D-60 Housing Element
248
272
Figute D-31: Regional HUD Jobs Pi'oximity Indent by Block Grotip and HQTAs (2020, 2021) ""';"-"-'-. >;3-'!" "=y=-:': € a - -" - - " =#2 ,___ , . . a ) a ',_,-,,,at: ,-tA,:,;o,,', :,:j:.:,a.'.Y:a) a"'-"q_ ; ', i %'i'E' G)- " o == r:V'."=-' "= - "-l.- .-i=,-,,,_ Q@.,.,,i,,=i'.2,1 '-.,_ -,,,, _,_-; -L "r:'J'Q'. ,,=-__ _ ,.,_.::=":-_-5;=-;=ffi,.=,-:; - ={- >i:r.:5_$:'i' "'- ",..""i;ffir<!-".5-",',,4-;= ,1,,,,,,;',,;,':"_-_e=,-=,,=; '%'a=s" "-_'=- - <
X- "'-a " =--- =q,*;€:'" :'=s->.,.:-,.!q' _ . _, -,.-.,., -:-,', - ,:;,2 i- "5-- -i-:=" -- - "$" -" -'%;-.. _.,_. _. - i a y _ " _""'ia 3 n -- -"" ': nt'r)-ti IjllA ' - "- ' ' -'a "'a "i""'-' Vl"" t': i -'-a-"_Fk -%l , - ' . z_ . 'i' "-' - ' - " ' -yJ a '- "4 "' - '<: i , '_- a-. _:"'-P , , . ,. , ' - ,,l, -==<-,
,jd!!,-
!%4
= -i .a"- - -i ' A --._ -. . , . s #.. i ., - , - az;, a" s tl a-l'* ,', l,'!I , ( - } ,l,.) t . % . ' _ _ . , (a i= . , ..-- --- _ al_ -. 4.' __.- ., _ , _ { . I _ l_. a ' ' I , 0 ,t ' , , 7i -li _ , . . -11 . . (. a, .
I -,:F aq,li_;l't'_ r';} n,a"Qe :n-)""+i- '-Fg- x :<.1,'. . " _ ' i _ i_l -. _ I _ - F a. I
I _ - a s' -
kl I , i i i i i i i i ' i i It ! ' " > ' = ' i ', i i I l i i s' i I 4 ' I I I i i " I a " l I ]' i i - i. * i Ei a i i I nla
l- - -
1 I - -i i I i I- - #' l( l _' l l- _ l'1 - [al = 1 i - a i .i i i 8 ..... ........ :a-.y .......r........
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewet (HUD 2020, SCAG HQTA 2021 ), 202'l South Gate General Plan 2035 D-61
249
273
Figure D-32: HUD Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group and HQTAs (2020, 2021) Source' HCD AFFH Data Viewet (HUD 2020, SCAG HQTA 2021 ), 20:j.
D-62 Housing Element
250
274
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing problems for Gardena were calculated using HUD's 2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data based on the 2013-2017 ACS. Table D-19 breaks down households by race and ethnicity and presence of housing problems for South Gate and Los Angeles County households. The following conditions are considered housing problems:
* Substandard Housing (measured by incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities) * Overcrowding (more than 1 person per room)
* Cost burden (housing costs greater than 30%)
In South Gate, 51.7% of owner-occupied households and 72.6% of renter-occupied households have one or more housing problems. The City has a larger proportion of households with a housing problem compared to the County, where only 38.9% of owner-occupied households and
62.3% of renter-occupied households experience a housing problem. In South Gate, Pacific Islander renter-households experience housing problems at the highest rate (100%). Black, American Indian, and Hispanic renter households also experience housing problems at a higher rate than the City average. Additionally, 54.2% of Hispanic owner-occupied households, a larger proportion than the citywide average.
Table D-19: Housing Problems by Race/Ethnicity
Cost Burden
White 36.0% 40.0%
BlaCk 7.3% 85.7%
Asian 3.5% 64.0%
American Indian O.O% 95.0%
Pacific Islander O.O% 100.O%
Hispanic 54.2% 73.6%
Other 57.1%
All 51.7% 72.6%
Source: HUD CHAS data, 2013-2017 ACS, 2020.
32.1%
41.5%
38.3'!'o
39.7%
39.7%
48.2o/o
36.5%
38.9%
52.6%
63.7%
56.3%
56.4%
55.5%
71.1%
55.7%
62.3%
Households are considered cost burdened if housing costs exceed 30% of their gross income for housing, and severely cost burdened if housing costs exceed 50% of their gross income. Cost burden in South and Los Angeles County is assessed using 2020 HUD CHAS data (based on 2013- 2017 ACS estimates) and the HCD Data Viewer (based on 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS estimates).
Regional Trend
Cost burden by tenure and race/ethnicity for Los Angeles County is shown in Table D-20.
Approximately 45% of Los Angeles County households are cost burdened, including 35% of South Gate General Plan 2035 D-63
251
275
owner-occupied households and 54.2% of renter-occupied households. Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic renter households have the highest rate of cost burden of 59.6% and 58.3%, respectively. Non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Pacific Islander owner households have the lowest rate of cost burden of 31.1% and 33.3%, respectively. Cost burden is more common amongst renter households than owner households regardless of race or ethnicity.
Table D-20: Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity and Tenure - Los Angeles County Owner-Occupied
White, non-Hispanic 311%
Black, non-Hispanic 40.0'Xo
Asian, non-Hispanic 34.4%
American Indian, non-Hispanic 36.9'/o
Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 33.3%
Hispanic 39.5%
Other 34.9%
Renter-Occupied
White, non-Hispanic 49.4o/o
Black, non-Hispanic 59.6%
Asian, non-Hispanic 47.6%
American Indian, non-Hispanic 48.8%
Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 47.9%
Hispanic 58.3'/o
Other 50.9%
Source: HUD CHAS data, 2013-2017 ACS, 2020.
4.8%
9.6'/o
5.8%
6.3%
4.8%
7.8%
7.2'!/o
27.5'/0
34.8%
25.5%
26.8%
22.5o/o
30.5%
27.5%
648,620
104,895
255,890
3,215
2,165
470,670
26,905
541 ,545
206,950
226,765
4,420
4,355
755,590
43,210
As presented in and Figure D-34, cost burdened households are generally more concentrated in the central County areas; however, most of the region has a high concentration of cost burdened owners and renters. Cost burdened renters are more prevalent than cost burdened owners in almost all tracts in the region. Coastal cities with lower concentrations of racial/ethnic minority populations, persons with disabilities, children in female-headed households, and LMI households generally have fewer cost burdened households (see Figure D- 3, Figure D-6, Fizure D-10, and ).
Loca) Trend
Cost burden by tenure based on HUD CHAS data is shown in Table D-21. Pacific Islander and Black renter-occupied households have the highest rate of cost burden in South Gate (100% and 73.8%, respectively). There are no cost burdened owner-occupied American Indian or Pacific Islander households in the City, and only 3.5% of Asian owner households and 7.3% of Black owner occupied households are cost burdened. For all racial and ethnic groups, cost burden is more prevalent amongst renter-occupied households. Overall, 51.3% of South Gate households are cost burdened, and 24% are severally cost burdened. Nearly 60% of renters in South Gate pay more than 30% of their income in housing, compared to 40.2% of owners. A larger proportion of households in South Gate are cost burdened compared to the County.
D-64 Housing Element
252
276
Table D-21: Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity and Tenure- South Gate Owner-Occupied
White, non-Hispanic 33.1%
Black, non-Hispanic 7.3%
Asian, non-Hispanic 3.5%
American Indian, non-Hispanic O.O%
Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic O.O%
Hispanic 41.7%
Other
Renter-Occupied
White, non-Hispanic 40.0%
Black, non-Hispanic 73.8%
Asian, non-Hispanic 60.0%
American Indian, non-Hispanic 20.0%
Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 1 00.O%
Hispanic 60.5%
Other 28.6%
Source: HUD CHAS data, 2013-2017 ACS, 2020.
19.7%
7.3%
O.O%
O.O%
O.O%
17.1%
23.8%
35.7%
30.0%
20.0%
O.O%
29.7%
O.O%
890
55 115
4 25
9,170
o
400
210
100
20 4
12,490
70 and show cost burden by tenure in South Gate using the 2015-2019 ACS.
The HCD AFFH Data Viewer also includes tract level cost burden data using 2010-2014 ACS estimates. Since 2014, the proportion of cost burdened owners has decreased in nearly all South Gate tracts. Currently, between 40% and 60% of owner households are cost burdened in a majority of tracts. In two tracts in the center of the City and on tract along the eastern City boundary, more than 60% of owner households with mortgages spend 30% or more of their income on housing.
Like owner-occupied households, since 2014 the proportion of cost burdened renters has decreased in most tracts. Between 60% and 80% of renter-occupied households in most South Gate tracts overpay for housing. In six tracts, mostly concentrated on the western side of the City, more than 80% of renters are cost burdened.
Sites Inventory
Figure D-35 and Figure D-36 also include the sites inventory used to meet the City's 2021-2029 RHNA. As presented in Table D-22 and Table D-23, most RHNA units are located in tracts where 20% to 40% of owner-occupied households are cost burdened and 40% to 60% of renter-occupied households are cost burdened. Nearly 26% of lower income units are in tracts where more than 60% of owner households overpay for housing and 21% are in tracts where more than 60% of renter households overpay for housing. In comparison, only 1.8% of moderate income units and
16.1% of above moderate income units are in tracts where more than 60% of owners are cost burdened. It is important to note that only 61.6% of owners overpay for housin@ in the tracts with the higliest rate of cost burdened owners. Additionally, only 5% of moderate income units and 17% of above moderate income units are in tracts where more than 60% of renters are cost burdened. While the City's RHNA strategy does place more lower income units in areas where cost burden is more prevalent, lower and moderate income units cari better serve the existing South Gate General Plan 2035 D-65
253
277
cost burdened communities. Further, the City's RHNA strategy generally distributes units of all income levels throughout the City, ensuring a variety of housing types are offered to cost burdened households.
Table D-22: Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent of Cost Burdened Owner Households oP:,rceQnr2.q.frOacv:)rpffiying LBweurnl0intscomp Moderuatne,lfWsnocvoemMequd,ne,Irtaste At, HNA Units 20-40'/0
40-60'/o
60-80o/0
Total
,1754
710
849
,3313
25.6 -10-O.O%
917
-286
22 ,1225
j4%/3
-23.3%
2,Q94
i,-198
632
,3924
53.4%
30.5o/0
16.1%
100.O%
,4765
.-zl94
,1503
,,8462
56.3%
Table D-23: Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent of Cost Burdened Renter Households =Reerncteenr;fo(Tffio6Qti'ayi= [o'ernFint;co&maModeruatneJtlsnacomeAb(nocv;:'eoUdneirtas.'a AIIRHNA" " 40-60%
60-80%
Total
,2615
698
,3313 -100.0-%
,1165
60 ,1225
-3.256
668
,-:i924
,7036
,1426
,-8462
D-66 Housing Element
254
278
Figure D-33: Re4ional Cost Burdened Ovmers by Tract (20 !9) T-------""---o-"' . -..ffiTt"-';'6--.a'0. "" '-
I +,=s.':',"' "' _'l"'aa'y"'aa'a a7,:i ,,l,q at"'t' _ ;'aa.(11.1,la'i-F!A. -, -., = , i, 5 *.l= ,,p.,a9:a.,5.. a = -. Q.,,,,,,,,',, - M"', 7' A . '>:i3J"" <#= rA"a "- i "a""" f '=.fE*'fi'X:J-a-" '-'a""""'=.!'-",- a"" "" ' a"'I"'4 l}@' , t
a $€ a:'l';=' a(- ,,"a ' '. ' - J J=,, ja:
" "a-;-',;\i, :q.i- -..,, @" i"j''.;':,,. a:u'a?7;. __ 9'E€- v:-. ,d9bpambz k ' %ffl@ , ,,. , ' a'.-"':el..-'a.{.;.!'_-Ill,,,' jm'a8' ,>h' I
-.. =:'=. ' 0
"" " ".'%% . 1bit- '. .(W . h. ,
i= ,a'a'l'i:-. ? I
jl _ _ I '; _ _ F' 11 I _ a I = :
] ....... ......... ms.. ....
-" l - i i '.'i i- '. H n n - ' .'. i- i - i _i l T i i T a § . i . i 6 _= z .
8 i' i
_ - - - 4 - I _ i - - i - ; - 4 ' ;a - - - _ a : _ ' - _ _ ; -l - _ _ - _ _ - - _ - -i ' I i ' l _ - - - _ _ E -0 _ % .
Ssutce' HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 20'l5-2019 ACS, 2021
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-67
255
279
Figure D-34. Regional Cost Burdened Renters by Tract (2019) '\ ' a - A"';'i':"i""7 a' Th- " ' .: -"?=;:::" ";;i""- ='j,7 mr ' :,.,;JT"ir" -'-K2y83,. _ ,!i,,,,,.,,&i-'- -,oy , ;,,,',g;'7.\.$!&\,'t=2El,=,,.'_:7,;':i,j. ,,,kl,,.,4l,,",,,,,7.l! ,J,_<3,:74a'- _.-====-,,, =e...;,,=._ .,,, (%t o t':%41_.1" ' "j','F,a;l,. _': ai' Ill:- vJ7': a,, . ,,_-,11, . a+_ !"':":'S" '-':":ia i. , t""l: 1, -. -i " . -..- ., Am _ -.,,:f, .,o ,:,, ,-r.: S%ar'a
4I,it,=, , , ., ,._- o,
. ,"4&"=t"l,,7'=.==== =-:,, .
-, -.., ;!, -..A-..
' . -' - ., :' .. -=i_. .J- !"' 4.'
: .. ..,_i 4 . t.>ia s;,m,b'.i- ita:;C "'J%'-I' "- - -i Wr . , !"" - o 'aal "" j;a- _'.-.y._;, - ::l!.-
'iixx-j';x:;.:'9JEt: """Wo. ;6'."'iX :a, _ a _ la_ : '- "_'aal " "o:Jf""'#'!'
, *'
4.-. ,. .l..A ' * *'
: ,, a"a" a " "j ,,_,,__ Ma.J't "')!E+'H.,8 'aX', Ifi'- . ':!"\"'W
6"'.'-'-3f"a:'' o-'ai:""i"'::a3"e'\'A-"!a".:'ffiRN""':ffl -.p.i.. %1.7 " i,q .,. j
t-- i: ' ; 'A
Th .!,: ;,1
_ i . i _ I Z _ l a. F 1, i . .. ai . . -i
. ... . i =.. e!l .. ...
- = i ' i n- .. p i.i i. i - i , i i i _ i i i r i i i ' 8 i .i i iii i - - 6 = z ..
8 i i
Suurce' H(.0 AFFH Daia Viewet, 2C115-20'l9 ACS, 2021
D-68 Housing Element
256
280
Figure D-35: Cost Burdened Owners by Tract and Sites Inventory (2019) a: '-a - '-' - ' a-'- a-' -' -'-"- 'JL_;="-r-. u( ':J" - .i J a"ii'J'J-:_:+iii -'= . - - ' L : -- > ' -" - - _ _, -tVe.6eli'.5 _ --i(w,-" ' - _ _ _,,, i." ' - = ' -' - - .. ) -('G _ a: - - ' .-_:-Walnut.Park "',"Oi.&31 ,"o'l ' -_ a'---_ , .. f-'- _ J 4 - - -= "-" ----,,,,,:I,,:" t : " l"\- ' B4. . :" , (. ' - _ 5),1, . l;,l... -i , I '. 4,' - l_ : t " 0 . a -. ai JT, = -+: %5. . _ i =a= ;- ;(i A-l,,! a, +_, ;'+ Cllli "J - "'<old" ' _ ! y:: i=i%i,: ,__ ___ Q, =="=-=--=:%y-';',.- .r-'J"'I.'_';:.;'-'-=>< "" -"= -.':='!"=.:f..4'-"' i .. !' :llI-l!-, "tJ@" - =--= -
...:.==o,= - ,gJJ,'$:J-= '-.-<=-..fa:,=fJT'- .,-:=f
,l'_.._:#'l-'%,%_-Al,!, ' us B.""+ tl_r.@iipl_-.%iX, ._._'-.flla, 1,1"'-117111,1-%:lEr._ 3, %. ,, ==;$_'...,.._,€,. , =u >;-< a;=-=== I . -a \""-i - '- J ':aa-' i . ,, *, - _ , y:,,11,1,l_l,,,,7_,,lls-,%1 : , %%_ :111qtl,, p:'. ," l, :==i ;, _ ,__ :1'7 ss ii, h % , %- 'a % a- ( =.i _ __ - ! = f:f,-,:J ,.<.' :l!,";,.,,"_-__'l'JJ+l&;;+'la'i,,"""' - l" """" :a"':""'('a""':""""l:'jal" " '.- #. a -/- -"a$
'kz-;5'a': "!h " "'JQ: _a,' " I - ," ": ,' " "# 1*15,,2 " ':" , :-" - ...q '- -' i , 'i - - -l_i: - (I ,'a " M " /Y!j"'s=- r ffl ( ' @ -..';
;,T_ . r'?t(=,gi;.)..st:>,,4%,sQi_:, '_+,,,ll!3Na".l.l!':15:';!,a;, n:l>d,,,,:,'5',;.1"41,J.,_ _:.:, 4jL .,l,a:t's'Z . a _ 1:, . ?,,, 7 . i . _ _ 1,--11,,,l%.,7_,'-Wl1l>lla,l'a L;4@@,"_,aC&,'__,s%laai,,a":j'Ill_jN"Ta"aa':,9,i':'pml,l"'s!Ty;e'aaabl'_'laooi"y,'ajliy Ill' it' f,' ->iia-,,x-_a- -,(- ' " " ' _, !t I ,- . a@' /. ." _, -!Z'.- .-.-,lli.l l;. t:a"'a: L, sE"f4A.,' _@ffl'l.l,,"i ll';;' ..'4'- II""l a: I,v,'alai' - "',l"r,. , 4 @ '. ) ,. 1, . +,-.':to . .,& k 4 >'%.) :54Iai ; " l"' aaaa" a - -' Ja-':"H i-%-.,'. JJ'=,:.,'j='7'-S===,;.=.-..;i' - 7 ;H a ,,_ ., , , ),,,, , ';,!nip4tiy'i4i, ,,_,,!'. = ,,s. ..a ,, ,. b!i 4 .,
47 al; 1,i.ii,:!,I+Nla?%_,..l,:a,.::::(:;>. , ,,
'#" ,"','" >'\ 111,, ,a' .',{i-Tl!.'a\l"T'OQ.d , . , ,,;.1<'%i,; '.(l"""";" llf7@'cm:!%477""' . - -- _'-. . - $1
, .,,,:.%' . , , , ,, Q, t5,,,,.
