita is currently undergoing its Housing Element update.
My name is [ ____] and I am workin g with 4LEAF, Inc. to assist the City of Santa Clarita in this process. As you've been identified by the City as an organization who typically applies for CDBG funding, we wanted to reach out to you to receive your valuable input regarding housing and deve lopment in the City of Santa Clarita. In Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
292
order to develop a housing strategy that best reflects the experience and opinions of stakeholders in the City, you are invited to a virtual stakeholder interview to share your thoughts so we can gather your importa nt feedback. Additionally, if you know of other organizations that would like to make their voices heard, please let us know as well! Please use this link to sign up. If you are unable to attend this meeting, please let me know and we can arrange another time to meet.
Thank you, and we look forward to working together to make Santa Clarita the best it can be. Your time and feedback are appreciated.
This email is sent by 4L EAF staff. 4LEAF, Inc. is the consulting team that has been chosen to assist the City in the update of its Housing Element, as well as the City’s Public Safety and Health Element. 4LEAF is a full-service firm that has been providing services to numerous public agencies across California for more than 20 years. You may find more information about 4LEAF here: https://www.4leafinc.com/
August 25, 2021: Stakeholders in List 3 Received the Following Message:
Message C:
Hello!
As you may know, Santa Clarita is currently undergoing its Housing Element update.
I am [____] and I am working with 4LEAF, Inc. to assist the City of Santa Clarita in this process. In order to develop a housing strategy that best reflects the experience and opinions of stakeholders in the City, we wanted to reach out to you and invite you to a stakeholder interview to hear your perspective and gather feedback from you and those you represent and maintain an open dialogue through the Hous ing Element update process. Please let me know if this is something you are interested in and let me know a few times you may be available to meet. Additionally, if you know of other organizations that would like to make their voices heard, please let us know as well!
Thank you, and we look forward to working together to make Santa Clarita the best it can be. Your time and feedback are appreciated.
This email is sent by 4LEAF staff. 4LEAF, Inc. is the consulting team that has been chosen to assist the Cit y in the update of its Housing Element, as well as the City’s Public Safety and Health Element. 4LEAF is a full-service firm that has been providing services to numerous public agencies across California for more than 20 years. You may find more information about 4LEAF here: https://www.4leafinc.com/ August 25, 2021: Stakeholders in List 4 Received the Following Message:
Message D:
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
293
Hello!
As you may know, Santa Clarita is currently undergoing its Housing Element update.
My name is [ ____] and I am working with 4LEAF, Inc. to assist the City of Santa Clarita in this process. I got your contact information from [redacted] who let me know you expressed interested in being involved. We wanted to reach out to you to seek your valuable input regarding housing and development in the City of Santa Clarita.
In order to develop a housing strategy that best reflects the experience and opinions of stakeholders in the City, you are invited to a virtual stakeholder interview to share your thoughts so we can gather your important insight. You may use this link to sign up for a Wednesday meeting, or email me if you’d like to set up another time or method to talk.
Thank you, and we look forward to working together to make Santa Clarita the best it can be. Your time and feedback are appreciated.
This email is sent by 4LEAF staff. 4LEAF, Inc. is the consulting team that has been chosen to assist the City in the update of its Housing Element, as well as the City’s Public Safety and Health Element. 4LEAF is a full-service firm that has been providing services to numerous public agencies across California for more than 20 years. You may find more information about 4LEAF here: https://www.4leafinc.com/
Table 52: Outreach List 1
Organization Name Mailing Address
Zip
Code
ACTION Support Group 26893 Bouquet Canyon, C134 91350
American Association of University Women P.O. Box 800354 91380 American Diabetes Association 611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 90017 American Cancer Society
25020 W. Avenue Stanford, Suite
170 91355
American Heart Association 816 S. Figueroa Street 90017 Assistance League of Santa Clarita P.O. Box 220145 91322 Avenues Supported Living Services 28415 Industry Drive #502 91355 Betty Ferguson Foundation 25510 W. Avenue Stanford, #104 91355 Boy Scouts of America 16525 Sherman Way, C-8 91406
Brenda Mehling Cancer Fund 23841 Foxwood Court 91354
California Youth Chess League 25405 Via Nautica 91355
Canterbury Village 23420 Avenida Rotella 91355
Canyon Theatre Guild 24242 San Fernando Road 91321
Children’s Network International - Help the
Children 25030 Ave. Tibbitts, Suite L 91355
Circle of Hope 23033 Lyons Avenue, Suite 3 91321
College of the Canyons Foundation 26455 Rockwell Canyon Road 91355 Friends of Castaic Lake P.O. Box 6 91384
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
294
Friends of Hart Park & Museum P.O. Box 220418 91322
Friends of the Library c/o Valencia Library 23743 Valencia Blvd. 91355 Friends of Mentryville P.O. Box 801643 91380
Girl Scouts of Greater Los Angeles 1150 South Olive Street Suite 600 90015 HandsOn Santa Clarita 25201 Avenue Tibbitts, Suite 202 91355 Help The Children 25030 Avenue Tibbitts, Suite L 91355
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Foundation 23845 McBean Parkway 91355 Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital 23845 McBean Parkway 91355
Human Good 23420 Avenida Rotella 91355
Jack and Jill of America, Inc. 23890 Copper Hill Drive, PO Box 253 91354 Junior Achievement 6250 Forest Lawn Drive 90068
Kids With a Cause 21564 Parvin Drive 91350
LifeQuest Foundation 25460 Sheffield Lane 91350
Los Angeles Residential Community
Foundation 29890 Bouquet Canyon Road 91390
Mayra Bullon 23542 Lyons Avenue, Suite 202 91321
Michael Hoefflin Foundation 26027 Huntington Lane, Unit F 91355 Old Town Newhall Association P.O. Box 221614 91322
Old West Masonic Lodge, #813 19310 Avenue of The Oaks B 91321 Partners for Potential 6255 Van Nuys Blvd. 91401
Placerita Canyon Nature Center Associates 19152 Placerita Canyon Road 91321 Pleasantview Industries 27921 Urbandale Avenue 91350
Providence Holy Cross 15031 Rinaldi Street 91346
Ragdoll Restoration Foundation 28607 N. High Ridge Drive 91390 Samuel Dixon Family Health Centers, Inc. 25115 Avenue Stanford, Suite A-104 91384 Santa Clarita Ballet 26798 Oak Avenue 91351
Santa Clarita Elks Lodge No 2379 17766 Sierra Highway 91351 Santa Clarita Special Olympics 24779 Valley Street 91321 Santa Clarita Valley Bicycle Coalition-LA Co.