/a
' _; ":'-":- _J,14 ', % - -=XJ"""", " -=* , 0'- ':"%'=<;J" . - l ,,,-,, - '-=-=';.' l " o ' " a
)Villowbr'o-ok_'!:=f-"-'>"- _:(r,
- 'a .'- ,l,'_22-.-,;t'J.5I,.':',;';,..H,;;:,=- - 'h.,o-":L'gJ"!=f'!"s"'7". ."* '6" 11,-:),:"i:,'_l"'_._-l.l),'ll:'IH-_' _-ll"=lll:l;. __ a- 'a...-5.1,' _47r ,il- .. . 4"'1,1,, a-" :il,"""'-"',:- ' r : ,," '!"'-' " " 'ii+ " . ___ s -a _' ., 4i' -o;Q_ a ' e ' - o ' "- ? ' ' " - " " ' :-' - .':a"':=="-'a'--L-"i'LJ:V"!!"a,_2'-i:"3"ySN,,-'I-""_2!':.",';."_"-",-,-:,- -'_*"a""a" :': -"liTa-.'.-;_ li:.u'.J' ::Gffiiiit{_:5f:'lioTiA'Ag&eEs_ciiHERE,-Gffiii_in,_N'aaR]r*_tli!MEtTIfnAS+_A,,!StG,B3requt,,f_tarfdlV1qoqgp$_n%i,5F!A:,i!!!!i_S;_=L!tik-EP,=; r City of South Gate Housing Element Update 2021 - 2029 N Sites Inventoiy with Cost Burden 2019 - Owners ." :',-.a D'WTAP Overpayment by Home Owners (2015-2019) - ACS Tract Level Sites Inventory B25091_calc_pctMortGE30pctE IncomeCategory 0 05 I
._<2(WO 6LOWer
20%-qowo € MOda'ake M!leS
40Q/0 - 60'+'ii 6 Above Moderate
60')'o-80')'o € Mixal
> 80% ', , fflo ' City Boundary
('ila tintidd ui
(fJ Iniiii 0mvl 01 Hiuim) xTh Cmini_nk nhilo+
lllntmilh+l) Tul+girH Tin $xiq DiTi im M.ng [ gai tei httpi Ililti iltitz altil luk.iiqi
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-69
257
281
Figure D-36: Cost Bcirdened Renters by Tract and Si(es Inven(ory (2019) " "-" -i""';'fJ'%I'F5'::J'-"" 7"'aa('' .:':a'S'aT'7',,""T ia ' " ;'i:'!":ai"ia"';:'aaJ;'J'2,J;"""'"i ."" ilba,..""'",:J'y,.,'lo'ajlla -. _ - . _, i . _ , _ ld I q.= al, - J d J . ' _ j ' - . , r l,, 'l,""__J,g'Wa)n'utPark "('i"-a"*i'gl-.,_'0" '-"":-"',a""a.:'L,,"'-.,,"""" ;4' ':'-'"aai -'- =" ' - . Be _ _ . =- ( .. _ _ . -.. _
. - - . . a4ai " "jaa, ! .' " ' ':' :- .,.,.,'' (:, , " l r 1 , tl , I ' a- 4 ,"_.. ',i)-"iiit Thi-. %a ' ;._. :'.'- o f:: ': r ". F. '_ A'. ['a?6;a_ 2,, ,_ _ - -: ' -i " " ; - --' i - , - '--'jaaa' 7 i -.14dp ,la' -*, _ -3 '
- i'
":"_ :" '-_, :i:%" , ;,4 , ' _ , 3," 1 u- 0 -!)" _ ' -J'J:a M_ _ ' _ i,, '-i-s) , s, 7 _ , -_ij'-. , ;1%." ( _ . . - - r, ,,." : J,%' "Xa ;'a= 'r'(;'"ia ;J- al@)a"oTI' :lis a . J!t i I '% l'a al aii aasp = r' l - .- " i ' - - - - _ ')_ N a- r ,t - &ik l-
'i'd+,," _ .
,', Hl s ,,-?&!}. ..,_ _ ,z:1k,, a!:Jb!'(79=6-4vtiJi;"r:_,:;i. (-(;t ' "'%:+. __ ,. aCuda_"h.y,:',i,' 7,_' 5a ' , " ' , x , -; }_ - . - - ,l . , i _ (+,, _ ,_. . _ _ .. _ _
+':"5':f'!"""':"'a:-"'7""T'4..'.:;s;,'f'L_""S6"jib"G_JJ.af,117-:l,J,'-;l."""":a_' _'!"%-:.-;';@"'\.J@'5@'F'lj'!")' """'_';a\:':'ffl...&"A?=:-;= €=-';,"7"-. _A "%-I '_,l,l,,l.,,,, _pr=i-.=.=,,,,=,:-,,j,,1.,'_'_-".:b,,&I-,,,,,,,2,,, = ;. - .'EH ;, 7..',"1'4; "_aHfJii 'i ; ?1 va ': "'- " a a ' " 't '74 " '-' o ' :Thl a" " 'i i:' .'ia:, f _ ;(-a ..l,,a ' i",'ij,ll'7a'r "-""i,""?4a-.-272=-,- ,%._ ' __ , __,-,=h=5,;!-:"-,,>i,f!j,._1,,,;;P,m,.1,1,,,&A,J,,7,,,,:., ,,,,:7-,.: ,!:,__=,;:,.11:>,<.. I , . I " ,a,
o i'i- ;ax, !."ix'i. € ,l"7a;'ili"l'l7t'7.j.,oi;4iie:::3.la'!;'):+..,y,,,"" ,-, , "" @ a a ,, 1, 4 : -,o - _ " s- i - i , --l '
-'-" ---,.l'l(:-' %' !,ffl , ,m:as:'i: ka'_,,s%""ci. , , - = ;':(,t..%i"g ia.l _ +_,l =l('i' ,- a,l ' .' i' ':-'.:_J'e' 4"i'-,# 'a: ;ffiaa (_ ,ir:.Kli ' a ' _. , l - - . l' . S, 11""' , .' a "- - T T "' ffi' ": s aii'l;. %'-l_E)'a-=,@.-. E')-'-: -l,_a: . l" . . ,O':_:,-_'r'll'.: -. i' Z7 41a"' : a" a7, .,a -l.'J;0;:, J -r .. . l" i -- - a - -..- '-,ay.; ' , , ,:,'. =-;r, , ,;= , '=_":.-'-'f""---.?, ,',;,y7,!'.,.,,"':lr,,.,, , , .,--- 1__'-, _ .' J:. 11'-l)lt_'+=i.li*')i41l,,,_ , '-(,!,.""_--_,,'o.',.,o';,l':";;,' :,,...'.,- - l-
=_.l,illL"',.1,<l,__''41ll,l_ ,_' II,,II,"'- _- '_-..:i- I._y.P.,.=7.o';'il_M,',,,,:-%.la_aa!,,_- ag, ,.- I -
=-'_- '==-"S=- "%.," '.=- -_-1. %yr!',w;o.6,'d' =",',. :'_. .t.l-"'j' -=. €li..,,-"'Sff..a%i.%,:y ai i ,.
r"?'i::%3i5=-;R,
;,. , , :i, .. ..
""aJ 'J'-)-"j'-,-'__J'-"-"):-_;..'a%;y!!'l%__ 'JkJ,"qaaa'a,k_..-%"i.ll":a)+j'a;%l'!"S"'-'i-",a. flll01li*,,l:11,,""_ ,%11,11-1_4...l1 -' - " - " " '-=-I, '-o" --ff.g= =,,,
. . _ i:,It, . . M . - _, . -l( i ' _ . " ' "' %nr , *- -(%; ') _ ' S. i. l' lad,' . illowbro 0 kj,i_l' , =:_'=-" (l-ra, - '- _ ' - "ii .." , "rri+.},,:' .' - € kJl,' ". '1 .il"t%i-E,'. _'i) 11 'i I , - '_-" . -l_l. ' - 'il , a "' ' - i - ti .
'W-A-=m_4-':'
"'.'r_\t,_. ;-. . f. _,, _ .,.
_.: _.- c, - '," ,"; - ' , _ o _ - , '7Ly_nw:oo'd. " : "+,zi 9.-9 ' -.- = ' . "-! S . .." .. " 5aidens-"':i !:' _ . -: 5 _,-'71 : ..'.; - ': l_ -- - " a- a ' _" . 'J ' "" j ' , -' .lt .. ' l- - . {l." - ' , - I li'a I . ,,, _. , *. -. .. II . ) . ., ._h Ir ..l,ao -' I ,,'_ tl II I _ _- ' " -v ( a - l ' l ' I - ' - i ' - - '- ----. -. I - " I ' i -.- , I i k- -
i .,11,i
'._. :, , . : 0- = r, _ ' 7 _; - ' : l , '
; - .' " ""i i ' " " - __-_'.; l'o - ' oal _' a'i ' - ':- " ia' - -o %"'7"-" ' " Ta ' -. - _ '-' X '>= ' - -- t' _;% j!',,i, . ,,a :,(r j' - -'_,_; 1,;. , ,','-_z, " . 4 ' i) _ .,;:"o>a _-. . .: , : , _7a-; . :.%u';ty=qfyLp's':4gslpt, Es(i;%1Et_E, i_ir,g)q,-Q't_ClQIY%ME4,';jg;A_'S"8,IJS(,6iYeayrgf_laJ_,;145pg,pn'ipB%a8,_45; "sp_abr;ns, City of South Gate Housing Element Update 2021 - 2029 N Sites Inventory with Cost Burden 2019 - Renters .- :.;,., tiRM'rx"o Overpayment by Renters (2015-2019) - ACS Tract Level Sites Inventory B25070_calc_pdGE30pdE Income Category 0 0.5 1
- ' < 20% g%j Lower
20%-40% Moderate Miles
' 40% - 60% 8 Above Moderate
60%-80% QMixed
> 80% 's :a 'a C"'/ Bo"'d a'V CillnnvnDenirnenintliaiair<indCminu'iorli'Du"(lOlll_t"" J))d{ TUtrsttn) }Ill %!ng [)ili im Mlppliq J stt+(X li+lc- Ilxl!s ili iiiturai al'm hli.utg. aim
Source: HC[) AFFH Data Viewer 2015-2019 ACS 2021.
D-70 Housing Element
258
282
Overcrowding
A household is considered overcrowded if there is more than one person per room and severely overcrowded is there is more than 1.5 persons per room. HUD CHAS data based on the 2013- 2017 ACS and the HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS) is used to show overcrowding in South Gate and Los Angeles County.
Regional Trend
As shown in Table D-24 5.7% of owner-occupied households and 16.7% of renter-occupied households in the County are overcrowded. Severe overcrowding is also an issue in the County, especially amongst renter households. Over one percent of owner households and 7.6% of renter households are severely overcrowded.
shows concentrations of overcrowded households by tract regionally. Overcrowded households are most concentrated in the central County areas, including the City of Los Angeles, South Gate, and Compton, and in parts of the San Fernando Valley. Coastal communities, from the South Bay to Malibu, have significantly fewer overcrowded households in comparison.
Table D-24: Overcrowding by Tenure
South Gate
Owner-Occupied 1,695
Renter-Occupied 4,095
Los Angeles County
Owner-Occupied 85,870
Renter-Occupied 298,460
Source: HUD CHAS data, 2013-2017 ACS, 2020.
16.5%
30.8%
5.7%
16.7%
450
1,530
23 025
134,745
4.4%
11.5%
10,255
13,305
1,512,365
1 ,782,835
Local Trend
Table D-24, above, shows that 16.5% of owner-occupied households and 30.8% of renter- occupied households in South Gate are overcrowded. Significantly more households are overcrowded in South Gate than in the County. A significant proportion of South Gate households are also severely overcrowded with more than 1.5 persons per room. Approximately 4% of owner-occupied households and 11.5% of renter-occupied households are severely overcrowded in the City.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-71
259
283
Sites Inventory
As presented in Table D-25, 80.1% of the units selected to meet the 2021-2029 RHNA are in tracts where more than 20% of households are overcrowded. A larger share of lower income RHNA units are in tracts where less than 8.2% of households are overcrowded compared to moderate and above moderate income units. Only 7g% of lower income units and moderate income units are in tracts where more than 20% of households are overcrowded compared to
87.2% of above moderate income units. As discussed previously, the distribution of RHNA units by overcrowded households follows the trend Citywide, where all but two tracts have proportions of overcrowded households exceeding 20%. The City's RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower income units in tracts where more tlian 20% of households are overcrowded. Further, the City's RHNA strategy offers a variety of housinz types in tracts where overcrowdinz is prevalent.
Table D-25: Distribution of RHNA Units by Concentration of Overcrowded Households !€:rucseenh'60ld'ie'r(cT:oa"ctd}e&dLowe,,rl,ntscome M6d':'Ua'naitl:!comaAbJr;ocvoemMfoUdneirtas' 611RHN Un';ti <8.2%
15.01-20%
>20%
Total
652
184
,2477
,331,3
-19.7!,
5.6%
%4.8-%
IOO.O%
o
34i
884
1,225
O.O%
27.8%
72.2%
100.O%
142
361
3 421
3,924
,9-.2%
I QQ:.Q
794
886
[782
,,8462
-9.4:/,
-10.5'/,
80.1 %
D-72 Housing Element
260
284
Figure D-37: Regional Overcrowded Households by Tract (2020) "" " - - - - - --:V ' . - ,'a:o' - - - - - -- -'
!11 %I I '- . 1, I n, 2 , . , IT l I 'T
':"' 4 ' *",' !V }ffl.l " " a a
,,,,;,"7,""""'X"aa"""""Qa"':.,":=-,,,a64),,A,l('.:= b'-."[J,_,'., lb-&
ikM i
11 1 A, '
_ , } i!Qfi!,)i,a;* ..," mA
l+lnl. .h'"!j."a'lll.i;,7'..,l"" ' _s%'. X"ia ,. a '% .11 - '%l If . .fJ
""'- 'e@&FHl-t ."-iq i €" =
Illil,, ,-,, ii4 h@ !A,,I;,,,,,,'-;Ill. fP+:o'-" "' . @4 _ a'.h W
I i k
. 4_q iL'lll
? ' & % I
. Ir, 11 '_ .. l , Jai '
"!?'-i=";7a"-- ,i":t'
ao * - I B "
' !" 'k.
' L
il !HI'- J-"A.-"='_ ' _ '-""
'!J;"" _,'/4 , , . .
-.-,.., fi!" m%!P . ,I """ 'e"a .-n..
:." r'!II' " ' ll:"' 4im=4'"ml'af tPN,,,:, l,,-,,
Hire,,, : -k
i _ii* '-=& . ii..r"="'= -a hi't-JiW__ _ __ _ _ _ _ ffil i" - ffll i l_ I - _ a 11
] I . I I l '
- -l = ' l' - u i _
m
Source: HCD AFFH Daia Viewer, 2020 HLID CHAS data, 2021.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-73
261
285
Figure D-38: Overcrowded Households by Tract (2020) _ . l j - I . I . . .
("
- : ' - -" -: -' Wa'ln>t Pa rk - - - '_' ";a : '7-. _' " 24 - ';" : " ': ' - : - ' "" ' : ' ' a i ' -- _ " ". i " " B e- l,'l _ - _ _ ,a '- - 'i i- -- I , '- ' . ' . - . II I . - a " '- I il- i, , _ -', - l .,' .
.:.=-.%;-=-=f;f,.-:.--. " "- " - - -'-- - , l' - - €* .," l : ." l " ' a sa a z., % _ _a" " ' - ' " " " ' - ' : : ' -"% .- is' - ' " a' a '!= ' _ . ' P ' %% - ! " _ , v Q ' il,m- , ,a . : , , ," "'; "l a" ' %, .' . - - ' "' % i - Cud'ahy ; "i %'ag;'41 - ' i ' . .i ' . . , a< . , . &a-; a- l'_ , i . ) < . ,
" %" Sout5'Gate" i--'s'_,- "as " ,,"
' & a b, : " ' "
"""'-%'a"""-a'''j-.tTllls=a%al:lb',;,l,,'='_.l,liz4,iffl+s5:,"_,lly.__.%:,=s:=&,s-,a-s%s--". , 14 ie ni
, ii .- ':" a%" rl_ i: u
,, _l.,, ,-'} , -: ll ,-,1,, , -.,,,,
II . "'44, €, -.1 ' a "F'.':' :,.0i,.':,: "." ' " , . % _ , ., -_. 1. -"!-!."a"T'a""l."aP'AW"'l&lW",7oa("'a'fla',,. "-' "" a-''l . : ! .' ",. Ia'H _ _ _, . '.."laiQ a - . 4 /" -'. '=lli ,,'1 l'&;,,,l=a<" i..la"""""l"11 ,l""_. Ill,l" '- i. I /' " ' "- ! ; . -. -' " -;."aaaiib,;@ ;s.;a':_,,.s:iH'i , 'i," 7- f!'
- --a=-=-.-,,:,7- ,/= 3,.
i , "''i -_ " _ I b @ -
n _, IHQ - '-, ,, . b .ii y II # !l , % ,,, - t
a
E " Lynwood I jay',j a--'-" =' g ' 7% * ,
%l': l,... ' ('
..l.u I,ia S l.. . . 1, ; % _ #} .,', . , . ,_ I /f' .i -i l a1. _ , . . , , @ . . "- ' a i - ' %
" ' J '%
Nillowbrook ' , . . x%. .. s;-.:..
"a""a -l ..,5x"s,_;QB,@%%, ,,:,ar,",
-' - -v %
Lynwood : :aT..':'.t: _ '%, l._
%@j Gardens. Q:Y,' - -"
9 ')
i a'a
County of Los Angeles, EsrifHERE,-Garmiri, SafeGra-pti; METT%NASA, US('," Bureau of Land Management,- EPA, NPS,' USDA. . :
City of South Gate Housing Element Update 2021 - 2029 N Sites Inventory with Overcrowded Housing . S.==s..:. DRAW'r'tp Overcrowded Households Data - CHHS - (Tract) Sites Inventory PCT_overcr IncomeCategory 0 05 'l
s8.2(SkatewideAverage) g Lower
<iz Moderate Miles
S15 8AboveModeraie
5i2o aMixed
S70 'sz"aC")'Bou"Y l:*tf)IallDlOl'm!lltOIHablnOjl"(Ni'ilJJo'h'(""l:;(IJI"'lm" Iffl XWh Rll+!IN }all 4TTI O!5 IIII M)aJlQ N@[11 (!l hty I)aat mti liBJffl til'm hjiiffi :m
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2020 HUD CHAS data, 2021.
D-74 Housing Element
262
286
Figtire D-39. Severely Overcrowded Houseliolds by Tract (2020) _: _ - -- ' l,(:'l - - _ _ _ !!l
.1 . _ _ - - , - '7 --- __ _,__. -%
J
"'=-'- ; "'i"'- -,.,- -,,
- a"'j'lli;tk-.i ") "'
, . _ %, .
t:; _ - I
'-:=-= -===4 _ 5_ J: g
= hh >g ,jU 'i,' , ,l, I@L,ih.-,11,_. '_' i>" :'-&l la- '- :: _ 9 # S
;F %,z J:':Jii_lJ
. . - ;' @., 0 ,_ . ;Y
" o ' "'r Q .ai 'aa5 : i. "a., t.
'l).;i -=
, ? . : vQ-c_-miB: . t6=ii"_4:';y,, j_5'b:p c 0/. oap ,- _l -z,'. -#j__
i5 %"' o7'a a') e"
:Jul!':L%lI'! " ., .#
;j . .>
i_ '\ ' %/ :J7j,",'i:+'a
S ' , ;
i;" .'!QL_; _!L a
I
" ' I I I '. ' -_ ___
C:J' " i i I .i n i .
I a i 1. i .' I I i I i . i t I i I a - , -
as ..
Source: HCO AFFH Data Viewet, 2020 HUD CHAS data, 2021.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-75
263
287
Substandard Housing
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions. Incomplete facilities and housing unit age are estimated using 2015-2019 ACS estimates. In general, residential structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical system repairs.
Regional Trend
Only O.2% of owner-occupied households and O.6% of renter-occupied households lack complete plumbing facilities countywide. Lack of complete kitchen facilities is more common; 0.4% of owners and 2.5% of renters lack complete kitchen facilities in the County. A larger proportion of renter-occupied households lack complete facilities compared to owner-occupied households.
Housing age can also be used as an indicator for substandard housing and rehabilitation needs.
In general, residential structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical system repairs. In the County, 86% of the housing stock was built prior to 1990, including 60.5% built prior to 1970 (Table D-27).
Table D-26: Lack of Complete Facilities by Tenure
South Gate
Owner-Occupied 52
Renter-Occupied 32
Los Angeles County
Owner-Occupied 3,672
Renter-Occupied 11,410
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
5,823
44,44i
10,315
13,756
1,519,516
1,797,279
Local Trend
In South Gate, more owner-occupied households than renter-occupied households lack complete facilities. Of owners, 0.5% lack complete plumbing facilities and one percent lack complete kitchen facilities. In comparison, only O.2% of renter households lack complete plumbing facilities and O.7% lack complete kitchen facilities. A smaller proportion of renters but a larger proportion of owners lack plumbing or kitchen facilities compared to the County.
Housing age can also be used as an indicator for substandard housing and rehabilitation needs.
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 91% of the housing stock in South Gate was built prior to 1990 and may be susceptible to deterioration and 76% was built before 1970 and may require major repairs. In comparison, only 85.9% of housing units Countywide were built in 1989 or earlier and
60.5% were built prior to 1970 (Table D-27). All housing units in tract 5353.06 were built prior to D-76 Housing Element
264
288
1990. In addition to tract 5353.06, tracts 5358.03, 5359.02, and 5356.04 have the largest proportion of housing units built prior to 1990. These tracts are generally located on the western side of the City along the western and southern City boundaries. Tracts with the oldest median housing unit age, located west of Long Beach Boulevard, also have higher concentrations of renters, including cost burdened renters, and less access to environmental opportunities. Tracts 5356.03, 5361.02, and 5357.02 have the most new housing built in 1990 or later. shows the median year built for housing structures by tract. Tracts where the median year built is 1948 or earlier are located on the western, northern, and southern City boundaries.
Table D-27: Housing Unit Age by Tract/Jurisdiction
Tract5355.01 72.9%
Tract5355.02 77.9%
Tract5355.03 74.5%
Tract 5356.03 75.1%
Tract5356.04 85.3%
Tract5356.05 62.0%
Tract5356.06 92.7%
Tract5356.07 83.6%
Tract5357.01 81.1%
Tract5357.02 69.9%
Tract 5358.02 81.0%
Tract5358.03 73.0'/o
Tract5358.04 60.7%
Tract5359.01 76.7%
Tract5359.02 89.2%
Tract5360 83.3%
Tract5361.02 48.3%
Tract5361.03 82.3%
Tract5361.04 77.5%
Tract5362 75.9%
SouthGate 76.0%
Los Angeles County 60.5%
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
14.6%
13.7%
18.0%
7.9%
12.2%
25.9%
7.3%
4.2%
13.4%
14.8%
11.3%
26.1%
30.8%
12.8%
8.5%
8.9%
34.9%
9.5%
15.8%
13.3%
15.1%
25.4%
12.5%
8.4%
7.5%
17.0%
2.5%
12.0%
O.O%
12.2%
5.5%
15.3%
7.7%
0.9%
8.5%
10.5%
2.3%
7.8%
16.8%
8.2%
6.8%
10.9%
8.9%
14.1%
1,041
1 ,263
643
1,048
1,038
1 122
481
,090
,505
,459
,651
,121
,388
,469
,598
,030
,077
,492
,078
2,007
24,601
3,542,800
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-77
265
289
Figure D-40: Median Year Structure Built by Tract
Median year structure built-Estimate y in 20 Geos v in 2019 y Sut vey. Program - _ - - i r I l_ll1 - o i - i P+cdbci " - = " : ' E ' = -. _ e - '- ' -' :+ - G JJ9[ J pn I e % r : - l " ,
% , 2,, sa -'i:- '7:q_ 7:1
Se =ct C';qi Gei'b Ba:=ii'a- T.i:il; }ny='
- l-.i-ii;toYTl_ 7 ,"' o' _, l- S35'l. p.'l4a oii- --s:ss 02' I ' "'-%-, -- ___' _. L."""' o": ; -)' -, ___ .." 5507 /, 55116 ai y< ,5:l57.oi I ----- i . :---_c_ . .l 'aooso:,sa:iioxlJ ',"'a"'oti"""oyi:i:112111534;+B3,"" :"' 7' , sag.t s:se.oa 535!)03 53137o2 5360 - /__! " a ","' 5-5""02 'i"A1[10_20 I - _ ' r
1!i'a=-%2 i 535604 - " " o- -/a 5508 --l-
o, ,aol, 1, b423 "" --sqs-e'.o'el.! ,. .sy'os 535B'@4 sxsg.ot t'-- 1, - ' 55"goa -aI I 2421 ___ 5'lG104 7 . .
7 551'01 - ; 'l,
' 560901 /I I ' - -----_ si i i 5356 07 '
- - -ffl I * nii l ' - ' 5358 o" s359 02
s" o2 " ., a :'5 14 02 1, ,
-,_""' a a-- '_ 5402111 a - _ ' 5510
__ =t L e g elnl:,-l ,_ . . o-i'il sA-ol3-- - '-11J j,4"-G-,Jo-2- _ _L, . , 55 l 5 01 ' x 0 ss 13 - -a-l "-, i _ I !%lOil _ " ' .:-- .
ilO.O l i a' ; 2-l 9 5 -i _ L - - _ ' ,r _ _ a - ' , i " -,- . / - i a.- i '}4021)J - ) ' ""102 z,l- T, '4 '1-i 9 51 " a 5512 0 l 'a 24 , ,,44_, ,41X, 5.10501 - ,i, / , , S51"l02 .
l 'a-"a " 43-'g-" 'l__y ' - a !401 0.! 5!1)o" s51H _ .. . y 551202 , ' I .=.-l,-i.-'iq,.'J, "aab= ,,,,.1,-=-'-i("
' -' '\ a"a ' : """ " \ i f-- - - -J, .- - - _ - 5418 01 ' - ,i , t___- ,- 5535 113 " %' 5518 3ource: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Displacement Risk
HCD defines sensitive communities as "communities [that] currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased development or drastic shifts in housing cost." The following characteristics define a vulnerable community:
* The share of very low-income residents is above 20 percent; and * The tract meets two of the following criteria:
Share of renters is above 40 percent,
Share of people of color is above 50 percent,
Share of very low-income households that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median,
The area or areas in close proximity have recently experienced displacement pressures (percent change in rent above County median for rent increases), or Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap).
Regional Trend
Figure D-41 shows sensitive communities at risk of displacement in the region. Vulnerable communities are most concentrated in the central County areas around the City of Los Angeles, Inglewood, South Gate, and Compton, East Los AnBeles, and parts of the San Gabriel Valley and D-78 Housing Element
266
290
San Fernando Valley. There are fewer vulnerable communities in coastal areas and between Calabasas, Malibu, and Beverly Hills.
Local Trend
As shown in Figure D-42, the majority of tracts in South Gate are considered sensitive communities where the population is vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment or shifts in housing cost. There are only three tracts in the City that are not considered vulnerable communities. Vulnerable communities in South Gate are also TCAC- designated low and moderate resource areas (see Figure D-21). All sensitive communities also have racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 80% and LMI populations exceeding 50% (see Figure D-5 and Figure D-14).
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-79
267
291
Figure D-41 : Regional Sensitive Coinmunities At Risk ofDisplacemem (202 l) ' l' I .I L 'l- -l 'i '
""" Van}- .,.,s-iti
'% fil I_all0
'-irT
al ili_u 1 ffi: 1111 iaa " ": "' " I' h wi <i'
u l Ili 'T1 i I " , I I 1.11 l : '.Ll.ffl II U } {t_i i _l _l 41'a " ' a -"' l.' iii';t' _ . : . ' t + 4. ia 'i i; ' _ ' a "r4h a '*'lJlillli ' . 'l.aiJ_
:l_lTlLll '. -
- I ' It 'l,' ) -
!liffir ', -i_l'n
l'n I !lr -_ml _ iL
l'tilTh"'lfl- .!tab
ht+. IJI l
- '- - iaaitn+ I-<A
i - ' a 7 - ' i " "- ' - ' - ;t II! y
':::I,,',,J.- ' ",,l-=- ., ,
' -. + i i . ill
; IIJ - g
. _ sa . ._ _ l al l - ' _a
' I I< I l: ' +lil kl t_ l I
t rt-',i
'lr i_i
-ra'r:. i" +
J ii l ' _L_ j0l 's , 1, 0<, .
%'ilit
Jlv I I I 110 la 'li I 0<
].
Source: HCD AFFH Dala Viewet, UC Berkeley Lkban Displacement Project 2021 2021.
D-80 Housing Element
268
292
Figure D42: Sensi?ve Communities At Risk of Displacement (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, LIC Berkeley Urban Displacemeni Project 2021 2021.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-81
269
293
Homelessness
Regional Trend
The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) estimates there were 66,436 persons experiencing homelessness in the Los Angeles County, based on the 2020 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Point-in-Time (PIT) Count. Figure D-43 shows the Los Angeles County homeless populations from 2015 to 2020. Approximately 72% of the homeless population is unsheltered and 28% is sheltered. The homeless population has increased by nearly 50% since 2015, and
12.7% since 2019. According to Department of Finance (DOF) estimates, the entire Los Angeles County population grew by only O.5% between 2015 and 2020.
Figure D-43: Los Angeles County Homeless Population Trend (2015-2020) 66,436
58,936
55,048
52,765
44,359
46,874
48,t)41
40, 1)8 2 A4 21-!
31,0;) 5 3z-!,701
13.334
2 -ii C,
12 173 14,966 13,369
2Jl:j 2cll7 2.JEi
14,722
2 i2fl E,I
18,395
Source: Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), 2015-2020 LA County/LA Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Counts.
Table D-28 shows the homeless populations in 2019 and 2020 by population type, gender, and health/disability. Approximately 19% of the homeless population belongs to a family with one or more child, 38.4% are chronically homeless, and 22.3% have a serious mental illness. Since 2019, the population of homeless family members (+45.7%), persons experiencing chronic homelessness (+54.2%), persons fleeing domestic violence (+40%), non-binary/gender non- conforming persons (+325.5%), and persons with a substance use disorder (+104%) have increased the most drastically. The population of transgender persons and persons with HIV/Al DS experiencing homelessness have decreased by 81.4 % and 4.7%, respectively.
D-82 Housing Element
270
294
Table D-28: Los Angeles County Homeless Population Demograahics (2019-2020) :-..,;J€_;'j.I::;,'v,xd3J"."'!"4;2*4':ffix,.i,'-"ffi"..jM\AI"4 !,
'ffiu
;'l
s A;_+.Jffl
i-,54%!%t.l;;1 - ' 0- 0 a --'l
M""'a"'"a"l1.
':i:Ji. .%.. A}., .; 1, .
L .f!@:=g_-l
"'
! IEm
W,,,I,
ji,y))]
;.}a-. '5
J.) li,'h < &'ala-i " at_ - ; @tie' l1, E4 it o - * 2?-,k," .1 a - - 'l_ l il,_M_ '_i_ I j i M l;I!= < 2 -6 ;l;- :14jlf. 1. } = a t4mmitmmi mQml
I*<iil,-..,
t
i.":;;q! W! m'!
58,936
50 071
Total
Individuals
Transitional Aged Youth
(18-24)
Unaccompanied Minors
(under 18)
Family Members"
Veterans
People Experiencing Chronic
Homelessness
Fleeing Domestic/Intimate
Partner Violence
Gender
Male
Female
Non-Binary/Gender Non-
Conforming
Transgender
Health and Disability"
Substance Use Disorder
HIV/AIDS
Serious Mental Illness
Percent of Total County
Population
" Members of families with at least one child under 18. " Indicators are not mutually exclusive.
Source: Los Angeles County Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), 2019-2020 LA County/LA Continuum of Care (CoC) HomelessCounts. 3,635
66 8,799
3,878
16,528
3,111
39,348
18 331
200
1 ,057
7,836
1,306
13,670
l00.Oo/o
85.0%
6.2%
0.1%
14.9%
6.6o/o
28.0%
5.3%
66.8%
3L1o/o
0.3'/o
1.8%
13.3%
2.2%
23.2%
0.6'/o
f36,436
53,619
4,278
74 12,817
3,902
25,490
4,356
44,259
21,129
851
197
15,983
1,245
14,790
'IJ(0%
80.7%
6.4%
o.1%
19.3%
5.9%
38.4o/o
6.6%
66.6%
31.8%
1 .3%
0.3%
24.1%
1.9%
22.3%
0.7%
17.7%
12.1%
45.7%
0.6%
54.2%
40.0'/0
12.5%
15.3%
325.5o/o
-81.4%
104.0%
-4.7%
8.2%
The following data refers to the Los Angeles Continuum of Care (CoC) region, covering all Los Angeles County jurisdictions except for the cities of Long Beach, Pasadena, and Glendale. Special needs groups are considered elderly or disabled (including developmental disabilities), female- headed households, large families, farmworkers, and people experiencing homelessness.
Nearly 20% of the homeless population are members of families with one or more child under the age of 18, 9.9% are elderly persons aged 62 and older, 17% have a physical disability, and
8.3% have a developmental disability. Only 32% of homeless persons with a developmental disability, 17.3% with a physical disability, and 21.5% of homeless seniors are sheltered. However, most families (76.3%) are sheltered (Table D-29).
Table D-29: Homeless Populations and Special Needs Groups Developmental Disability 32.1%
Physical Disability 1 7.3%
Family Members 76.3%
Aged62+ 21.5%
Source: LAHSA, 2020 LA CoC Homeless Counts.
67.9'/0
82.7%
23.7%
78.5%
5,292
10,833
12,416
6,290
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-83
271
295
Figure D-44 shows the Los Angeles CoC homeless population by race and ethnicity. The Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, and White populations make up the largest proportions of the homeless population. The Black/African American population is the most overrepresented in the Los Angeles CoC region. Nearly 34% of homeless persons are Black or African American, compared to only 7.8% of the population countywide. The American Indian and Alaska Native population is also overrepresented, making up only O.2% of the County population, but 1.1% ofthe homeless population.
Figure D-44: Los Angeles County CoC Homeless Population by Race/Ethnicity Aniuican
l.l'.i6
Black/African
filative Ha'.'. aiian;Cu:lie
Pacific Ibla II J"6
American Indian/AlaskaNative 686 1.1%
Asian 774 1.2%
Black/AfricanAmerican 21,509 33.8'!/o
Hispanic/Latino 23,005 36.1%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 205 0.3%
White 16,208 25.4%
Multi-Racial/Other 1319 2.1%Source: LAHSA, 2020 LA CoC Homeless Counts; 2015-2C)19 ACS (5-Year Estimates)
0.2%
14.4%
7.8%
48.5%
0.2%
26.2%
2.6%
D-84 Housing Element
272
296
Figure D-45 shows the distribution of homeless persons in the Los Angeles CoC region by age.
Adults aged 25 to 54 make up most of the homeless population, followed by adults aged 55 to 61, and children under 18. Children account for 11.8% of the homeless population and seniors (age 62+) account for 9.9% of the population; 6.6% of the homeless population is transitional aged youths between the ages of 18 and 24.
Figure D-45: Los Angeles CoC Homeless Population by Age
58. 3%
Under 18
18-24
25-54
55-61
62+
7,49i
4,181
37,138
8,606
6,290
11.8%
6.6%
58.3%
l3.5o/0
9.9%
22.0'!/0
9.7%
43.2%
8.7'!'o
16.4%
Source: LAHSA, 2020 LA CoC Homeless Counts; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates) Local Trend
Figure D-46 shows the homeless population trend in South Gate from 2016 to 2020. As of 2020, there are 399 persons experiencing homelessness in South Gate, all of which are unsheltered. Of the homeless persons in South Gate, 27.3% were on the street, 21% were in makeshift shelters,
17.9% were in RVs or campers, 15.3% were in vans, 14.9% were in cars, and 3.6% were in tents.