Chapter 23121 Poplar Glen Circle 91354
Saugus Union School District 24930 Avenue Stanford 91355 SCOPE P.O. Box 1182 91386
SCV Athletic Association 27618 Open Crest Drive 91350
SCV Concert Band P.O. Box 55002 91385
SCV Economic Development Corporation 26455 Rockwell Cyn Road, Suite 263 91355 SCV Family Promise 25718 McBean Parkway 91350
SCV Council PTA 27226 Trinidad Court 91354
SCV Food Pantry 24133 Railroad Avenue 91321
SCV Historical Society P.O. Box 221925 91322
SCV Mayor’s Committee P.O. Box 803325 91380
SCV Optimist Club P.O. Box 1446 91351
SCV Pregnancy Center 23838 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 270 91355 SCV Safe Rides P.O. Box 3001 91386
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
295
SCV School & Business Alliance 21380 Centre Pointe Parkway 91350 SCV Sheriff’s Station 23740 Magic Mountain Parkway 91355 SCV Youth Orchestra 24555 Rockwell Canyon Road 91355
SCV Youth Project P.O. Box 801982 91380
Single Mothers Outreach 24781 Valley Street 91321
Soroptimist International of SCV - SISCV P.O. Box 802275 91380 Step Up
6911 San Fernando Mission Blvd.,
#147 91344
The Gentle Barn Foundation 15825 Sierra Highway 91390
Val Verde Community Benefits Fund
Committee 30133 San Martinez Road, Ste A 91384
Valencia Library/Literacy Center 23743 W. Valencia Boulevard 91355 Valley Industrial Association 28368 Constellation Road Suite 360 91355 Strength United 22620 Market St. 91321
Village Family Services 6736 Laurel Canyon Blvd., Suite 200 91606 Visually Impaired Assistance Center 22900 Market Street 91321 WISH Education Foundation 24343 Magic Mountain Parkway 91355 Vast Homes 1050 Lakes Drive, Suite 91790
Salvation Army 22935 Lyons Avenue 91321
Family Links North Valley MAT 11565 Laurel Canyon Blvd. Unit 116 91340 Finally Family Homes PO Box 55186 91385
Royal Oaks Mobile Park 18145 Soledad Canyon Rd 91388
Canyon Villas Senior Apartments 27850 Solamint Rd 91387 Castaic Lions Club 24201 Magic Mountain Pkwy 91355
Calvary Chapel Golden Valley 18319 Sierra Hwy 91351
Divine Fijians Home Care 27707 Thalia Ln 91351
William S Hart Union High School District
Office 21380 Centre Pointe Pkwy 91350
City of Santa Clarita: WorkSource Center 20730 Soledad St 91352 City of Santa Clarita: Newhall Community
Center, 22421 Market St 91321
Louis Design Studio + Raven General
Contractors 24270 Walnut St 91321
Design Masonry Inc 20703 Santa Clara St 91351
American Family Funding 28338 Constellation Rd #900 91355 Alterra Home Loans 23232 Lyons Ave 91321
Valencia Hills Homeowners' Association 24060 Oak Vale Dr 91355 Newhall-Hidden Valley HOA 24260 Creekside Dr 91321
Scenic Hills HOA 26207 Rainbow Glen Dr 91321
Elevate Church 24346 Main St 91321
Christ Church of SCV 24436 Valley St 91321
Santa Clarita United Methodist Church 26640 Bouquet Canyon Rd 91350
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
296
Table 53: Outreach List 2
Name of Organization Mailing Address Zip Code
Boys and Girls Club of SCV 24909 Newhall Avenue 91321
Bridge To Home 23752 Newhall Avenue 91321
Carousel Ranch, Inc. 34289 Rocking Horse Road 91390
Child & Family Center 21545 Centre Pointe Parkway 91350 Family Promise 24820 Orchard Village Road, Suite A-391 91355 Fostering Youth Independence P.O. Box 801604 91380
SCV Committee on Aging 27180 Golden Valley Road 91351
SCV Family YMCA 26147 McBean Parkway 91355
Single Mothers Outreach 24781 Valley Street 91321
Table 54: Outreach List 3
Name of Organization Mailing Address Zip Code
Southland Regional Association of
Realtors
20655 Soledad Canyon Rd #33 91351
Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of
Commerce
28494 Westinghouse Place Suite 114 91355
Abundant Housing LA 515 S Flower Street 18th floor
Los Angeles, CA
90071
Table 55: Outreach List 4
Name of Organization Name of Contact
Bridge to Home Peggy Edwards
Homelessness Task Force, Affordable Housing Subcommittee Renee Roque Santa Clarita Valley Senior Center Robin Clough
Spicher Group Properties Doug Spicher
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
297
Survey Results
Most respondents (approximately 70 percent) stated that they currently own a home in Santa Clarita. Approximately 20 percent of respondents rent, and 10 percent of respondents stated they live with friends and/or family.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
298
About 65 percent of respondents stated they live in a single -family home and approximately 25 percent of respondents live in a condominium/townhome. About seven percent of respondents live in an apartment and the remaining respondents live in a mobile home or ADU.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
299
About half the respondents (49 percent) stated they live with children. Approximately 23 percent of respondents stated they live with multiple generations of their family and 18 percent of respondents stated they live with their partner/significant othe r with no kids. The remaining respondents either are single and live alone or are single and live with roommates.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
300
Most respondents (approximately 67 percent) stated they were between the ages of 30-49. A bout 19 percent of respondents were between the a ges of 50 -64. The remaining respondents were either between 18-29 years old or 65 and older.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
301
Approximately 46 percent stated they have an annual gross household income between $100,000-$200,000. About 24 percent of respondents stated they have an annual gross household income between $50,000 -$100,000. The remaining respondents ranged in household incomes with nine percent of the remaining respondents preferring not to specify.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