The population of persons experiencing homelessness in South Gate has increased from 108 South Gate General Plan 2035 D-85
273
297
persons in 2016, or nearly 270%. The population of persons experiencing homelessness is most concentrated in tracts in the northwestern corner of the City and on the eastern side of the City.
Figure D-46: South Gate Homelessness Trends (2020)
-.ital PJ it li> l me Scmeleyy Popt.lat i)IT ilOlG ihrb 222C' Un>iielteteti Ppraonx
Sevcli or Spleca I Camnatiiit Toi il hamel:.a Pcaul i 0 s 399
Source: LAHSA 2020 Homeless County by Community/City - South Gate.
The Los Angeles County Coordinated Entry System (LA County CES) assesses individuals to match them with available housing resources and programs. From July to December 2020, 100 individuals in South Gate were assessed through CES, including five youths, 23 families, three veterans, and three persons aged 62 or older. South Gate is a part of Service Planning Area (SPA) 7, serving East Los Angeles communities including Artesia, Bell, Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Cerritos, City of Commerce, City Terrace, Cudahy, Downey, East Los Angeles, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, La Habra Heights, Lakewood, La Mirada, Los Nietos, Maywood, Montebello, Norwalk, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, Signal Hill, South Gate, Vernon, Walnut Park, Whittier, and others. South Gate and SPA 7 CES assessments and services are presented in Table D-30.
D-86 Housing Element
274
298
Table D-30: Cumulative CES Statistics (July 2020 - December 2020) CES Assessment
Total Persons
Individuals
Youth
Families
Veterans
Persons %ed 62+
Types of Services Provided
Interim Housing
Rapid Re-Housing
Street Outreach (Contacts)
100
72 5
23 3
3 2,458
1,508
161
819
178
173
722
934
433
StreetOutreach(Engagements) 24 266 9%
Other(Non-Permanent) 14 438 3%
PlacedintoPermanentHousing" 4 427 1%
" Includes persons that have moved into permanent housing during the reporting period (through either rapid re- housing, permanent supportive housing, or other permanent destinations).
Note: For households with more than one person (including families), the assessment of the head of household is applied to all members.
Source: LAHSA Homelessness Statistics by City (July 1, 2020 - December 31, 2020), March 2021.
Sites Inventory
The City's sites strategy to meet the 2021-2029 RHNA is comprised of the following:
* Gateway District Specific Plan (GDSP)
* Hollydale Village Specific Plan
* Tweedy Boulevard Specific Plan
* Non-specific plan sites
* City-owned sites
The City"s sites inventory by tract and AFFH variable is presented in Table D-31. Sites used to meet South Gates RHNA are distributed throughout the City and are located in all but one tract (traCt 5402.01, small traCt located in the southwestern corner Of the City. The GatewaV DiStriCt Specific Plan is located in tract 5361.04 on the eastern side of the City, generally bound by Patata Street to the north, Atlantic Avenue to the west, and Imperial Hizhway to the south. The Hollydale Specific Plan is located in tract 5362 in the southeast corner of the City, generally bound by Gardendale Street and Imperial Highway to the north, Century Boulevard to the south, and Ruther Avenue to the east. Tweedy Specific Plan sites, non-Specific Plan sites, and City-owned sites are distributed throughout multiple Socith Gate tracts. The sites inventory by site type and AFFH variables are discussed further below.
)LC'E__)l_"i J.'iai____e_C!_t.f"__s____R)-l_iNA >lp>3:4g__yv_____ell_____dis_t_________rif:iul:___e4_t____hi_q6o3____it _t5___e qg_t_'y,_'T_o__y_v____aiH___d _;_heeast_sid_ei_ h_g_q:it;oy_h,a_s__t:i____e 1;le___at_tq5_i:3_esi_ale_ri_tj_c5_l_p_o__'L_eritiali_ri [:yv__o.sp_q.c_i_filj__a_@_a_Hg.4s,_)n_the northeast oFth_e i..:i,i is 11"<; C_)a!:eway Dis't.rict Specific. Plan ai"id soi_itheast is ti-ie 1-toll5idale '411age Specific Plan. Tht4 South Gate General Plan 2035 D-87
275
299
i"'____'s'l_(-qoj.:a_5.;_.!i:_iriyLt"ir'-i-i_q.!_p_:i':q(iJo:-'a_lat'i'; QY______viJI:!J!___CJXJ!'!g._":i...!_.':2_ou"rL';_j.9_r _'Cj!:_i_L!'=l_S_ffi_i D.G!!.[:!_ll2E__tl-!_____eflP.,A,§y_o'v.v_i-i_f_ie;c_i3_!_s.s___=,4-_.iH.y___ae_ri_t.g___r_ari..t,"2__)'.p_ra_are3.l_____io _d_e_gij:_'Bjaig_c3____>rm'p_'ie_r.c_ip_l_ii_i.i:,i_r;e.5_3. p__i'h@______l-ltgyi:i!a_5'__4.,4.iiigg_e :;!p___ec3jip._P___l4.ry_i;_h;4_I_ri'4t_iy3_c1p3__rq__y_em_____edia_'i;ip_n,_T'h_e giiy__I_y_aq__p_u___rqh____as_e4 p )_:EQG___el!Y____W!!:JTh_!.t-!_".'__Ob_le_c!:___!Vu_Of___CIJE.!J_nRU_______rfOl"-.!<3_FLt'e_____"'Q!'__S'_!'J_g_j_____"l[jj_s3_i_-q,p_.__T3He__Cj__ty_h_@_>_id_e_n_i_i_fied 'r_hK, mrcl;)'7o-:"ffir;..:-vv'n:;i'q-"-Id-7:iJ:'e:sn'nle-:::L'lJ-l-a-i_.h-,i-q_5____'e-r,\@rffi;acr'as':J""tJ-ie-fre-ew-a-y-t_::-.arr-:i.r_-r4.;'-ea;:"""-r;r7ed-g'Th Y:L;:J__""""').2-11';:-ll'.S71:'e-l""Qr'l7"ti_!;.-duS'l;'i-""""'e.'--""""a'a""f;Pnl)'Ldj2pi'D"ilatefCilal-(!'-jdel'lt!all_lSeQ_; M
mi_tt!_(L___rCJ _th_____e _vv____es_!s_ia____e _oi,_i;:n,p____Ci_i-y__tsFafT_e___bt______;/v'ee_Cl'l__'BQ_ ,_ts_iya,rci_S_p_qc_ij_i_c; Plai; ;ireas where the Cit-,/ :';I 6__';______'-"""'4p_e_______l'IJ":;_JJ"""lil';,J.J7e.4mJ_)FHFLT_l7___e'-SY'e':7ai_i').-7_;Sl""""""lrif:-(_)-;_-eiJt_tj'_8__l___u__Se;'._':J_'_T_h_e___E__P_A."""Qr:;f;["':E:'j';al'. t:_rx_t;3)r==___rvt a_____rea 'or R2Z___SeSsr_":_m___':_(J_lJrl_e_(: ri_g_":lte:_ln trie;e thieJylan a:-ea=-a"_ 'ia..io-'tat'J"xll_i'E':al0ntheCi2"Sva"i"gl_lS':'.:-aria>")g7j3tioncarr"..+'aCirS D 88 Hous ng E ement
276
300
Table D-.31: Sites Invento
Gateway District Specific Plan
536'l 04 1032 1533 606
Hollydale Specific Plan
5362 ig=ts 737 153
312 615 24.70% !!!).20% Low 37.90% 333jff3
B99'/0-
94 5oA
50 0"/o-
77 3.o"o 5940% 940%
Tweedy Specific Plan
5356 05 1122 24 0
535606 451 53 0
5358D7 iogo 16
4 !609 189 120
5,;i580q 1121 87 31
5358 04 l 346 78 0
535902 1578 117
5361 03 1481 4
5361 0-I 1032 107
Qutside Specific Plan Areas
535501 1017 472
535502 1246 58
i -643 322 161
98 50%
99 00%
98 4%-
99 0%
98 2(Y4
97 =+oo*
98 50%
97.0%-
98 %
95 2%-
97.4'!"0
96 00%
94 7%-
97.7'/0
982%-
95.0%
98jClo/,
69 10%
-85,8
44 0%-
78 6%
68.7'/o-
84 1 %
85 2'/o
35 1"/O-
746o/0-
89 2o/0
Low
Moderate
Low
9jQ%
6-OS(,DA
47 30%
35 90%
so-;,,g"*
55 20%
35 60%
38 10oA
7130% 2630%
pi
7-1502o
58 40%
35 IC
27 ooni,
5240% 2450%
61 80% 25 60%
58.60o/ 31.90%
753%-
83 8%
80 7,Q"'ti
9880!"0 8410'!'n
Low
llodetale
lBm
.ghanqBg,)
39 90%
6600oA
5356Q;i 1019 386 172 o
o
18 97.9%-
") O!/O
98-8Q%
984%-
98-5:;q
685'l/0-
69 8o/o
-za.-zoyi'o
691%-
86 7%
'7140%
Moderate 57 40"!o 50 30% 35 60"/n
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-89
277
301
! -1090 16
535701 1420 130 21
1439 617 197
5358.02
-5358,,03
-5356 04
taog
1121
1346
o
o
o
5360 1008 693 160
536102 1036 533 391
5:81 03 1481 118 45
536104 1032 1454 472
5362 1945 149 31
98 5%-
gg o"to
98 2%-
gg o',s
97 6%-
98.5%
97 70')'o
97 40'/o
98.50%
978%-
98 4"/0
72 9',(,-
92 8%
96 00%
94 7"/o'
97 7%
89 90%
26 80%
22 80"/,
35 10'!"O
63 5'/o-
7 8o/0
64 8o/o'
64 9%
64 8':/0-
86 5%
84 40%
85 90%
70 20"(,
68 8%-
73 9'./0
4?.2o/o-
64 5%
44.60o'n
746%.
89 2%
55 30'/0
Moderate
Moderate
llodetate
Moderate
(iilodetate
llodetate
Moderate
57.70'V0
34 60%
60 80%
43 20%
43 I 0%
35 90o/.
37 90%
39 70%
26 30%
55 50%
54 80% 20 80%
5 50% 26 80%
55 40% 22 80"/,
7 50% 35 10'!"O
50 20% 27 20"/n
55 40%
58 60%
59 40%
25.60%
9.40%
31 90%
D-90 Housing Element
278
302
Gateway District Specific Plan (GDSP)
The City is in the process of preparing the Gateway District Specific Plan (GDSP). The proposed GDSP was developed in preparation for the future Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station and to implement the Transit Village vision for the area, as established by the General Plan. The GDSP is generally located in the northeastern corner of the City and is approximately 59 acres, bound by Atlantic Avenue to the west, Patata Street to the north, and Firestone Boulevard to the south.
The GDSP is located in a tract with a small population of persons with disabilities, children in female-headed households, cost burdened renters, and cost burdened owners. Like much of the City, this area is comprised of block groups with non-White populations exceeding 81%. As shown in Table D-31, above, the GDSP is in a block group where 94.7% of the population belongs to a racial/ethnic minority group. Tract 5361.04, where the GDSP is located, is considered a low resource tract, where 89.2% of households are low or moderate income and 31.9% of households are overcrowded. Though the City's RHNA strategy concentrates units in this area, the GDSP aims to encourage transit-oriented development near existing transit and the future LRT Station, improve quality of li'fe through open space and public realm improvements, and provide healthy cornmunity development strategies, expanded residential and non-residential opportunities, and potential jobs. The proposed GDSP will ensure RHNA units located in the Plan area have ample access to a variety of opportunities and resources. Further, a majority of RHNA sites in the GDSP are mixed-income sites and do not concentrate a single-income category in the Plan area, encouraging mixed-income communities and a variety of housing opportunities.
Hollydale Villaqe Specific Plan
The Hollydale Village Specific Plan was adopted in 2017. The Hollydale area is located in the southeastern corner of the City, separated by the 1-710 freeway and Los Angeles River. As presented below, Hollydale is composed of moderate resource tracts with high concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities, LMI households, and overcrowded households. The Hollydale area also has moderate concentrations of persons with disabilities and children in female-headed households.
The Specific Plan aims to facilitate residential and mixed-use retail development adjacent to the Gardendale Eco-Rapid Transit Station. The Eco-Rapid Transit line is scheduled to be built by 2027 and includes two stations in the vicinity of Hollydale. The Hollydale SP is located in tract 5362 and is considered a moderate resource area with racial/ethnic minority populations ranging from
89.9% to 94.5% and LMI populations ranging from 50.0% to 94.5%. Overcrowding is less prevalent in this tract compared to other areas of the City, however 19.4% of households still experience overcrowding. Approximately 59% of renters are also cost burdened in this tract. Though RHNA sites in the Hollydale Specific Plan are concentrated in areas with some special needs @roups and disproportionate housing i'ieeds, the Plan intends to revitalize the Holydale community through improved transportation and additional housing and neighborhood-serving retail opportunities.
The Hollydale SP allocates units to a variety of income-levels, including 153 lower income units, 341 moderate income units, and 243 above moderate income units. The array of housing types South Gate General Plan 2035 D-91
279
303
will promote a mixed-income community and serve households of diverse income-levels and housing needs.
Tweedy Boulevard Specific Plan
The Tweedy Boulevard Specific Plan was finalized in March 2019. The Plan area is approxirnately 622 acres and is located along southern South Gate along Tweedy Boulevard. RHNA units in the Plan area are all located in block @roups with non-White populations ranzinz from 94.7% to 99%, consistent with the Citywide trend where most of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic mii"iority group. The Tweedy SP is located throughout ten tracts, six of which are moderate resource areas and four of which are low resource areas. As discussed previously, South Gate is comprised of only moderate and low resource tracts. Tracts 5328.02 (189 lower income units) and 5361.04 (80 lower income units) have the largest allocation of lower income RHNA units.
Tract 5328.02 is a moderate resource tract and 5361.04 is a low resource tract. More than 50% of renters in both tracts are cost burdened and more than 26% of households in both tracts are overcrowded. Both tracts are comprised of block @roups that are considered LMI areas where more than 50% of households are low or moderate incoine. Lowerincome units allocated in these tracts can serve existing LMI and cost burdened populations. Further, 38 moderate income units and 58 above moderate income units are allocated in these tracts ensuring a variety of housing opportunities are available.
In addition to facilitating new residential developrnent and expanded housing choice in the Plan area, the Tweedy Boulevard Specific Plan aims to improve transportation, access to regional opei'i space resource, and pedestrian-oriented retail. RHNA units located in the Plan area are not exposed to adverse fair housing conditions compared to the remainder of the City. Further, through the City's revitalization efforts, the Tweedy Boulevard Specific Plan will expand housing choice, increase economic and transportation opportunities, and bolster resources in the area.
Non-Specific Plan Sites
In general, the remainder of the City's sites inventory is reflective of the trends and patterns Citywide. Consisten with the trend Citywide, non-Specific Plan sites are located in either low or moderate resource tracts with higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minority groups, LMI households, and overcrowded households. Non-Specific Plan sites are distributed throughout 17 tracts, ensuring housing opportunities are available throughout South Gate. Of the 17 tracts, 9 are moderate resource areas and 8 are low resource areas. The City has allocated 5,150 units towards the RHNA using nori-Specific Plan sites, including 2,020 lower income units, 340 moderate income units, and 2,790 above moderate income units. The variety and distribution of housing units allocated will promote mixed-income communities and encourage a variety of housing opportunities for existing and future residents.
As shown in the sites inventory i'naps presented previously, all sites are generally evenly distributed throughout the City and reflect the characteristics of South Gate as a whole. Larger non-Specific Plan sites are categorized as mixed-income sites (30% lower income, 20% moderate income, and 50% above moderate income) and do not concentrate a single income-level in one D-92 Housing Element
280
304
area of the City. The non-Specific Plan sites selected to meet the RHNA will no exacerbate exiting fair housing conditions and will promote an even distribution of housinz opportunities throughout the City.
3e'ft*_-:5='ar:tets and Qfbe,r Co-hi4-!ts.p- -.emts to Sui art rk'-8 To@mre_r_!
'-' a -"l
jie City ic al=do in the ess of developing e'plete Strea!ts. (ainplete S'xets is 'c 'r4,__p_ortahiom polimv ffiind o'desiz5_app_som.ch @at: req'u!res_.ets to ice illan=;'des.iBeel!-a i.d a pperat@ind main!aimied to enabie safg.4onveaient ancl corn''o;Wavel =and access formaiser! :f a.ll ; anilities re@arThliess of 't'hei:z rmde of $ns'4At. ACity thabirelies o.r_ it:
i,c.tive inThstri:;se4o_ r.employment, Compa
#
iete Streets systim* iroBi'aaaatnat tilitate e s4
;nd,iAJt"'Werij ''n" b,e.en"resideht!al, commq_ci-a.l, "a'7 mds'es_. Th.,e,_, '- -
;j;zets oroiects curr4.mtlv in t;p Ci,t.v"s Caoital Imoe':'neiitj!lw arel Gald Avei'iue Complete Stred
r
iiTj II
Long Beach Boulevard SVeet Imprc
ii . b
Identification and Prioritization of Contributing
Factors
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
There has been no fair housing testing conducted in South Gate over the past four fiscal years. In 2020, 130 discrimination cases were opened in Los Angeles County, mostly on the basis of disability (66%) and race (21%). HUD reported 26 fair housing inquires in Gardena between 2013 and 2021. Since August 2010, 12 complaints were filed through HUD"s FHEO; over the past four fiscal years, 48 fair housing inquiries/allegations were filed through FHF in South Gat rther the lacks uat fa' h ' outre ch
including community workshops, surveys, and dissemination of fair housing infoi-mation.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-93
281
305
Contributing Factors'.
* Lack of monitoring
* Lack of outreach towards special needs groups
* Lack of fair housing testing
Concentration of Special Needs Groups
The entire City has is highly concentrated with LMI households and racial/ethnic minority populations. There are also some areas in the City with higher concentrations of persons with disabilities and children in female-headed households. Many of these tracts were also identified as low resource areas or as sensitive communities at risk of displacement. While these patterns reflect patterns Citywide, tracts in the central western areas of the City tend to have the most overlaooine fair housing issues includine concentrations of non-White residents. cost bcird=ned $
ii -. _j II
5ordi-nz to FHF serviacia!,,%ilt:nic minori%'5enc .toaii served at a F'iGwe':
'ate that 'U4te residents. It is also rel_eva.W,to nom, that alt'Mouz;here are no R/EC_A_Ps 6r T(X"" " ' " "'- '1% :i'p&ss of hizh [email protected] amm pove'ky in t
i4' "' ""' " "' """ ""'-- """"'- -- -
he Ci,t.y, a significarNproportion of RHNA cini_A
_M1 - re ar
(am -'
Iv all blocl<.grouos in Sou#i G.:itp havl oos.ulations exceeding 51'%1 Contributing Factors8
* Lack of private investment
* Location and type of affordable housing
* Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure Substandard Housing Conditions
South Gate has an aging housing stock. In the City, 76% of housing units were built prior to 1970.
In comparison, only 60.5% of the housing stock countywide was built in 1969 or earlier. In general, aging housing units are more concentrated on the western side of the City. South Gate also has a higher concentration of owner-occupied households lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities compared to the County. Tracts with higher concentrations of azinz housinz units also tend to have larger populations of cost burdened and overcrowded households. Areas west of Long Beach boulevard also have worse environmental conditions and all of southern South Gate has less access to parks to parks and open space. However, these fair housing issues are present Citywide.
Contributing Factors
* Age of housing stock
* Cost of repairs of rehabilitation
D-94 Housing Element
282
306
Displacement Risk of Low Income Residents Due to Economic Pressures
Most of the City is considered a sensitive community at-risk of displacement. Sensitive communities at risk of displacement are generally more concentrated on the western side of the City. More than 60% of owners and renters overpay for housing in more sensitive tracts. These areas also have high concentrations of racial/ethnic minority populations and LMI households.
The homeless population has increased from 108 individuals in 2016 to 399 individuals in 2020.
Contributing Factors
* Unaffordable rents
* Concentration of poverty in some tracts
* Availability of affordable housing
* Increasing population of homeless individuals
is aritj4s in Access to 0 rtunitie
rll are,as of 'Mle City are7E3tego_rize.a ms TCAC mo,clei'Tht'etor low resource tracts. W!";fle t_hu__e ____isai' Isingli area..o'f the"-City "with""'ffi coTenit=ra.tio_n o'f I_ow r__e_ socirce tract5,Sou_tt_:'i G_a_te "a's-a ;..
Iharacterized by.l.a.rz racia'l/etl"ii-iic m';qo;ty."'a'nd "LMI liouseho!'d-' po';':a't!'ons."-Tiiere-'Gare.'!""" #.- K iducatiorial, economic,.,and environmen(ial o'pportuJlittia,s are less accessible to these populat%':
esidinz in Soutl'i Thte.' Thoug4.,there are no R/EffPs o_r,_7r CAC areas of high seHrega5i,on aimi"' """ """"' " " "l'T.mil-:" """ "'-"- "' " """ - rovei_ty in the City, most tracts are mnsideaed sensitive con"im,unit.ies at rislc of displaqeraent. [4W!_ "" v "' """ "" "" at""-' """" p_____theraphic compositioi'i of Sou'th Gate, raciat/ethnic mmority,gopcilatigns andJi%----'-'' lt%- s n'iav..gxoerierice_dis_o_tacement or I;iye reduced access to oaao_i;.:f.cinitiesl onti-ibgtin Factors
The availob.ili fre euri
l.zk of private:ii4vestments i
Lack of lic investine&s,in s
Location aiqd affom
ecific nei hborh!ood
ecific nej l"i i-r'ic -udir'ig servi r a
avat@Jiscriminatio
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-95
283
307
APPENDIX D: AFFIRMATIVELY
FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
(AFFH)
Introduction and Overview of AB 686
In 2017, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) into California state law. AB 686 defined "affirmatively further fair housing" to mean "taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity" for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. The Bill added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element which includes the following components:
* A summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the jurisdiction's fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity;
* An analysis of segregation patterns, racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunities, and disproportionate housing needs; * An assessment of contributing factors; and
* An identification of fair housing goals and actions.
The AFFH rule was originally a federal requirement applicable to entitlement jurisdictions, those with populations over 50,000 that can receive HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD) funds directly from HUD. Before the 2016 federal rule was repealed in 2019, entitlement jurisdictions were required to prepare an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) or Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Al). AB 686 states that jurisdictions can incorporate findings from either report into the Housing Element.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-1
284
308
Fair Housing Assessment
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Federal fair housing laws prohibit discrimination based on: race, color, religion, national origin, sex/gender, handicap/disability, and familial status. Specific federal legislation and court rulingsinclude:
* The Civil Rights Act of 1866- covers only race and was the first legislation of its kind * The Federal Fair Housing Act 1968- covers refusal to rent, sell, or finance * The Fair Housing Amendment Act of 1988- added the protected classes of handicap and familial status
* The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)- covers public accommodations in both businesses and in multi-family housing developments
* Shelly v. Kramer 1948- made it unconstitutional to use deed restrictions to exclude individuals from housing
* Jones v. Mayer 1968- made restrictive covenants illegal and unenforceable California state fair housing laws protect the same classes as the federal laws with the addition of marital status, ancestry, source of income, sexual orientation, and arbitrary discrimination.
Specific State legislation and regulations include:
* Unruh Civil Rights Act- extends to businesses and covers age and arbitrary discrimination * California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Rumford Act)- covers the area of employment and housing, with the exception of single-family houses with no more than one roomer/boarder
@ California Civil Code Section 53- takes measures against restrictive covenants * Department of Real Estate Commissioner's Regulations 2780-2782- defines disciplinary actions for discrimination, prohibits panic selling and affirms the broker's duty to supervise
* Business and Professions Code- covers people who hold licenses, including real estate agents, brokers, and loan officers.
This South Gate Housing Element represents the City's commitment to undertaking meaningful actions to further fair housing (GC 8899.50), to comply with various related laws such as the Housing Accountability Act (GC 65589.5) and Density Bonus (GC 65915), and not to engage in exclusionary land use practices (GC 65008). The Housing Plan includes specific actions to further fair housing in five areas: outreach and education; housing mobility; new opportunities in high resource areas; place-based strategies for neighborhood improvements; and tenant protection and anti-displacement. The City will also update its Density Bonus ordinance and in the process of developing an inclusionary housing policy.
D-2 Housing Element
285
309
Regional Trend
According to HUD"s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) records, 130 housing discrimination cases were filed in Los Angeles County in 2020, compared to 291 in 2010. In 2020, a majority of cases were related to disability (66%). Another 21% of cases were related to racial b ias. The percent of cases related to disability has increased significantly since 2010, when only 36% of cases reported a disability bias. Public housing buildings, FHEO inquires by City and housing choice voucher (HCV) recipients by tract are shown in Figure D-1. HCVs are most concentrated in the cities of Inglewood and Los Angeles, and in the adjacent unincorporated County areas. Public housing buildings are concentrated in the same area. However, there are many public housing buildings scattered throughout the County.
Local Trend
As discussed in the City"s 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Al), South Gate annually receives funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and HOME Investments Partnership HOME) program. As a CDBG fund recipient, the City is required to have AFFH certification, which states that the grantee receiving HUD funds:
...will affirmatively further fair housing ... by conducting an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within its jurisdiction, taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through the analysis, and maintaining records reflecting the analysis and actions in this regard.
As such, South Gate has committed to comply with all federal and state regulations related to fair housing, such as the laws outlined above.
Under contract with the City, the Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) provides fair housing services to South Gate residents. The FHF provides the following fair housing related services: discrimination complaint intake and investigation; fair housing training, outreach and education, general housing (landlord/tenant) counseling and mediation; enforcement and impact litigation. The FHF also conducts fair housing testing in South Gate and throughout Los Angeles. Between FY 2015/2016 and FY 2019/2020, no fair housing testing was facilitated in South Gate.
As part of the 2020 South Gate Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2020 Al), the City conducted a fair housing choice survey. The survey received 217 responses, 177 of which were from residents and 25 were from persons who worked in the City. A summary of the responses, as outlined in the 2020 Al, are shown below:
* 88% of the respondents believe that "housing for the disabled" is either "important" or "extremely important.
* 91% of the respondents think that "ADA accessibility improvements to public roads/facilities" is either "important" or "extremely important. * 21% of the persons answering the Survey think that they or someone they know has encountered housing discrimination.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-3
286
310
* 67% of the people who have encountered housing discrimination would take action by reporting the incident to the authorities or contact the person responsible for the discriminatory act.
@ 32%oftherespondentsindicatedthattheybelievehousingdiscriminationoccursinSouth Gate.
* The most frequent types of housing discrimination include race, ethnicity, and disability (49%); source ofincome (51%); children (37%); and criminal history, record (34%). Source of income likely refers to discrimination against Section 8 voucher holders. "Children" probably refers to the familial status protected class. * 41% of the people responding to the survey stated they are aware of a tenant's right to request a reasonable accommodation. Examples of the requests that had been made included improving the accessibility of a unit; assistance animal; parking space related; and live-in aide.
* 16% of the respondents believe there is a need for housing units with accessibie kitchens and bathrooms
* When asked about their housing options, almost 50% stated they "Cannot afford the rent or mortgage in a preferred neighborhood."
* Another 8% stated they were "Not shown housing in the neighborhoods we wanted to move to.
The City's 2020 Al states:
Overall, the Survey results demonstrate that residents are [awarel of their right to fair housing. There also is a keen understanding that persons with disabilities are a protected class and that meeting their housing needs is important. Still, some people who have experienced housing discrimination do not report the incident.
Information could be posted on the City's website informing residents that they should report incidents of housing discrimination.
According to the City's 2020 Al, 12 discrimination complaints involving 17 bases (protected classes) were filed in South Gate through HUD's FHEO between August 2010 and August 2019.
Of the complaints filed through HUD, 42% (seven cases) were related to familial status, 24% (four cases) were related to national origin, 12% (two cases) were related to disability, and 12% (two cases) were related to sex. Since the 2016 FY, 48 housing inquiries/allegations have been filed with the FHF. Inquiries and allegations filed with FHF were most frequently related to physical and mental disabilities.
As of 2022, the FHF provided direct client services to a total of 381 unduplicated South Gate residents and operators of rental properties. There were 8 Fair Housing allegations regarding Familial Status (1), Physical Disability (3), and Source of Income (4). Of those allegations, 3 were resolved successfully and 5 cases regarding Physical Disability (1) and Source of Income (4) were opened. There was a total of 453 Landlord/Tenant Counseling sessions completed. The majority of the issues were regarding rent increases (125), eviction (90), and notices (74). FHF resolved D-4 Housing Element
287
311
388 issues successfully. Of the residents served, 172 were extremely low income (45%), 162 were very low income (42.5%), and 47 were low income (12.3%).
During FY 21/22, the Outreach Staff contacted staff from four (4) Community Based Organizations including the South Gate WIC Center, South Gate Girls Club House, Southern California Crossroads and Plaza Community Services to discuss fair housing services and create a network for clients that will direct them to FHF for housing assistance. FHF Staff attended four (4) City Council meetings to remain informed about the community and increase fair housing awareness. In October, the Outreach Coordinator participated in the 25th Annual Family Day in the Park event and hosted a resource table where literature was distributed, and housing questions were answered on site. Four (4) PSAs about housing discrimination and FHF were sent to the City's Public Information/Cable Channel to air on the city cable channel. The Outreach Coordinator stopped by the Human Service Association and Leland R. Weaver Library to present on our services and how we can aSsist while also providing them with literature to distribute to their patrons. Five (5) Fair Housing Workshops (2 onsite, 3 virtual) were conducted successfully with attendees this yearin August, November, December, February, and June where they learned about Fair Housing Laws, Landlord/Tenant issues and Covid-19 protections. Every Door Direct Mail (EDDM) was utilized this year to deliver 1,587 pieces of educational literature to very low/low-income residents in the 90280-zip code. Additionally, literature was sent to other community-based organizations in the City to promote our workshops and services. In total, 5,525 pieces of literature were distributed this year. FHF had a successful media campaign promoting FHF and its services. On social media, Facebook had 10,227 Posts Reach and 53,125 impressions, Instagram had 22,777 Impressions, Twitter had 25,219 Tweet impressions, and our website had 57,537 sessions.
According to the City"s Housing Division, there are no fair housing lawsuits in the City. The City utilizes the services of the Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) to provide fair housing outreach, education, and counseling services for residents, property owners, and housing professionals.
During FY 2022-2023, FHF received a total of 19 fair housing complaints: Gender (1); Mental Disability (1); Physical Disability (4); Sexual Orientation (1); Source of Income (5); Familial Status (2); National Origin (2); and Race (3). FHF successfully resolved 15 complaints. Four cases were opened for further investigations and counseling: Physical Disability (1); Mental Disability (1); Source oflncome (1); Familial Status (1); and National Origin (1). Each case can involve more than one protected classes. Typically, FHF will try to resolve most cases through mediation and counseling. Only when such actions are unsuccessful would the cases be referred to FHEO of HUD or DFEH.
Though the following cases do not involve the City of South Gate, they are included in the City's 2020 Al as examples of private and public impediments to fair housing choice:
Sexual Harassment by Marin County Landlord (2018). A woman filed complaints for housing discrimination and violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, alleging that the owner of a residential house in which she rented a downstairs room sexually harassed her over the course of a year and a half, including by kissing her, grabbing her buttocks, and exposing himself to her. The South Gate General Plan 2035 D-5
288
312
complainant alleged the owner became increasingly hostile after she rejected his advances. No longer feeling safe in her home, the complainant filed a police report and sought a restraining order against the landlord, which the court granted. Immediately following service of the restraining order, the homeowner served the complainant with a 30-day eviction notice. The parties engaged in voluntary pre-investigation mediation in the DFEH's Dispute Resolution Division, resulting in a settlement in which the landlord agreed to pay the complainant S75,000.
In addition to the monetary settlement, the homeowners were required to undergo fair housing training that addresses sexual harassment prevention and retaliation.
National Origin Discrimination in Housing in San Rafael (2018). A family alleged that a property management company discriminated against them on the basis of national origin when the company demanded a U.S.-based form of identification such as a u.s. driver's license, passport, or employment authorization card to process a rental application. DFEH has issued guidance that California housing providers may not require U.S.-issued identification from prospective tenants and must accept foreign-issued identification such as Consular ID cards and passports. Routine credit and background checks may be conducted with a name and previous address. The parties engaged in voluntary pre-investigation mediation in the DFEH's Dispute Resolution Division, resulting in a settlement in which the property owner agreed to pay S18,000, change the language of a notice given to rental applicants, attend fair housing trainings, post fair housing posters, and send residents fair housing brochures in English and Spanish.
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Riverside Mobile Home Park Owners (2017). Residents of a Riverside mobile home park experienced discrimination and harassment by a manager of the park. A property manager harassed children at the park by taking pictures of them and by calling them, "Mexican -------." The manager also issued a rule to the tenants stating that children would only be allowed to play in their own yards and not in the common areas of the park. The mobile home park owners agreed to pay S125,000 to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc. (FHCRC) and to five Hispanic tenants who filed the complaint.
The settlement also required the mobile home park owner to attend fair housing training, revise all housing rules that discriminate against Hispanic tenants and residents with children, and to post DFEH"s housing discrimination rights notices in Spanish and English.
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Airbnb (2017). In April 2017, Airbnb entered into a settlement agreement with the DFEH to resolve a Department-initiated complaint alleging that Airbnb engaged in acts of housing discrimination and failed to prevent discrimination against Black guests in violation of California civil rights laws. Airbnb is an online community marketplace that connects people looking to rent their homes with people who are looking for accommodations. Under its terms, the Airbnb hosts and the guests in California are required to accept a recently implemented nondiscrimination policy as a condition for participating in Airbnb. The Department will conduct fair housing testing of Airbnb hosts in the state, and Airbnb California employees will receive fair housing and discrimination training.
Airbnb has designated a unit to investigate all discrimination complaints, and this unit will submit periodic reports to the Department. Airbnb has also agreed to develop a progressive system of D-6 Housing Element
289
313
counseling, warning, and discipline for hosts and guests when unlawful discrimination occurs.
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. John Yo Wong (2016). Irene Reynoso, a 66-year-old woman, had lived in the same apartment in San Francisco for decades. She had b een seriouslyinjured as a young woman and her condition had deteriorated over time, requiring her to ask her landlord to accept rent checks signed by her sister, to allow another sister (her caregiver) to stay with her, and to provide her with a key to a more accessible entrance to the garbage room. Despite numerous attempts by Ms. Reynoso, her sisters, and the nonprofit Housing Equality Law Project (HELP) to obtain these reasonable accommodations, the landlord refused all requests and served Ms. Reynoso with multiple eviction notices. After Ms. Reynoso brought her case to DFEH, the Department investigated her claims, found merit and filed a lawsuit against the landlord. In November 2016, Ms. Reynoso's landlord agreed to pay S575,000 to Ms. Reynoso, her sisters, and HELP to resolve the discrimination allegations and various landlord-tenant claims. The settlement also requires the landlord to attend fair housing training, develop a reasonable accommodations policy, and post informational DFEH posters at all of his rental properties.
Discrimination Against Hispanic Homeowners Based on their National Origin (2019). The federal DOJ, through a series of settlements, resolved allegations that several California based mortgage loan modification service providers engaged in national origin discrimination when they targeted Hispanic homeowners for predatory mortgage loan modification services and interfered with those individuals' ability to keep their homes. The Settlement Agreements resolved a lawsuit that the Department filed in the u.s. District Court for the Northern District of California. Among other relief, the agreements established a restitution fund of more than S148,000 to reimburse the discrimination victims for fees collected by defendants as part of the predatory scheme. The lawsuit arose from complaints filed with the HUD by two of the defendants' former clients, Eberardo Perez and Roberto Hernandez, who intervened in the lawsuit along with their attorney, Housing & Economic Rights Advocates (HERA), and members of Hernandez"s family.
Discrimination Against a Group Home on the Basis of Race and National Origin (2017). On March 23, 2017, the court issued an order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment in Southwest Key Programs, Inc. v. City of Escondido (S.D. Cal.l finding that there were triable issues as to whether the group home at issue constitutes a dwelling under the Fair Housing Act. The United States Department of Justice had filed a statement of interest in this case on November 3, 2016, to address the question whether the protections of the Fair Housing Act extend to group homes for unaccompanied children in the care and custody of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiff in the case sought to operate such a home in the City of Escondido and alleges that the city discriminated on the basis of race and national origin when it denied the request for a conditional use permit to operate the group home. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the Fair Housing Act does not apply. The United States' statement ofinterest urged the court to find that the proposed group home is a "dwelling" covered by the Fair Housing Act and is neither a jail nor South Gate General Plan 2035 D-7
290
314
a detention facility.