302
Respondents specified that the most preferable housing options ranked from most favorable to least favorable are as follows: 1. Financial Assistance programs ( i.e., rental assistance) 2. Incentives for developers 3. Build more housing (with a range of housing types) 4. Require developers to allocate a percentage of units to affordable housing 5. Programs for persons experiencing homelessness.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
303
About 45 percent of respondents stated that the City should allow housing to be built in commercial areas near and/or above stores and restaurants. 44 percent of respondents stated that more housing should be built on vacant land that is already zoned for residential development (not parks or open space areas). The remaining respondents stated that the City should be allowing more housing in already developed areas by increasing how many housing units can be built on each piece of property.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
304
A majority of respondents (approximately 54 percent) stated that new housing should be located throughout the City. About 35 percent of respondents stated that housing should be concentrated in high quality transit areas such as areas near major bus routes and Metrolink stations. The remaining respondents stated that housing should be concentrated in core areas such as the Lyons Avenue or Soledad Canyon Road corridors or should be in the downtown areas such as Valencia Town Center and Old Town Newhall.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
305
About 43 percent of respondents stated that multifamily housing should be concentrated in high quality transit areas such as areas near major bus routes and Metrolink stations. Approximately 37 percent of respondents stated that multifamily housing should be conce ntrated areas zoned for higher residential density and approximately 2 8 percent of respondents stated multifamily housing should be concentrated in the downtown areas such as Valencia Town Center and Old Town Newhall. The remaining respondents stated that multifamily housing should be concentrated throughout the City, in commercial areas, or concentrated in core areas.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
306
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
307
Respondents stated that the top four most favorable options would be: 1. simplifying and streamlining the permit application process ; 2. repurposing older commercial centers with housing (potentially mixed use ); 3. reducing fees associated with the permit application process; and 4. allowing for increased residential buildi ng height in core areas.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
308
Approximately 44 percent of respondents who own a single-family home stated that their neighborhood is only for single-family homes and that they would not consider adding an ADU and that they hope their neighbors do not add one either.
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
309
APPENDIX D: HOUSING SITES
The following table information related to all parcels listed on the City’s inventory of suitable sites. In addition to the information shown here, all sites are available and have infrastructure availability.
Table 56: Housing Opportunity Sites in Inventory
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
310
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
311
Santa Clarita – Housing Element May December 2022
312
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
February 14, 2023
Tom Cole, Director
Community Development Department
City of Santa Clarita
23920 W. Valencia Blvd. Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Tom Cole:
RE: City of Santa Clarita’s 6
th Cycle (2021-2029) Revised Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Santa Clarita’s (City) revised draft housing element received for review on December 16, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on January 31, 2023 with Erika Iverson, Associate Planner, and Consultants Jane Riley and Elliot Pickett. In addition, HCD considered comments from Cindy Russo and David Kellogg pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).
The revised draft element addresses many statutory requirements described in HCD’s July 7, 2022 review; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), a jurisdiction that failed to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline cannot be found in compliance until rezones to make prior identified sites a available or accommodate a shortfall of sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c), paragraph (1), subparagraph (A) and Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c) are completed. As this year has passed and Program HP-1.14 (Sites Identified in Multiple Planning Periods) has not been completed, the housing element is out of compliance and will remain out of compliance until the necessary rezoning has been completed.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly
Tom Cole, Director
available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
S
everal federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
F
or your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
H
CD appreciates the hard work the City’s housing element team provided during the update and review. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Reid Miller, of our staff, at [email protected].
S
incerely,
P
aul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
E
nclosure
City of Santa Clarita’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 1 February 14, 2023
APPENDIX
CITY SANTA CLARITA
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article
10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and- community-development/housing-elements/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Progress in Meeting the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA): While the element was revised to provide estimated completion dates for each planned, approved, and pending project in Table 11, and a description of where each project is in the development process, it appears that the Porta Bella specific plan estimates over 2,000 units to be completed in 2029. While 2029 is the last year in the planning period, the planning period ends before the end of the calendar year. The table should therefore be revised to state when in 2029 these units are anticipated to be developed to ensure they will be available within the planning period. Availability should address the status, any barriers to development and other relevant factors such as build out horizons, phasing, and dropout rates to demonstrate the availability or likelihood of development in the planning period.
Sites Inventory: While the element appears to have been revised to address inconsistencies in total capacity and breakdown of units by affordability in Table 14 and 15, Table 56 still appears to include sites where the total capacity does not equal the breakdown of units by affordability. For example, on page 311, the site at 23222 Valencia Blvd. states that it will accommodate 225 units for lower-income households and 58 units for moderate-income households for a total of only 225 units. The element should be revised to address this inconsistency.
Realistic Capacity: While the element was revised to demonstrate how land use controls were factored into the realistic capacity analysis, it must also describe how site improvements were considered in the capacity calculations. Additionally, while the revised element clarifies whether project examples in zones allowing nonresidential uses were mixed-use or 100 percent residential, it must still analyze and account for 100 percent commercial demand on identified sites.
City of Santa Clarita’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2 February 14, 2023
Small and Large Sites: While the element was revised to provide an example of a project on a site smaller than 0.5 acres with one of the units being deed restricted (Valley Street Residential), it should link the characteristics of small sites identified in the inventory to this project. Additionally, the revised element does not appear to provide examples of past projects that have units affordable to lower income with as few as two to four units developed on the site. If these small sites in the inventory are going to be consolidated, the element should be revised to indicate which sites will be consolidated with each other to help demonstrate feasibility of development for affordable housing on the identified sites.
E
mergency Shelters: While the City allows emergency shelters by-right in the P/I and Homeless Shelter Overlay Zones, subsequent draft submissions must comply with the requirements of Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022 (AB 2339). Please note, these requirements became effective on January 1, 2023 and apply to any housing element submitted after January 1, 2023 if a jurisdiction failed to submit the initial draft before the due date of the housing element. As the City’s initial draft was submitted on November 12, 2021, after October 15, 2021 due date, these provisions will apply. Among other changes, these amendments to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4) expands the definition of “emergency shelters”, specifies the type of zoning designations that must be identified to allow emergency shelters as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, and demonstrate the appropriateness of sites to accommodate emergency shelters.
For more information and applicable timing, see HCD’s AB 2993 memorandum at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/ab2339-notice.pdf.
2. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Lan
d Use Controls: While Program HP-2.1 (Code Changes for Consistency with state law) commits to adopting clearer and less restrictive parking requirements for multifamily affordable housing projects utilizing density bonus, the element does not commit to revising parking requirements for market rate units, which still constitutes a potential constraint. The element should be revised to state how the City will address parking requirement constraints for all multifamily and mixed-use projects. Additionally, based on the information provided in Table 25 on pages 144 to 145, the element should also be revised to include program actions that ensure the number of parking spaces for residential care facilities do not exceed those of other non-group home uses of the same form in the same zone.
F
ees and Exaction: While the element was revised to add development and impact fees as a percentage of total development costs, it must still differentiate fees as a percentage of total development costs for single family and multifamily development respectively to determine if these fees constitute a constraint on multifamily development. If it is
City of Santa Clarita’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 3 February 14, 2023
determined fees and exaction constitute more than 15 percent of development costs for both single-family and multifamily, the element should provide further analysis as to whether this percentage represents a constraint and provide program actions as appropriate to address it.
Loc
al Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element was revised to provide processing times for single-family and multifamily projects, and an analysis of the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) processes, it must still be revised to provide specific program actions to address potential constraints in the Design Review or CUP process. While the element referenced Program 2.1 (Zoning Code Changes for Consistency with state law), that program does not include actions regarding removing identified constraints. For example, the element should be revised to include actions to remove constraints related to the CUP and development review permit processes.
C
onstraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: While the element was revised to meet most requirements of this finding, Program HP-2.1 states that zoning code will be revised to allow group homes for seven or more residents as a permitted use in residential zones only if they are “specifically for people with disabilities.” This language should be removed to ensure all group homes of seven or more residents are permitted in residential zones objectively with approval certainty similar to other residential uses, not just the ones who serve persons with disabilities. Additionally, the element should be revised to clearly state how Program HP-2.1 will revise the zoning code to implement a barrier-free definition of family as requested in HCD’s July 7, 2022 review. For more information please see HCD’s Group Home Technical Advisory
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/group-home- technical-advisory-2022.pdf.
3. A
nalyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)
The el
ement was revised in Section 4.2.2 to provide additional analysis for housing needs of large households, female-headed households, farmworkers, unhoused persons, and the elderly, including the challenges each group face, existing resources, and programs to address gaps in available resources. However, the element must still be revised to provide this analysis for all persons with disabilities.
B. H
ousing Programs
1. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as
City of Santa Clarita’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 4 February 14, 2023
needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding A1, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
S
ites Identified in Multiple Planning Periods: As noted on page 1 of this review, the element cannot be found in compliance until Program HP-1.14 (Site Identified in Multiple Planning Periods) is implemented to comply with Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c).