Group Home 600 Foot Spacing Requirement (2017). On November 28, 2017, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. City of Springfield (C.D. Ill)i alleging that the City violated the Fair Housing Act by imposing a 600-foot spacing requirement on small group homes for persons with disabilities, while not applying any spacing requirement to similarly situated housing for people without disabilities. The complaint further alleges that the City failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to a small group home that was located within 600 feet of another such home.
Discrimination Against Permanent Supportive Housing (2017). On June 29, 2017, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. City of Jacksonville (M.D. Fla.). The complaint, which was filed on December 20, 2016, alleged that the City violated the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act when it refused to allow the development of a 12-unit apartment building to create "permanent supportive housing" for "chronically homeless" veterans, in response to intense community pressure based on stereotypes about prospective residents with disabilities.
Under the consent decree, the City has amended its Zoning Code, including removing restrictions that apply to housing for persons with disabilities and implementing a reasonable accommodation policy. The City has also agreed to rescind the written interpretation that prevented Ability Housing from providing the housing at issue, designate a fair housing compliance officer, provide Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act training for City employees, and pay a S25,000 civil penalty to the government. In a separate settlement the City agreed to pay S400,000 to Ability Housing, a non-profit affordable housing provider, and 525,000 to Disability Rights Florida, an advocate for people with disabilities, and to establish a S1.5 million grant to develop permanent supportive housing in the City for people with disabilities.
Forced Closure of a Group Home (2017). On June 26, 2017, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. City of Jackson (S.D. Miss.). The complaint, which was filed on September 30, 2016, alleged that the city discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by requiring the operator of a group home to close the home and force the residents to relocate. The consent decree requires the city to pay 5100,000 to the owner of Urban Rehab, Inc., !>35,000 to the department as a civil penalty, and S50,000 to a settlement fund that will compensate other victims. The city also agreed to revise its Zoning Code to permit persons in recovery to reside in all residential zones and to ease other restrictions on group homes for people with disabilities.
Discrimination Against African American Participants in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (2015). On July 28, 2015, the court approved a settlement agreement in United States v. Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, which was filed on July 20, 2015, alleged that the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles and the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale engaged in a pattern or practice of Fair Housing Act discrimination against African-American participants in the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.
The settlement agreement provides for comprehensive reforms, a S1.975 million victim fund and D-8 Housing Element
291
315
a !525,000 civil penalty.
HUD reported that South Gate received a total of 13 FHEO inquiries between January 2013 and March 2021. Of the 13 inquiries, one was related to familial status, one was related to national origin, and 11 were not related to a specific discrimination basis. Total FHEO inquiries in South Gate represent O.13 inquiries per 1,000 people. In three tracts, between 5% and 10% of all renters receive housing choice vouchers (HCV) and in nine tracts, up to 5% of renters receive HCVs. To protect the confidentiality of renters receiving HCVs, tracts containing 10 or fewer voucher holders have been omitted from this dataset. Tracts with higher concentrations of renters receiving HCVs are not generally concentrated in one area in the City. FEHO Inquiries and the concentration of HCV recipients by tract are shown in Figure D-2.
According to the South Gate Housing Authority, while the City has available over 600 vouchers, the leased up rate is limited, currently at about 60 percent. The Housing Authority has recently been approved for an increase in payment standard to 120 percent of market-rate rent in order to promote the use of HCVs in the community. With the increase, the Housing Authority staff intends to proactively outreach to property owners and landlords to encourage the acceptable of HCVs.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-9
292
316
Figure D1 : Regional Public Hotising Buildings, FHEO Inquiries, and HCVs by Tract _, 0% __ I1111:l , _ , ' . 0 r,l;H'i- __ _ __ _ ,
'U )11.). I ." ac-? . ;, @ -,,, 0{ I 'fl I i- I " ffi .1 i - ', ." _ . -'!'
@ --a'Nia:aJ: ,,5-1""*a-'-a-
_ le, _ . ___ _, I
"" "-" ' a ""' "" ' "" "-':" ' a ) . ,4,1:( 'i_+(' !!A-&7 - ' - a -- - " ' -'!' "a a:'W'lL'<I"' *.b a.ii-.vi ' Thi ' . ' . _.j' * -l ) * 'l ' ;l I al 01 _ (, , , - 4 . _. a i ' l_ : I" ' gerii3 _ _ +'_i:5 aa , _, '_ - i.' ilK ,,,,,, ====-, % ,,_,_ _! 'q:,'=,':ax<',,='==-';"(-Hs,;,a,. ' =' =' as, -'. - ==- '31"="""4-my";,' ,,@_ ,:.,.."a'-"" : ' ,'= -ltlialLi ia:nM * -\' !-I at '3:(1-,i.a-l k"__ . .a" l- ':s =x . 5 .
i"!( " 'a ' -
, ",:!fJ,'-\q"= " '!,,, . _ __,.. -aai .._..._...,., t7 8 * b --a.i,_*"la=-aL' __ l :llLt(it,
- -- " i ' I i* -o - i
*
i ' . ' - - ) '-
'_"ij4,t4-i"
_- ;' !! '[email protected]"7-'. '!y '
i :JFA' i i * --',: '
7,1-iH,_ ' a " " .'ll s
l il '- I l! i ni
Itzl 1. _. _.-
a,l b l,, @ ' a sa .- . ,...i,,._ . i- .
l@_ ""'a""' -r_gl-l,,%,li=t== lIll:'<hc.vla' = 1._ I!!?;'- I . l)l&-_ . ffl ' W I " >, iq _ I _:' f'ti L s,, :;,_;: _ '
_' ' I _ I i _ _ * 1' 11
l o " - '
€ I.li.inilni*nuili' #lilu71?i b' "'- F l I 11.11 i E I ll ri nlE .i Ill- 1. . -l' l:l _ _ l_ I . . i . .. . . ,l . I I I .. I WffiEi - I '-' l 8 i
€0 1. - I i i i * , . . I - -
I a _. : I a ' a r _ - - % - - - i ' I i I : " ' _ ! ; - : i Source' HCD AFFH Data Viewet, 20U-2021 HIID, 2021
D-10 Housing Element
293
317
Figure D-2: Pubiic Housing Buildings, FHEO Inquiries, and HCVs by Tract Source: HCD AFFH Data uewet, 2013-202'l HLID, 2021
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-11
294
318
Integration and Segregation
Race and Ethnicity
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences and mobility.
Dissimilarity indices can be used to measure the evenness of distribution between two groups in an area. The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
* <40: Low Segregation
* 40-54: Moderate Segregation
* >55: High Segregation
The following analysis of racial/ethnic segregation also includes racial/ethnic minority population trends, maps of minority concentrated areas over time, and an analysis of the City's sites inventory as it relates to minority (non-White) concentrated areas.
Regional Trend
As shown in Table D-1, racial/ethnic minority groups make up 73.8% of the Los Angeles County population. Nearly half of the Los Angeles County population is Hispanic/Latino (48.5%), 26.2% of the population is White, 14.4 % is Asian, and 7.8% is Black/African American. South Gate and the neighboring jurisdictions of Bell Gardens, Cudahy, Downey, Huntington Park, Lynwood, and Paramount have racial/ethnic minority (non-White) populations exceeding the Countywide average. Of the selected jurisdictions, Huntington Park has the largest racial/ethnic minority population (98.5%), and Downey has the smallest (86%).
Table D-1 : Racial/Ethnic Composition of South Gate, L.A. County, and Neighboring Ci(ies (2019) White, non-Hispanic 2.9%
Black/African American, 0.5o/onon-Hispanic
Amer. Indian & Alaska o.lo/ONative, non-Hispanic
Asian, non-Hispanic O.5%
Native Hawaiian & Pac. 02o/0Islander, non-Hispanic
Some other race O.O%
Two or more races O.2%
Hispanic/Latino 95.6%
Total 94,642
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
26.2%
7.8%
0.2%
14.4%
0.2%
0.3%
2.3%
48.5%
10,081,570
0.1'/o
0.6%
O.O%
O.O%
0.1%
95.8%
42,421
0.1'!/o
0.5%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
95.2%
23,890
14.0%
3.3%
0.2%
0.9%
74.8%
112,322
0.1'/O
0.3'!/0
O.O%
O.1%
0.1%
97.1%
58,353
O.1%
0.1%
0.3%
88.1%
70,635
5.5%
8.8'/(1
0.0')"O
2.9'!/.:,
0.7%
0.2%
0.9%
81.0%
54,513
D-12 Housing Element
295
319
As discussed previously, HUD"s dissimilarity indices can be used to estimate segregation levels over time. Dissimilarity indices for Los Angeles County are shown in Table D-2. Dissimilarity indices between non-White and White groups indicate that the County has become increasingly segregated since 1990. Segregation between Black and White communities has decreased, while segregation between Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander communities and White communities has increased. According to HUD's thresholds, all White and non-White communities in Los Angeles County are highly segregated.
Tible D-2: Los Angeles Czunty Diss'*ilarity Indices Q'Jaa'a]!!! 2m3!' _2 bt 2;'X-':'r. €mjffi
;
w:u7,J< ! !iJu !!ffl UNon-White/Wh te 5E t5i3
Black/White 73.04
HispanicfWhite 60.88
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 46.13
Source: HUD AFFH Database (AFFH-T), 2020.
5i3 72
67.40 63.03
48.19 5(') 5 5
64.99 63.35
47.62 !58.53
68.24 64.33
51.59 Figure D-3 shows that most areas in Los Angeles County have high concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities. Coastal cities, including Santa Monica and Redondo Beach, and the areas surrounding Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Burbank, and the Pacific Palisades neighborhood generally have smaller non-White populations. Most block groups in the South Bay, San Gabriel Valley, San Fernando Valley and central Los Angeles areas have racial/ethnic minority populations making up the majority. South Gate's racial/ethnic minority populations are comparable to surrounding jurisdictions.
Local Trend
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 97.1% of the South Gate population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group, a slight increase from 96.6% during the 2006-2010 ACS. In comparison, only
73.8% of Los Angeles County residents belong to a racial or ethnic minority group. Nearly 96% of the South Gate population is Hispanic or Latino, a significantly larger proportion than the County (see Table D-1).
Table D-3 shows the change in racial/ethnic composition in South Gate using the 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS. Since 2010, the City has seen a decrease in White residents, Asian residents, residents of some other race, and residents of two or more races. The Black or 4frican American and American Indian and Alaska Native populations have increased significantly, while the Hispanic or Latino population has increased by O.5%.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-13
296
320
Table D-3: Change in Racial/Ethnic Composition (2010-2019) White 3,224
BlackorAfrican American 248
American Indian and Alaska Native 39
Asian 887
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0
Someotherrace 81
Twoormoreraces 226
Hispanic/Latino 89,978
Total 94,683
Source: 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
3.4%
0.3%
O.D%
0.9%
O.O%
O.i%
0.2%
95.0'/o
100.O%
(-fi-maim
2,735 2.9% -'15.2%
471 0.5% 89.9%
90 0.1% 130.8%
510 0.5% -42.5%
i77 0.2%
14 0.0%
186 0.2%
90,459 95.6%
94,642 94,642
-82.7o/o
-17.7%
0.5%
O.O%
Dissimilarity between non-White and White communities in South Gate has decreased since 1990. However, Black and Asian or Pacific Islander and White communities have become increasingly segregated. Based on HUD"s definition of the various levels of the index, segregation between non-White and White communities remains low. Compared to the County as a whole, South Gate has much lower dissimilarity indices.
Table D-4: Socith Gate Dissimilarity Indices
Non-WhiteNVhite 33.90 28.01 29.31 31.08
Black/White 26.41 24.18 25.56 37A7
Hispanic/White 34.89 28.56 29.78 31.53
AsianorPacificlslander/White 14.61 17.92 U.82 25.12
Source: HUD AFFH Database (AFFH-T). 2020.
Figure D-4 and Figure D-5 compare racial or ethnic minority concentrations in 2010 and 2018. In nearly all block groups in South Gate, racial/ethnic minorities make up more than 80% of the population. Consistent with this trend citywide, there has been an increase in racial/ethnic minority populations in nearly all block groups in the City boundaries since 2010.
Sites Inventory
Figure D-5 also shows the sites inventory used to meet South Gate's 2021-2029 RHNA. The RHNA sites are generally evenly distributed throughout the City. The sites inventory and RHNA is described in depth in Chapter IV, Housing Resources, of this Housing Element. As discussed previously, nearly all South Gate block groups have racial/ethnic minority concentrations exceeding 81%. Approximately 92% of RHNA units, including 82.1% of lower income units, 100% of moderateincome units, and 97.2% of above moderateincome units, are in block groups where racial/ethnic minority groups make up more than 81% of the population (Table D-5). This distribution is consistent with the overall trend in the City. Further, the City's RHNA strategy does not concentrate lower income units in block groups where more than 81% of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group at a rate higher than moderate or above moderate income units.
D-14 Housing Element
297
321
Table D-5: Distribution of RHNA Units by Racial/Ethnic Minority Population >Ro7ac'u'iua'tiffn:eBFMo'c"koG"roR!j!!!&m'ow'Urnl3nt"co&m'oderUakriief'4ncomaAbinocV6e:io[6dertaska' II'RHNA n' a61-80% >81%
Total
592 17.9%
2,721 82.1%
3,3'l3 100.O%
o
1,225
1,225
O.O% 109 2.8% 701 8.3%
IOO.O% 3,815 97.2% 7,761 91.7%
100.O% 3,924 100.O% 81462 100.O%
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-15
298
322
Figure D-3. Regional Racial/Ethntc Minority Concentra(ions by Block Group (2018) eel
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2018). 2021
D-16 Housing Element
299
323
Figure D-4: Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations by Block Group (2010) Source' HCD AFFH Data Viewet (2010), 2021.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-17
300
324
Figure D-5: Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations by Block Group and Sites Inventory (2018) ({ , - ' _ _ . _ - _ , . - - - _ - _ . - " - '- -- 'a= - - -P , : ' - -" '.-. i - , ,'- a_ y:} 1,' a -
T: ' _ -"'a:% - ' --o_ " " 'IL t" '
i4 ' -" ' - !.1 , -
Walnut Park -h _ '= " a<- ' "' -- ' Be_, ;. ,, 71, - _ .' 2. Ia a% , - ' _ _ _ . <, ) +* (,, , _ IVii ,%,..I' q., <i '
- r%t-==,,i e - - -= e -='-'=-
_- _+_ - , . ,) ,. . %
. .. ! -'----, ,iJ - =,,j-
, l
' ,' ";"r'X sXl'a" "-" %
, " 'A' "aii'4!, . Iaa ";W() : ,a "t . . all,,., ,Cudah9 At- 1. ,,_-,-'V . - +{! - - . " 41 -<,_" o , a, %": - " a'% ' -l' Sout5'-Gate,_ < xiiii .y . ' JU!l:I '!.1Li-4 -" - " l- - .-:a% l.i"""%""-""'C,5:--13,$. aI . X l+h,bi.4., l*i _,:1'ai{)la Fort'F, ;a,- -=-'Y=, ":=-"=-"-Ei=4-m,TJ- '- ;'a4-----: . ')
!- ,,, - , . . -.-.N.,.,,,,-.- .-,,-.-,
__ - -!- .4-.,
i - = ' .'-o /'-"'-:=. -, ; '-rttaavrl, 13'5a ," t "
- ")'ffi"-' -'-':W_i:,' - Th iri." .. iai _ a. .
' ! o' "",l *,' "::, l' @} Th") , J' " ""'7 f!!ni;,,;i . :, ,, , .'a _ _ a M s- :" a' *'' 'i 4_lo -PV'%-a@, @%r%ll?_'_o_iq.,,4c., ']-' "a' l;l _5' € = -The-_!lll'l.___,_ 4 -4 ..#a/
' ,lii,, A,&, a ""iJ : a ! _. ,l_ * l,'
,a , _ i i a .1 /
lla ' a ' #
; / -'
, (il ' y
" ' -, ' bi'l I a i
" i' " *ia;:4),n l&h' z.iij@c,"-1, 'u -, i ,i il# @ .i ii a4i '" '-.'.'!-' *
,,- 7 . = -=-=-.-.-:ffl .,.,4 :'l' *'} ." '
' a ' [ '. z 'a)+p* 31 HIl., l'/ ' .,<i' , 's' 1. . j, . - E ,l_ .,la :a ,H._ """;"-e_'a'-H." 41s- "
." ffl h M+" i7i I V' J
blM
/)-
[\4ij'A>""":_' - """">'i:" -: _ y't '
W '-,;-, r- Lyn_y>ood . a . ""-j,a .
% ,_.., ,,, =,4:,, a ..' - 'i .: % _i; --,. .,,"" m "_ - !%(<-_ .' , ,,,_ %... ::'Io-.,-AoA' -" '-" 'f"'-'%::=S.=xs..l,',J'," -'-. /"9j':""',,i "'::':'J'\F"J2"".:=,',-' a "" a ""-'- """:' s'<' ;: i'%""'
" a ' " , .' LY nvQood """'6" a:'11/;'(""> C:;f'y"}.'fw=" :''. %%'r' _ '4", ""1' * -, G ,- . - =-,,7'- ,
SC_o'-u-nti'5orL"off'-A"rij&;Ts,r6';- 'b-q;ffii=;sg*e4n;r:yi;r4sit%ireqtroti,inH,sai;ipge_rzrit,ce.ph,iti@sz,p_4.,,,i City of South Gate Housing Element Update 2021 - 2029 N SiteS Inventory With MtnOr!§ Concentraked Areas Of Populatton -!o: "4, DRAW r-rp J'=- [::IS
Racial Demographics 2018 (Block Group) Sites Inventory Percent of Total Non-White Population Income Category o o 5 1 S20% !Lower y;es
' 21- 40% ff Moderate
__ 41- 60% § Above Moderate
61-80% QMixed oitiaio,.mb
(ijlant Oari.y Imht nl Hnaimg inn Cnmqbii)i Dxt+ld
-- > 81% r. s" ; (y Bounda, affliminadiTvthanni/rnroDilaincllmil'Ql'giutehltb liillhtbbi-z alJlTh.iitoi ain Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2018), 2021.
D-18 Housing Element
301
325
Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of their fixed income, the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability.
Regional Trend
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 9.9% of Los Angeles County residents experience a disability.