A
ccessory Dwelling Units (ADU): While Program HP-2.6 (Provide for ADU and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU)) was revised to add monitoring of ADU production at all affordability levels once in January of 2025, the program should be revised to conduct this monitoring of every two years. Additionally, the program should be revised to include a specific commitment to implement needed actions and adopt alternative actions if ADU production and affordability assumptions are not met within a specific time (e.g., six months)
2. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.
The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
A
s noted in Finding A2, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.
In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
P
rogram HP-2.2 (Fee Reductions or Deferrals for Affordable and Special Needs Housing):
While the element was revised to describe its eligibility process and include more concrete implementation language for this program (previously Program HP-2.5), it must still provide a specific timeline (e.g., by 2024) for implementation, as stated in HCD’s prior reviews.
3. P romote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
City of Santa Clarita’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 5 February 14, 2023
Goals, Actions, Metrics, and Milestones: While some programs in the draft element were revised to include a clear objective or metric to measure the successful implementation of the programs, they do not include geographic targets of where in the City they will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) (e.g., areas of high opportunity and high income, areas of concentrated need). In addition, most programs do not include any metric, milestone, or geographic target to incorporate the information requested in HCD’s July 7, 2022 review. As stated in the previous finding, the metrics should be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends found in the overall analysis. Finally, the revised draft appears to have removed Table 29, which listed fair housing actions and tied the AFFH analysis to specific programs and replaces it with Table
32. If the metrics, milestones, and geographic targets are included in Table 32 in the fair housing section, there must at least be a reference in the programs section. In addition, while the element prioritizes the contributing factors, they all are categorized as high priority and must be revised to better formulate policies and programs and carry out meaningful actions to AFFH
4. D
evelop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. For purposes of this paragraph, “accessory dwelling units” has the same meaning as “accessory dwelling unit” as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).)
P
rogram HP-2.6 (Provide for ADUs and JADUs):The element was not revised to meet this requirement. Please see HCD’s July 7, 2022 review for additional information.
HCD Comment from 2/14 Letter Response
A1 Progress in Meeting the Regional Housing Need
Allocation (RHNA): While the element was revised to
provide estimated completion dates for each planned,
approved, and pending project in Table 11, and a
description of where each project is in the development process, it appears that the Porta Bella specific plan
estimates over 2,000 units to be completed in 2029.
While 2029 is the last year in the planning period, the planning period ends before the end of the calendar
year. The table should therefore be revised to state
when in 2029 these units are anticipated to be
developed to ensure they will be available within the
planning period. Availability should address the status, any barriers to development and other relevant factors
such as build out horizons, phasing, and dropout rates to demonstrate the availability or likelihood of
development in the planning period.
Clarified phasing and when in 2029 development of Porta Bella is anticipated.
Availability addresses status, barriers, build out horizons, phasing, and dropout rates. Additional information was added to Table 11 to support project-specific assumptions. The following information was added to describe analysis and support assumptions across projects:
All projects are anticipated to be completed during the planning period, based on the status of each project. All projects listed are actively moving forward in the development process, and project dropouts are rare in the City. Several projects in Table 11 are phased developments. For these, the unit total includes units in phases approved or built since the start date of the RHNA projection period, and those anticipated to be ready for occupancy in the 6th Cycle .
A1 Sites Inventory: While the element appears to have
been revised to address inconsistencies in total
capacity and breakdown of units by affordability in Table 14 and 15, Table 56 still appears to include sites where the total capacity does not equal the breakdown of units by affordability. For example, on page 311, the site at 23222 Valencia Blvd. states that it will accommodate
225 units for lower-income households and 58 units for
moderate-income households for a total of only 225
units. The element should be revised to address this
inconsistency.
Tables were reviewed and adjusted for accuracy.
A1 Realistic Capacity: While the element was revised to demonstrate how land use controls were factored into
the realistic capacity analysis, it must also describe how site improvements were considered in the capacity
calculations. Additionally, while the revised element
Analysis in 3.4.3 Realistic Development Capacity clarified to address site improvements:
Specifically, the Sites Inventory assumed 75 percent of the maximum allowable density of all parcels, instead of the full development potential allowed under the applicable zoning district. This assumption reflects the consideration of any specific HCD Comment from 2/14 Letter Response
clarifies whether project examples in zones allowing
nonresidential uses were mixed-use or 100 percent
residential, it must still analyze and account for 100
percent commercial demand on identified sites.
site or development constraints known by staff, including environmental constraints, necessary site improvements, and recent development trends. This density assumption is lower than the average densities achieved by the planned and approved projects (See Section 3.3). For the sites designated for mixed use, the allowable density was assumed to be 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and projected to be developed with both residential and commercial uses, as required by the Zoning Code. These assumptions are based on development trends in the city as shown in Table 11 above and with the detailed redevelopment trends and analysis provided in Section 3.6. These historical regional development patterns were used to approximate a variety of site-specific constraints and required site improvements that could reduce the ability for property owners to meet the maximum allowed density allowance. The realistic development capacity of 75 percent accounts for these factors.
Analyzed past trends of residential and nonresidential development and adjusted realistic capacity to account for trends:
From 2017 to 2022, 65% of proposals for development on commercially zoned sites included residential development. Every proposal for development on parcels zoned for mixed-use during the same time period included residential development. To account for the possibility of non-residential development, a likelihood factor of 65% is applied to inventory sites within the CR, CN, and CC zones where no planning efforts are currently underway. While they are within the CR zone, sites within the Valencia Town Center (discussed in 3.4.4) do not utilize this decreased likelihood factor due to a pending specific plan and existing developer interest.