South Gate has a smaller population of persons with disabilities (8.8%) compared to the County, but larger than the neighboring cities of Bell Gardens (7.1%), Cudahy (8.3%1 Downey (8%), Huntington Park (7.5%), Lynwood (7.8%), and Paramount (7.9%).
As shown in Figure D-6, less than 20% of the population in most tracts in Los Angeles County are persons with disabilities. Tracts with disabled populations exceeding 20% are not concentrated in one area of the County. Tracts with larger shares of persons with disabilities closest to South Gate are in Inglewood, Norwalk, Long Beach, and the City of Los Angeles. The population of persons with disabilities in South Gate tracts is generally comparable to neighboring jurisdictions.
Local Trend
Since the 2008-2012 ACS, the disabled population in South Gate has increased from 8.3% to 8.8% percent during the 2015-2019 ACS. Independent living difficulties and ambulatory difficulties are the most common disability type in South Gate; 5.8% of residents experience an independent living difficulty and 5.7% experience an ambulatory difficulty.
As presented in Table D-6, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander and White populations have the highest rate of disability in South Gate. Nearly half of the population aged 75 and older experience a disability and 26.3% of the population aged 65 to 74 experience a disability.
Countywide, the elderly population aged 65 and older makes up 13.3% of the population compared to only 10% in South Gate.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-19
302
326
Table D-6: Disability Characteristics (2019)
Race or Ethnicity
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian alone
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Some other race
Two or more races
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
%le
Under 5 years
5 to 17 years
18 to 34 years
35 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75+ years
Total (noninstitutionalized population)
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
626
571
520
183
31,700
1,484
2,709
90,417
6 455
19,122
25,384
34194
6157
3,242
94,554
10.1%
15.8%
11.O%
40.4%
8.4%
6.6%
26.0%
8.1%
0.7%
3.6%
5.3%
8.7%
26.3%
49.8%
8.8%
Figure D-7 shows that most tracts in South Gate have populations of persons with disabilities below 10%. Between 10% and 20% of the population experiences a disability in two tracts along the western city boundary, one area in the central northern area of the City, and in tracts along the eastern City boundary.
Sites Inventory
Figure D-7 also includes the sites inventory used to meet South Gate"s 2021-2029 RHNA. Table D-7 shows the distribution of RHNA units by population of persons with disabilities. More than half (58%) of all RHNA units are in tracts where less than 10% of the population experiences a disability, including 50.2% of lower income units, 63% of moderate income units, and 63% of above moderate income units. A larger proportion of lower income RHNA units are in tracts where 10% to 20% of the population experiences a disability compared to moderate and above moderate income units.
Table D-7: Distribution of RHNA Units by Population of Persons with Disabilities <10%
10-20%
Total
1,664 50.2% 772 63.0% 2,473 63.0% 41909 58.0%
1,649 49.8% 453 37.0% 1,451 37.0% 3,553 42.0%
3,313 100.O% 1,225 100.O% 3,924 100.O% 8,462 100.O%
D-20 Housing Element
303
327
Figtire D-6. Regional Concentration of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (20 19) }L apa:& IIN" iui-i--as
ffl
li f m a L
jH' ti";
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-21
304
328
Figure D-7: Concentration of Persons with Disabilities by Tract and Sites Inventory (2019) " "' " " - ." - a - " a ' . ' "-";-"' " -.=J-' =":::Y " !:":,'P'. .-"-'-'-="=4:
- )_ % .- a 'Waln ut P ar k - ,li + X: ': -,'i,'- :j "X;'_' <z=-:,-_ ,p-:,;,I-jiia'2- 'i' _ f y> 1-' .fA'+S.j;-)'i !i P.ie'a'a- d, _, - _l; ,ii " " " "' aii : i ' ha"iri z ,': :
:"""2 =;'L' -"Th''I.a.. ) ';s''a"'PniL"; ";;';__ -jac:,s-l:=l,-,- a7ai:'a""_lli;;a_ 'a''a";}a"Z"';7-'lJfl" A :;l-!l."""a _, - _ , - _ -I - - ' " -i;= a-=j'%'j- --i" '==-=7} '-":' -#;"- =...:- = == =-:':.iai- :i=: , " :' I- !C Z-' : ." '-7:';>4,,"' ;P""i=- s a;;.': f:3o,F - " l':Q';:si,a 5(,.:a: a ,,: .i,,:17 -ji '- j: -, ,;,:_t: r'%% H:' :" _.v:i., +i,i ',l, %'P ,'!i'i _ ';:j: ;,.'ir.ty , '%: _Cud3 hy : 41, i: a: ' ;),1 :a/, 'f& -.,.,-==.
-% -
- "d"q'i;- "'- 'a f61Jt!;i'Gater.-i s - -jii'B- -- -' -.i2 % ' " --!'I!':',iA%7%;..,:,m_%ai_,_' % i@,(,"'a , ,' . i i*,%. !,7'i" _;Fa(Clo. ;y=ifl
It ', _-.,. , ,,==-y--,,,.4,4J_,""" "",,.,,,:,:,."_,,==" .,i,, * f_=="ia=7 ,: +_' _ ,: _ _ ,:<b-a=:l'la ,:;%%',<,,,,s+l1n, yK> , ,/,,, -1,. - ,-'o'-======-='-#l.-%.=..=..,=-i='=;a'J'f==,%
___ __ - 'l,h':(;y. ,,_,y,,,.<',l,,,. j " .".i '-a' , .' i: Ill,, . ,,i: '#.la" ." -T7' "":}') 'l; ,-,1_ I, ,, _ _ a.i . . _ 0 i :
',l,,l"""'%&---s,,=%,@,Ill,'a"""'l"i%,, s,'al- ' ,:4!-I,i=@lr,,,y(""a':=sAra:jf s;l'i'5 h': h"'"',4!f,a,'-al+lll,l,a""Q,s.,"?r' , gl,l@, "a - " " , , ,.,,,_ f ,
l" "a7"( xlyI
li
1.. l_ _
(l'a'l " }u
V -
(4 i: _ + =4-r-+ =' --.___, . % ' i5a'jx s 'r" jj':l ff,3 . ,as'. "%': :.' "aa I_ ." ' ,a* q" " : ; War::j ' j" =" -"':.,__ "i< Lynwood -;-T ' "J' a' &"* it :- '_ 1. ) %o' % 1"6 -l' -.
- --s m -E $ ,, , ,, ;l k .-4# . a ",5- ;:
i_ liii zr - 'yy
- . 11/.:
Q' - "" ""- "% " - -:":=
.,,,,=,.,':l., ,==-f "- ---,, =:..,,Xi-',."
_,,,,,, -i .. _ ,, :._ %= ,37
%" ;? a
, Lynwood *tQQ:',': =.. .,_ ly.
%anl.:-,', i ,4 j
,/; : Ga.l:DENS ._,)! .s il ,;, <
' I l:
-l .
6'a 'a- i)"' a ",- ,. i; i,
5(%5u'(ity,'<)f'll(jS'4Tl;g4jii esri;JE4-B;:sajr,ij'l;isEift(!$iQi MET'I71'l4SA,JQ9(4';a:ATJ(:(3_l:I:€)[email protected],laQaQel:iThel_1%cJj,ArNg5 eU=A'f,..:i City of South Gate Housing Element Update 2021 - 2029 N Sites Inventory with Disability Concentrated Areas of Population ;::," D'w "' Percent of Children in Female Householder,
NO Spouse/Parkner Present Households Sites Inventory 0 0.5 1 BO9005_calc_pctFHHE Incomeca'ego'
S20o/o tower Miles
20oA-40% g5Moderab_
Above Moderate
40'/o-60o/o
60%-80'/o !'M"-d D*li>a.itvHV
(.llmti Dgs lnml nlHahiy iriil (yiiinn+r cimtmi
' >80o/o fiiaa'@CiiyBoundaiy aitnxnnmrtumtiii+hmmoivtmximmnttnuy_hw= IIs(In dib i=-mw.ii tilJ hji ii Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
D-22 Housing Element
305
329
Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18, whether the child is biologically related to the head of household, and the martial status of the head of households.
Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Some landlords may have cultural biases against children ofthe opposite sex sharing a bedroom. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining children to a specific location are also fair housing concerns. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law.
Regional Trend
Approximately 40% of South Gate households have one or more child under the age of 18. The City's share of households with children is larger than the County (28.3%) and Downey, but smaller than Bell Gardens, Cudahy, Huntington Park, Lynwood, and Paramount. Of the selected jurisdictions, Cudahy has the highest proportion of single-parent households representing 19.9% of all households in the City, while only 9% of households countywide are single-parent households.
More than 60% of children in most areas around Rolling Hills, Burbank, Redondo Beach, and the Pacific Palisades neighborhood live in married couple households (Figure D-9). Figure D-10 shows percent of children living in single-parent female-headed households by tract. Children in female- headed households are most concentrated in the area east of South Gate, including Inglewood, the City of Los Angeles, and unincorporated Los Angeles County communities, and the areas south of South Gate, including Long Beach and Lakewood. In general, there are more children living in female-headed households in the central Los Angeles County areas compared to the South Bay, Westside, Gateway, San Fernando Valley, and San Gabriel Valley cities.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-23
306
330
Figure D-8: Households viith Children - South Gate. L.A. Cocinty, and Neighboring Ci(ies 24,071
S.7o/o
3,316,795
9,823 5,690
15.8% 14.0% 33,045
9. 2'/F)
14,618
13.2%
5.9o/o
15,405
12.2%
14,207
115oyi
li.ll':
€' t i'T ii" g T :i r
F' o i k
Source: 2015-2015 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Local Trend
South Gate has seen a significant decrease in households with children in recent years. During the 2006-2010 ACS, there were 12,111 households with children representing 50.8% of all households in the City. The most recent 2015-2019 ACS estimates show there are now only 9,535 households with children in South Gate representing 39.6% of total households. Approximately 15% of households in the City are single-parent households including 9.6% female-headed single- parent households. Female-headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.
As shown in Figure D-11, between 40% and 60% of children live in married couple households in most South Gate tracts. Tracts with higher concentrations of children in married couple households are generally concentrated in tracts along the eastern and southern City boundaries.
Figure D-12 shows that up to 40% of children live in single parent female-headed households in tractsin South Gate. Between 20% and 40% of children live in female-headed households in tracts in the northwestern corner of the City, tracts in the central areas of the City, and tracts along the eastern City boundary. Less than 20% of children live in female-headed households in the remaining tracts.
Sites Inventory
Table D-8 and Table D-9 show the breakdown of RHNA units by percent of children living in married couple and female-headed households. Most units, regardless of income category, are in tracts where 40% to 60% of children live in married couple households. A larger proportion of D-24 Housing Element
307
331
lower income units (51.2%) are in tracts where 20% to 40% of children live in female-headed households compared to 44.6% of moderate income units and 42.3% of above moderate income units. While there is a higher concentration of lower income RHNA units in tracts with higher concentrations of children living in single-parent female-headed households, the City's RHNA strategy places a variety of RHNA units in these tracts offering a mix of housing opportunities in these areas.
Table D-8: Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent of Children in Married Couple Households 40-60%
60-80%
Total
21242 67.7% 797 65.1% 31011 76.7% 6,050 71.5%
1,071 32.3% 428 34.9% 913 23.3% 2,412 28.5%
31313 100.O% 1225 IOO.O% 3,924 100.O% 8,462 100.O%
Table D-9: Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent of Children in Fema!e-Headed Households <20%
20-40%
Total
1,616 48.8% 679 55.4% 21264 57.7% 4,559 53.9%
1,697 51.2% 546 44.6% 1,660 42.3% 3,903 46.1%
3,313 100.O% 1,225 IOO.O% 3,924 100.O% 8,462 100.O%
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-25
308
332
Figure D-9: Regional Concentration of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract (2049) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewet, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
D-26 Housing Element
309
333
Figure DIO: Regional Concentration ofChildren in Female-Headed Households by Tract (2019) '11.:ill I " """ -
Y il ., _l <r . + i. i
; 'l?. (if "l 'i t
rm -- "
- i +I alt_i i+ i , i lllan;l:l< S ""-" ' 0 t. I n Jl rl}i}'@l ' ,Ill lfil,i Jjijl4Ul jl'0
I l.' I ,lil_ . n ) ! L il I I il l'
i"" ' 1<-(,'Iil_ii'l3',""-"" ' ,4i-4
"'IV i ' :' J _( !,l, l
"""a _iillll,
'l t- i 'fili - .;.v' k' -
)iJ'i)-G!c M!;
_ ' -' i'll'l l'i;l - '- Jili ' tli l
i Thial ,' - i 9'Jlil.1 ,
_ + '>I il 11 -lfl l ' - . "
i
-" ,-'q-, ,
_j .
Q r.l rti iI " ' _' r kla l
... ,l= ...
_,_ , u , ,_ t"+u _a_.* _
l! il li I l" I Ill _ 1, <I .S I % l l ( I I
aLf40l .l_.lj.. '
l-
_ " la41
INI[ 'al" I-i '-I' ,
l Jil _lj 4il
-$!
'J I llam I -
_l 1.1 " J. _
I . , '>€ I!..
3i,' i i i lt a l_l O'
I a 1
' _" _ I _ I I - il l" I i , % €
€ .. . . . .
' I I I I II ' = I I , l I II
as
z.
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewet, 2015-20'l9 ACS, 202t
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-27
310
334
Figure D-11: Concentration of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract and Sites Inventory (2019) i '= -l..
i _,
l/S/alnutPark _r . ,Be
=%-,. ,
l' %:'''g-* (_ _ , a li' a% .
- 88 a @,, . %
i !
f-% '! .- '- % s
'l %ai%,:! z ""P:i.,a" " %%.%, . CLidal'i'} :'l u %- iI r- .{l ' /% 1 V' -
@ % % J 5 0 Ll '_ L1 IJ a t e V l' ffi 'O
": "" % a" ' J"a'ama"'ai a"' @aa , -., '%* _,,=;an' a us s, , '== '- "'-'-""=' -. '%r L-'-------.,-M '%
' -aa - "%'o;'i 's
u - _ % Bl,,'az . ' *,
l !. 0
, .1%Wb. ga J a:. % s ,t " ' -
'fil
! " 4a%4iiaa. ' _ 'a. ,
's ; " "" " !;" " 4 "S%'__, ;5 *a l '. ,
t
i
t. ! l; ' ;i 'aac% i.i ' & ' ,*
&'a, ,'&ai, Ilaa "":il+i,i I . . is .
" b ffllll, , _ s. ,:! &#__s";', aa'i -Jffla ,* i
-'-'%'-=-.-,.4 A/ '- I
I n . il #, 0, I i.ll , ial ,, / " %_ I
- ' " " ffi ffi - 7 $ 4, : , %l " ..,
Lynwood ' """" '
- 1,a b#
AN hh
"l 'id"'ii,*
1, :.' .:.,,"s % :i@) <, , ., r . . _ 7.;
W
'i '- ' ' a s ' 'a"" , j 'bi .'
a %,,i. , ,iV. '
v..,,,,,.,,,., -- - x%. , !i'-,.,..
'%oa ,l
' %i xi
I A'?% @
'2, !I m % * %,
., :- ,ffl, %-% hhai .Lynwood "": ' "" 'I" ii%p. .Gatdens-' County of Los Anqeles, Esrl, HERE, Garmin, SafeGra-pli, MET'I/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Manaqement, EPA, NIX:, USDA,,,...
City of South Gate Housing Element Update 2021 - 2029 N SCihtelldsrlennvelnntMoarynwleidthcoFaumplieliaHIOSutsaethuoslds A :H',a;)l,. ,,wl;'p Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households Sites Inventory BO9005_calc_pdMCHE Income Category o o5 1
<20'/o [!Lower Miles
20%-40'!/o [g:)Moderate
40'/o - 60'!/o 8 Above Moderate
60o/o-80% !'M'xed Dll}It(Mm
(rlmmi Day ti ni 11wiro im Cmtntnlt (ytd
I > Boa70 , , ," ' ( jW 8 0 u n d 8 q 'ljlllll'lan( TIJ llaffl') J!II 'g 011-l lm M'lX"'] NB[11 h Il.ilh mmatb t-hnl lx_c_ndi Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
D-28 Housing Element
311
335
Figure D-12: Concentration of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract and Sites Inventory (2019) I
lz'i/a I n Ll t P a r k 1, El
S-,' % ' ; ' ' @ - .
& "a "'lie - -
1'%. I ,, ,y &"a%%
; %z:! ss f %% Ccidahy '
", s ' aa % - S o i_: [:i (3 a 4 ., %'% y v, I%
" '!"" " 2' "'a'!l"a" !i"" ;' 3bv . ,,_ ' %. - :' ; @ ' a B, I I
'=. ! :"a""'-'J""-"- .,, 'd77 '---------.,%" -- : Mk'% %' B" '%=!i /
%
I %, .
I ]
-. _ '. ... b. (114 m_ 13." % a - iiW ;
! " 4 ss, @,-, ' _ /,L-
'-" '!@""'J"""'J'%"""'is'-'7,'7y- /'; ;
m
! H o"a"his - " 4
*l
" " II y '4 &i I@, s , ,@, ,#
a
164 I
; a s* h - a' , '@' &" a o 'a sb ffl Ill fflffl II ii , s@ N lie a b 'lffl a 'l" "' a ;
.ffl, .]i4# ;- _ _ ,, 1,1
& ii a# #, mwmw- I
I eallfl , - I
' -- -' - - -- - , L. o, :q '.110 0(i l!' H' Y@':'%!%% .'a !Pal". 0 _}r ;% #)
@ t.I
I " '%"%
/llc brOO,. i% -X=:'-%ffl ii.
% , % av m0i A 7 .
i+%, , V: ii' r " m"' " %! f"
L ar n .' a = :I . ;.,l L - lose s. l.%" %%ylG I r i _ - Z ,/ * County of Los Angeles, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, MEn/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA _ _ _ City of South Gate Housing Element Update 2021- 2029 N
scihtelldsrIennvelnntFoerymawleithHeFaadmeidliaHloSutsaethusolds A .:ll,,i, ,,w.,rA,Percent of Children in Female Householder, No Spouse/Partner Present Households Sites Inventory 0 0 5 1 BO9005_calc_pctFHHE IncomeCategory
s20Yo ,We, M!leS
20%-40'lo eModetate
40% - 60o/o 8 *ove Moderate
600'-80"/Q a""" ClllUThj0alffth(OiHtuiltxi0nd(anmr"Il't'(:"m"Qnn:t' '- ' 80o"" @ " @ City Boundary """"""huli'oa ;;al :':'a'*o"1>':'ffl"nb"r'i"t5':'am" Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-29
312
336
Income
Identifying low- or moderate-income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51% of the population is LMI (based on HUD's income definition of up to 80% of the AMI).