Added analysis for mixed-use allowances:
The City is unique in the generous allowances it makes for mixed-use developments. All commercial and mixed-use zoning designations allow both maximum residential density and maximum non-residential floor area; both the maximum allowable number of residential units and the maximum allowable non- residential floor area can be built on the same site. Non-residential development on HCD Comment from 2/14 Letter Response
a site in these zones does not decrease the allowable residential development capacity.
A1 Small and Large Sites: While the element was revised to provide an example of a project on a site smaller than
0.5 acres with one of the units being deed restricted
(Valley Street Residential), it should link the
characteristics of small sites identified in the inventory to this project. Additionally, the revised element does not appear to provide examples of past projects that
have units affordable to lower income with as few as
two to four units developed on the site. If these small sites in the inventory are going to be consolidated, the element should be revised to indicate which sites will be consolidated with each other to help demonstrate
feasibility of development for affordable housing on the identified sites.
Reviewed site information, removed consolidated sites not under common ownership, added extra analysis, and added Table 14: Consolidated Small Parcels Used to Meet the RHNA.
Of the City’s lower-income RHNA share, 176 lower-income units are located on sites where lot consolidation is assumed. The City conservatively assumed that no more than three adjacent parcels under common ownership would realistically consolidate to meet HCD’s size requirement for lower-income sites. These sites are shown in Table 14, and development trends indicate that lot consolidation is feasible in the region (see Section 3.7). Two small sites (APNs: 2803-032-042 and 2803-032-043) are not being included within consolidated sites but are still included in inventory as they have similar characteristics as other recently developed sites (Salazar Mixed Use Projects discussed in Section 3.7.4), including proximity to amenities, size, and development standards. The remaining 5,668 lower- income units are located on sites that meet minimum lot size requirements.
A1 Emergency Shelters: While the City allows
emergency shelters by-right in the P/I and Homeless
Shelter Overlay Zones, subsequent draft submissions
must comply with the requirements of Chapter 654,
Statutes of 2022 (AB 2339). Please note, these
requirements became effective on January 1, 2023 and
apply to any housing element submitted after January 1, 2023 if a jurisdiction failed to submit the initial draft before the due date of the housing element. As the
City’s initial draft was submitted on November 12, 2021, after October 15, 2021 due date, these provisions will
apply. Among other changes, these amendments to
Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)
expands the definition of “emergency shelters”,
specifies the type of zoning designations that must be
identified to allow emergency shelters as a permitted
Addressed, See Program HP-2.1 and Emergency Shelter discussion within Provisions for a Variety of Housing Types:
The City applies the following standards:
A. Homeless shelters shall maintain a maximum occupancy not to exceed sixty (60) individuals, permitted by right. Occupancy in excess of sixty (60) individuals may be approved subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit.
B. Homeless shelters shall provide on-site waiting and intake areas screened from public view.
C. The homeless shelter shall provide on-site management with security during operational hours.
D. Parking areas shall be paved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and City Engineer.
E. The homeless shelter shall be well lit during operational hours and be in conformance with Section 17.51.050 (Outdoor Lighting Standards applied to all uses).
HCD Comment from 2/14 Letter Response
use without a conditional use or other discretionary
permit, and demonstrate the appropriateness of sites to accommodate emergency shelters. For more
information and applicable timing, see HCD’s AB 2993
memorandum at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/plannin g-and-community/ab2339-notice.pdf
F. Homeless shelters shall be allowed to have intake between the hours of five p.m. to eight p.m. or at dusk, whichever is sooner, and may discharge patrons from eight a.m. to ten a.m. the following day.
G. Homeless shelters shall abide by all applicable development standards as set forth in this code.
H. A homeless shelter shall not be located within three hundred (300) feet of a private or public primary or secondary school, public or private parks and community centers
While most the standards listed are compliant with SB 2, item D relies on a discretionary decision. Program HP-2.1 will bring the City into compliance with the applicable State requirements.
Added “Suitability” column to Table 29 Sites with Capacity for Emergency Shelters and describes below the table how the calculation methodology and zoning requirements from AB 2339 is addressed.
A2 Land Use Controls: While Program HP-2.1 ( Code
Changes for Consistency with state law) commits to
adopting clearer and less restrictive parking
requirements for multifamily affordable housing projects utilizing density bonus, the element does not commit to revising parking requirements for market rate units,
which still constitutes a potential constraint. The
element should be revised to state how the City will
address parking requirement constraints for all
multifamily and mixed-use projects. Additionally, based on the information provided in Table 25 on pages 144 to 145, the element should also be revised to include
program actions that ensure the number of parking
spaces for residential care facilities do not exceed those of other non-group home uses of the same form in the
same zone.
Added additional program actions in Program HP-2.1 for market-rate multifamily housing and for residential care facilities.
“Review current code requirements … and make amendments as necessary, including ensuring the number of parking spaces for residential care facilities do not exceed those of other non-group home uses of the same form in the same zone.” Review by June 2023; Make necessary amendments by the end of 2023
“Additionally, undertake a parking study and consult with not less than four developers with local experience to identify the most appropriate parking ratio and identify any constraints posed by the City’s current parking requirements for market rate multifamily development, especially as it relates to 1 bedroom unit and studios. Based upon the outcome of this study, amend the ordinance to mitigate any identified constraints by July 2025.”
Added reference to program actions within the analysis of parking standards:
HCD Comment from 2/14 Letter Response
The requirement to provide enclosed parking for multifamily housing could pose a constraint. However, parking for multifamily projects that qualify under Government Code 65915 are not required to provide covered or enclosed parking.
Further reductions and eliminations of parking requirements are available for projects located near transit, due to recent changes in State law. The City is taking a variety of actions to address potential constraints posed by parking requirements within Program HP-2.1 and HP-2.2, as follows:
• City staff will undertake a parking study to identify the most appropriate parking ratio for market rate housing and commit to amending the parking ordinance to mitigate any identified constraints through the study. • Prepare a handout to explain the different parking requirements for different parts of the City and different types of projects. • Develop Objective Design Standards which will address the treatment of parking for multifamily and mixed-use development.
• Review current code requirements for all housing types serving people with disabilities for consistency with fair housing laws and make amendments as necessary, including ensuring that the number of parking spaces for residential care facilities do not exceed those of other non-group home uses of the same form in the same zone.
A2 Fees and Exaction: While the element was revised to
add development and impact fees as a percentage of
total development costs, it must still differentiate fees as a percentage of total development costs for single family and multifamily development respectively to determine
if these fees constitute a constraint on multifamily
development. If it determined fees and exaction
constitute more than 15 percent of development costs
for both single-family and multifamily, the element
should provide further analysis as to whether this
percentage represents a constraint and provide program
actions as appropriate to address it.
Added additional data and analysis. Percentages were below 15%:
In Santa Clarita, the typical single-family home requires $70,060 in development impact fees, and the typical multifamily unit requires $53,261 in development impact fees. While lower than the development impact fees for single-family homes, the fees for multifamily development are on the higher end and could pose a constraint. Based on recent development information, the average cost of impact and permit fee as a percentage of the total cost of development is 9.7% for single- family homes, and 12.3% for multifamily development. Any constraint to multifamily development posed by this disparity will be mitigated through Program HP-2.2.
Stakeholders identified development impact fees as a major cost to consider in development but did not identify these fees as an impediment or constraint to HCD Comment from 2/14 Letter Response
housing construction and considered them to be comparable to those of nearby jurisdictions. Developers also did not consider the typical fees for single-family or multifamily development as a percentage of total development costs to be an impediment or constraint to housing development.
Program HP-2.2 establishes consistency with State requirements related to impact fees as outlined in AB 602 and further ensures that fees do not constitute a constraint to development. Under this program, the City’s nexus study will calculate impact fees based on the square footage of proposed units. This change serves to decrease constraints to smaller units, which typically include multifamily units.
A2 Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the
element was revised to provide processing times for
single-family and multifamily projects, and an analysis of the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
processes, it must still be revised to provide specific program actions to address potential constraints in the Design Review or CUP process. While the element
referenced Program 2.1 (Zoning Code Changes for
Consistency with state law), that program does not
include actions regarding removing identified
constraints. For example, the element should be revised to include actions to remove constraints related to the CUP and development review permit processes.
Added Program action in HP-2.1 to review and amend specific findings in the Design Review Process and Development Review Permit Process:
Develop Objective Design and Development Standards for multi-family and mixed- use projects, and integrate the standard conditions of approval currently applied through the Development Review process into the objective design and development standards for development projects with residential components.
Develop Objective Design and Development Standards by 2024
Added additional program actions in Program HP-2.2 to address the Design Review process:
Design Review: The City will review and amend its design review requirements to remove discretionary findings related to site suitability, including Finding 4.
Amend Design Review findings: end of 2024
Described in analysis how Programs address constraints by decreasing housing types requiring CUPs.
Included additional analysis on Development Review:
Development Review (DR) is a ministerial review by the Director and does not require a public hearing, to ensure that the project complies with all of the HCD Comment from 2/14 Letter Response
provisions of the code, the General Plan, and other applicable requirements. In order to achieve this, the Director is empowered to grant approval with conditions for uses in zones as prescribed in this code, and to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of a development review.
To reduce potential constraints, the City will integrate the standard conditions of approval currently applied through the development review process into the objective design and development standards for development projects with residential components. (Program HP-2.1)
A3 The element was revised in Section 4.2.2 to provide
additional analysis for housing needs of large
households, female-headed households, farmworkers,
unhoused persons, and the elderly, including the
challenges each group face, existing resources, and
programs to address gaps in available resources.
However, the element must still be revised to provide
this analysis for all persons with disabilities.
Added analysis on needs, resources, and programs for persons with disabilities within Section 4.2.2:
Persons with Disabilities
Housing Needs: Census data from the American Community Survey 2014-2018 indicate that Santa Clarita has 7,950 persons with an independent living disability, 4,568 with a self-care disability, 10,771 with an ambulatory disability, 4,093 with a vision disability, 8,211 with a cognitive disability and 6,060 with a hearing disability.
These numbers are not exclusive, as some residents have more than one type of disability and some disability types are not recorded for children below a certain age. The most commonly occurring disabilities among seniors 65 and older were ambulatory (24.2%) and independent living (17.8%). Additional data related to persons with disabilities can be found in Section 4.5.3.
Programs and Resources:
Resources available for people with disabilities include the North Los Angeles County Regional Center in Santa Clarita, which provides services including case management, early intervention for children with disabilities guardianship assistance, individual advocacy, service cost payment assistance, and specialized information, Santa Clarita Transit, which provides “Dial-A-Ride” curb-to-curb paratransit for people with disabilities, the Independent Living Center of Southern California in nearby Lancaster, which provides vocational training, housing assistance, systems advocacy, and peer support, and Mental Health Hookup in Santa Clarita, which provides assistance with obtaining disability payments, case HCD Comment from 2/14 Letter Response
management services, therapy, assistance in obtaining appropriate housing, an dreferrals to logal resources for estate planning. Programs and Policies included in this Housing Element that help address the housing needs of this population include the following:
• Program HP-2.5: Collaboration with Non-Profit Affordable Housing Developers
• Policy H2.12: Fee Reductions or Deferrals for Affordable and Special Need Housing
• Program HP-3.1 Limit Code Enforcement Activities
• Program HP-3.2 Handyworker Program
• Program HP-4.7 Administrative Process for Reasonable Accommodations B1 Sites Identified in Multiple Planning Periods: As
noted on page 1 of this review, the element cannot be
found in compliance until Program HP-1 .14 (Site
Identified in Multiple Planning Periods) is implemented to comply with Government Code section 65583.2,
subdivision (c).
Recommended by Planning Commission
Set to be adopted along with Housing Element
B1 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): While Program HP-
2.6 ( Provide for ADU and Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units (JADU)) was revised to add monitoring of ADU
production at all affordability levels once in January of 2025, the program should be revised to conduct this
monitoring of every two years. Additionally, the program should be revised to include a specific commitment to
implement needed actions and adopt alternative actions
if ADU production and affordability assumptions are not met within a specific time (e.g., six months)
Edited Program HP-2.6:
Develop a monitoring program to track ADU and JADU creation and affordability levels. Every two year of the planning period, review ADU production and evaluate if production and affordability estimates are being achieved. If ADU production is not meeting projections, the City will add additional sites to its inventory to provide sufficient capacity to meet its remaining RHNA by income level. This process would be done through the implementation of Program HP-1.13: Administrative List of Additional Sites.
B2 Program HP-2.2 (Fee Reductions or Deferrals for
Affordable and Special Needs Housing): While the
element was revised to describe its eligibility process and include more concrete implementation language for
this program (previously Program HP-2.5), it must still “Fee Deferrals: Begin implementing July 1, 2023”
HCD Comment from 2/14 Letter Response
provide a specific timeline (e.g., by 2024) for
implementation, as stated in HCD’s prior reviews
B3 Goals, Actions, Metrics, and Milestones: While some
programs in the draft element were revised to include a clear objective or metric to measure the successful
implementation of the programs, they do not include
geographic targets of where in the City they will
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) ( e.g., areas of high opportunity and high income, areas of
concentrated need). In addition, most programs do not
include any metric, milestone, or geographic target to incorporate the information requested in HCD’s July 7,
2022 review. As stated in the previous finding, the
metrics should be significant and meaningful enough to
overcome identified patterns and trends found in the
overall analysis. Finally, the revised draft appears to have removed Table 29, which listed fair housing actions and tied the AFFH analysis to specific programs and
replaces it with Table 32. If the metrics, milestones, and geographic targets are included in Table 32 in the fair housing section, there must at least be a reference in
the programs section. In addition, while the element
prioritizes the contributing factors, they all are
categorized as high priority and must be revised to
better formulate policies and programs and carry out
meaningful actions to AFFH
Added geographic targets and metrics.
Added more information describing the prioritization process:
In order to focus resources, maximize impact in the planning period, and strongly connect factors to goals and actions, this housing element prioritizes the contributing factors that most limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance. Possible contributing factors were identified through data analysis, and input from the Community Preservation Division and their experience with local service providers was used to assist in prioritization. Through this process, the fair housing issues shown in Table 34 were identified as the highest priority issues locally, and where the City plans to focus their resources.. Lower priority contributing factors include factors that are not within the City’s purview, are universal in the region, or have a smaller impact. These include median household income, unaffordable rents and sales prices, ozone levels, and discriminatory lending practices. Programs to increase the availability of affordable housing and promote fair housing information will also help address these lower-priority contributing factors.
Table 34 identifies the contributing factors associated with each priority issue and the programs and actions to overcome the challenges they present. The full program details in Section 2.2 include metrics, milestones, and geographic targets where appropriate to support a beneficial impact within the planning period for each program.
Ensured consistency between actions described in Table 34: Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Programs & Actions and in Programs B4 Program HP-2 .6 (Provide for ADUs and JADUs):The
element was not revised to meet this requirement.
Please see HCD’s July 7, 2022 review for additional
information.
Edited Program HP-2.6:
Develop a monitoring program to track ADU and JADU creation and affordability levels. Every two year of the planning period, review ADU production and evaluate HCD Comment from 2/14 Letter Response
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): While Program HP-2.6
(Provide Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory
Dwelling Units) was added to the element to add
incentives for ADUs early in the planning period, it should be revised to add monitoring activities other than
required APR reporting. In addition, a program should be added or revised to include monitoring the production
and affordability levels of ADUs every two years with
additional implementation actions if not meeting target numbers in the housing element. Additional actions, if
necessary, should be taken in a timely manner (e.g.,
within six months). Finally, if necessary, the degree of additional actions should be in stride with the degree of the gap in production and affordability.
if production and affordability estimates are being achieved. If ADU production is not meeting projections, the City will add additional sites to its inventory to provide sufficient capacity to meet its remaining RHNA by income level. This process would be done through the implementation of Program HP-1.13: Administrative List of Additional Sites.