Regional Trend
Household income distribution data, presented in Table D-10, shows that 51.1% of South Gate residents earn 80% or less than the area median income (AMI) and are considered lowerincome, compared to 41.3% countywide. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, the median household income in South Gate is 552,321. The median income in South Gate is lower than the median in the County (968,044) and the neighboring jurisdictions of Downey and Paramount, but higher than Bell Gardens, Cudahy, Huntington Park and Lynwood.
Table D-10: Household Income Dis(ribution
q§tncome Category=f,!Q"§South GateQ5LosAngelesCounty"@ Very Low Income (0-50% AMI)
Low Income (50-80% AMI)
Moderate Income (80-120% AMI)
Above Moderate lncome (>120% AMI)
Total
Source: SCAG Final RHNA Data Appendix, 2020
6,895
5,144
4,759
6,760
23,558
29.3%
21.8%
20.2%
28.7%
100.O%
859,239
501 140
532,128
1,402,692
3,295,199
26.1%
15.2%
16.1%
42.6%
100.O%
Figure D-13 shows LMI areas regionally. Coastal cities, from Rancho Palos Verdes to EI Segundo and the Pacific Palisades neighborhood have low concentrations of LMI households. In most tracts, less than 25% of the population is LMI in these areas. LMI households are most concentrated in the central Los Angeles County region around the City of Los Angeles. There are smaller concentrations of LMI households in and around the cities of Glendale, EI Monte, San Fernando, and Long Beach. South Gate has LMI concentrations most comparable to communities to the north and east.
Local Trend
Figure D-14 shows the LMI populations in South Gate block groups. More than 50% of households in most block groups in South Gate are low or moderate income households. There are only nine block groups in the City where less than 50% of the population is LMI. The highest concentration of block groups with lower LMI populations is located in the central area of the City. As discussed previously, 51.1% of the population in South Gate is considered low income and 20.2% s-is considered moderate income.
Sites Inventory
As shown in Figure D-14 and Table D-11, more than half of all units used to meet the City's 2021- 2029 RHNA arein block groups where LMI households make up more than 75% of the population.
Only 1.8% of lower income units in non-LMI block groups where less than 50% of households are D-30 Housing Element
313
337
LMI. Similarly, only 5.1% of moderate income units and 4.7% of above moderate income units are in block groups that are not considered LMI areas. A larger proportion of lowerincome units (98.2%) are in LMI areas, where more than 50% of households are LMI, compared to moderate income units (94.8%) and above moderate income units (95.3%). Regardless of income level, most RHNA units are in LMI areas. This is consistent with the trend Citywide where most block groups are considered LMI areas. Further, the City's RHNA strategy places a variety of housing types in LMI areas, promoting mixed income communities and offering various housing opportunities to low or moderate income households.
Table D-1 1: Distribution of RHNA Units by Concentration of LMI Households ;oo"u"seenhtoriades'(nBoforc'ak"Gr%roup)eurnl91tsqOrne, ModeratneitJsnfflbinocvoemMeoudne,irta;e At, RHN, nits 25-50%
50-75%
75'100%
Total
60 1,327
1,926
3,313
1.8%
40.1%
58.1'!'o
100.O%
62 387
776
1,225
5.1%
31.6%
63.3%
100.O%
183
1,704
2,037
3,924
4.7%
43.4%
51 .9%
100.O%
305
3,418
4,739
8,462
3.6%
40.4%
56.0'/o
100.O%
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-31
314
338
Figure D-13: Regional Concentration of aMI Households by Tract (2020) -"'-'-'--"-'."'!'-"-"'::',"1"Q;,,,:"4@'-"),6(._'a',":'_.Q,f""-"J"'7',,__,Ill,,',,__ ,=,- ,%>". '- !-: 4':';o =:-,7' > lh - ? '-4,F.. . -'j _. O'. .,;k ,.. l,, -" ..,,. - s* ' :l@ ,s ,,*Qi _ - ,' (tarihJR.l. .i _ t - ' " -' I -
_ __ s I , . 1 ,,__
- ffl I-)
"3.i" , ' I <-
"- ' =' = " [.'&"L -'p " r-agiv+a- "
-1,, .
i:=xi a>. " t""s i I W l-l
E.% , 11 -I II)i) l&it , I l
a('x ' % ' - _ I - ' J ai4 llla;f
-!,,ta = 5'IA'a,i;=;.. i'al- a""A" !4a,y'F-- - " _
'.',-".,- ,,, 'A'."i_===,q tl,a%'t" 'i C'_i.pl_:":..-=-,., , -'-=..J' " 3 7!
, .,!; %, ,
_, j5J!lWt:i , ,
fflJk? 'jaj.d - ' - ' @ X- t
' % I N!A _ = %. @i,4 a; T' ?a Xi - aa' J'* - - , '
il" - 1,V'-"""b.aa" ='
-'.:'5'=i'i( "- =."'E!=',?S' .
4J,;,".i)s _,,,, "o,-,g.,.,:-:,lHTh' mA-;Gl'afA:l'ad a '_' _'l j"_ I S I I =l l - F ll 4g, Ilrt
01 lla, 11)Vll' nlll rllllll _' T_: 0 111 .
i-ii L iv. 'i i SI a Is 11 # II I I II I s oi ii il il l l nl I[i i T a i a -, . 7-, 1- a - -' m - Inn
i i _ _ - - 4 -) g + i - i - E sit E r i ;a _ la 4 _ _ -i ! _ 4'- _ _ E dl l - i a ' - _ _ a - _ _ - - _ _ 'l - ) -I -l i _ i _ - ' - - i _ _ '_ -0 - ! i Scurce' HCD AFFH Data Viewet, HuD 2020, 2021
D-32 Housing Element
315
339
Figure D-14: Concentration of LMI Households by Block Group and Sites Inventory (2020) - ; ' !! - - '_ '
,i, . VVa.lnut!ar3 .'.,. _ .-. ".l - "' -= a- ' :_ _., ' %i:. _ i, Be l_i _4 'i* .
Ltv+ - ' a ' h-a ..-:s' - '--Z o I ' - s
' j , _ l_, ":_, . , ,
: - _ _ . l()_
- 41 li
. .""m==-=Q.,. .J = = - = -= - , f
% "" !'a " %"a''l"''ii@'" E" --% 'a _ a); , @ laiih,, ' -- -*a '_'i'%%@%X'l7 " ;m'f," :"; :JI' "'%'%@._ Clldatl)/ :';" . - I &li5_ %
4(,
-J'a'a'v%.v i-fflout5aate v,__' aa* 4" ' j=iil t% - . . . . "%' "-m"f"wiame_y_4;,' - ,; % ;a,xs,,l,l,llli = ,
: a -=-"\ " a'= =-'_-F.n,,,,l '%" ' ==, "
, ,- , -,. -., -, ,:Q,,...:J , -.,.,,,
. '. oi - -
' _1 a 5 !3i a'a . -at -a _ .i" - -mk=' a'- _-"
'-'iiia o " o . _.aa' 'a /"@ il - -I "%-" I+) '11':i..q. ,_. .. D , , 4 A-, ' * - "'-'l 'a'Ra':"""Thl!Da'gar"'I;'%§L""a" - "'3 ' M; -'II' X.'a '-/ _ __ '! : ;,:- , u'Ta'=s"4"''Aa'aa-'Al'ta=:'B"baaa,.aa'.yi'J,aii'.._ ),l l& 1.1111,,al' S ., ,-, S ..iii =- - ..: .;'l'i.,'# ,., '; ii si ,, ' " i .&' z, aa , . ':' a r i ' - .J. ' ;.,,;# . i 1, , . %.1,; , , !/)= I , . _ -Ja'. @"
" """" ' """"'"'ai""@'" "E"=,,,,":""""i7_,"'t=y-=-i,>"-=="-,,,l,,,, ,,_ii"""qllzall,,i,,," ar,,,"-.i%.,"" - ,," ' ., I ,
u
i,, }i ;) , .(_ ill( l_ :l-i j _ . . 4 ' as 4
0 0
_ > , l ..l) l ' - -
_ l
' ,_ -= .i .; l.!i l,
ii:___*L+.:>;_ ' "'."""ia--i5_ sqy- i.
" 'W' a""-" G """-"":g>. a? - - - Lyn WO :@ d " - _ ,- , . _i, b; g aY':' r. i . 't I,i
be
5 'a - a a-_ _ .@' i i . n
j) ' i i i .i, ' -:k "' - 'a I _ ' l" % ' i+'%
-- --. '- '."""-',= ",7,.,.,,,,_ :, , ,,=- ,IA'! ; % ,7' "' kn -: "
,a ' - ri aa*,' "*0,a '. . %. 0
i' -' a'
)#ia - " i " %,
s il . _ s) ' - 'ai '.a+-""'.y . - - i " l II : h% /Villowbrook - - - - , - = :%. , };'-,.,,,.
-. i4_ s' 9'r,11, ,,_ .. i-' i
(,y4 .
41 # /*/
0 €
. M;
akB, _ ;;:
. _ . . , ' _, . a " - e""':: ,"', '", :<. a. =a l %-' :"":,_:J... , :, . .. , ' % i- =;IQ: @= - % -, all7: - ' 71, ,, 1, ' _ :)- -yn,6-oo-- -, "=-.-% ' ,=#,-,.==j7"9,,, %=-,_i- ' =-:-=-' ---. '-: -- a " . " ' Gardens ' _, "ka;9" I 4 I . - l if a
-"'-' "'- - " " "" : " ' " ( . ___ 11(a:."71"a " ' _') ' "' :-=.":"'::'i-"' "i-("15511'74" 41" '- 1.1"- -7. '; . , ,_ - ' ,s _: . l .., ' : ! ,_ -
}C;6ri-t9,-o-rLos'Angelei,-.Es-ri;:FIE-E(E7Ga-$i6-,-E+n{@€4:iH7MmlNQArusGg%reauof:Land.rqan_a_gerynt;-epA,xpt,u5o@a=i .-.
City of South Gate Housing Element Update 2021 - 2029 N Sites Inventory with Low to Moderate Income Population .a-:"-;a-. D'w r"' Low to Moderate Income Population (Block Group) - (HUD) Sites Inventory LOWMOD_PCT Income Category 0 0.5 1
<25')'o 6Lower
25o'o-"o'o Moderate Miles
50'/o - 75% ffla Absve Moderak
75%-100o/o fM!Xed
!"aC""""" (ifmvlrDzhntiilH++binrm(onmiit":'II!u""m[imd"a' }fflnmiOmi luThannl'ikHzxq0ifflimM<o'r<Rsnuta.
hNi flttlmz iu'nttii alm Id iit0i
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, HUD 2020, 2021.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-33
316
340
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty In an effort to identify racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPsl HUDidentified census tracts with a majority non-White population with a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower. HCD and the California Tac Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened as the Fair Housing Task Force to create opportunity maps. The maps include identifying areas of high segregation and poverty. TCAC Opportunity Maps are discussed in more detail in Section 4 of this fair housing analysis.
Racicilly/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) Regional Trend
Approximately 15% of the County population is below the federal poverty level (Table D-12).
Black/African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, persons of a race not listed, and Hispanic/Latino populations all experience poverty at a higher rate than the average countywide.
The proportion of non-Hispanic White residents under the poverty level is the lowest compared to other racial/ethnic groups in the County. Over Approximately 21% of persons with disabilities are also below the poverty level.
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Some other race
Two or more races
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
With a disability
Population for whom poverty status is determined
Source: 201 5-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Figure D-15 shows R/ECAPs, TCAC designated areas of high segregation and poverty, and poverty status in the Los Angeles County region. R/ECAPs and areas of high segregation and poverty are concentrated in the central County areas around the City of Los Angeles. Areas of high segregation and poverty have also been identified in tracts south and north of Gardena in Torrance, Hawthorne, and Inglewood. Tracts with larger populations of persons experiencing poverty are also concentrated in these areas.
Local Trend
As shown in Table D-12 above, 17.2% of the South Gate population is below the poverty level, a larger proportion than the County as a whole. The Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander and D-34 Housing Element
317
341
American Indian and Alaska Native populations experience poverty at the highest rates.
Populations of a race not listed ("some other race") and the Hispanic/Latino population also experience poverty at a rate exceeding the citywide average.
According to HCD"s 2021 Data Viewer, there are no R/ECAPs or TCAC designated areas of high segregation and poverty in South Gate. Poverty status in South Gate by tract is presented in Figure D-16. Tracts with larger populations of persons below the poverty level are concentrated on the western side of the City. The area of the City west of Long Beach Boulevard also has a high concentration of racial/ethnic minority populations, like the City as a whole. Less than 20% of the population in eastern South Gate tracts is below the poverty level, while 20% to 40% of the population of several tracts on the western side is below the poverty level. There is also a higher concentration of renter-occupied households in the area west of Long Beach Boulevard. Further, there are five subsidized housing projects in South Gate: Calden Court Apartments (214 affordable units), Pennsylvania Square (75 affordable units), South Gate Senior Villas (30 affordable units), PATH Villas South Gate (59 affordable units), and Hollydale Senior Apartments (100 affordable units). The largest subsidized housing project, Calden Court Apartments, is located along the western City boundary, adjacent to Firestone Boulevard and Alameda Street.
The Calden Court Apartmentslikely contribute to the concentration of persons below the poverty level in this part of the City.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-35
318
342
Figure D-15: Regional R/ECAP, TCAC Areas oFHigh Segtegation and Poverty, and Poverty Status by Tract 'll.il I '.- Y ill - . i.,,,., i) I -Y
!1,-,.. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ......,
iL'iT:'l 'l ) " @ ' l lit II L n l " a- . i" ' t kl. l=l 'i'l;i l 1_l 1 i " ii A i l! 't i{i_i . 'Ti. - ii:?, "s i_,:, >, e' , /,4s, _ ,a _ ii
a =.l-:i -- - ffill . - .
.ia g' <;) =,-'.!!r:.i,.
'_(4jQi, -_ IIA.( L_ld I _ 1111%
..=.:x,. Si= , ,r
n a ' . - " ::G'uyj - a, " ' __ 4= i_i l
)' III ia . '+ /!._ _, ..ii l 'l - .:i i 11r ---
-,....-:, @ '
f.l. 1l_
,:>" -.+il.'h9.B a i'
I - a I.d'rzo 'iaAlllC
1. '-&
11.1)l l' l_l
I
.,=r -= - .,, :A-" - .=.-...
"': ':" Y . i
i.lt.. i -lal_(" "ll_ I ,A' -_l !
_ I -,
_ i'l . . 1, l'JlLA__r ,- -' .=L._I +v- - - '-
- - +!
- l_l t7 -' ' I % I _- ' I
l" l li l- i i{i' I hS l40 . Q t
tb_.'a . - " i<l <lllia , '
,%, X a , . ,I ,j
-=7;, 4,= ', T.,"')l,,Ir-He,._y',.-.,.
*l, I I I Ih n l' ::lil lit I ' ,
' _ " _" _ I l I = F !l _ - { - . -,
€ ' i . I 'i i i i I i a ai - i i i ' i - _ i ' i - i . ' ( - I ' i i ' i i i , I i i , . i n i I ' i ' I .
-. 9 i ill. - I i ' 11 i i - i i ii - I - - i -' - - - - - - l i i i ' I i n t i a _' ) u i
ffl.
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020, 2015-2019 ACS, TCAC 2021), 202'l.
D-36 Housing Element
319
343
Figure D-16' R/ECAPs, TCAC Areas of High Segregation and Poverty, and Poveity Status by Tract ' --":" //aa"" "a' l' -i=-i:Iqr,ba:if_'Q' "-%"""a' "a""o ' ,,__-'1-="J7,='=-=='-I'.'ll,,-, -
. <.7 al ',
7 '
'l
i . 4 ' _._ . . _ T. .j. -' . ' 3 l_
- - /a )L " a --- H'l!lluUJ) .iP " l 'A::_'k hi: I .., . . ').1' (ll__ , o4.,,r ;- lx' ,5 ', '_S."n='. ,,,,; . j ,,-" _= "" "" j "' *-jnV "
r ' 7"'-'! - '_ ,,,,, ,., ,V. . -="-L '_,-- -= - "-"
""'r- --,.-' " - - i
.. ,..$., . -- -' _l:,. ) . i . ' " -' " ' a " '
.,,,...i-=". =. ' cx7:_'i"".,.,,..... _ ":'I:Ja,J, , - , ,,,,,,,.- ' I -" 0 ,, a . p i. CaT_l;J Off , r.i.llli l.,
I i jji l_ I I !. I 4 ') P St I 7_ ::4
€ i , I i '. u II I 1. n i R' " #l 1 '-l lr 's' _' i : :' l' Ti ii ' € I a I 11 Ill I . I II I n , 11 a I , alli 111 I al ' I } .'l I I I l ' o R-ii I ill s Eil xi J 1. '_ I 'm -111;llel I s - s i' ai # ' Ei ?o - ( _i i i _i i i 7l.ti I i - 4i ' i +i i " I , ,,. , - i us
J___'- -i i _ . , .- T_! 'i i - '-"-" ' - - '
fflffl a
_ _ ,J- 4 - ( I _ l . I - 'l 0 -it E II I i E i' - i Ea - - _ _ H ( _ ' - _ _ } II I I - - _ _ - _ _ 4 I - _ _ I :l- 'l ( I l I _ - - - _ _ i -0 0ffi I Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewet (HOD 2(120, 2015-2019 ACS, TCAC 2021), 2021 South Gate General Plan 2035 D-37
320
344
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) While racially concentrated areas of poverty and segregation (R/ECAPs) 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. A HUD Policy Paper defines racially concentrated areas of affluence as affluent, White communities.l According to this report, 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." Based on their research, HCD defines RCAAs as census tracts where 1) 80% or more of the population is white, and 2) the median household income is 5125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).
Regiona! Trend
Figure D-17 shows the predominant racial/ethnic group by tract and Figure D-18 shows median income by block group in the Los Angeles County region. White predominant populations are generally located outside the central Los Angeles County area. The costal South Bay cities, Westside cities, and parts of the San Fernando Valley are predominantly White. The central Los Angeles, San Gabriel Valley, and Gateway cities have Hispanic, African American, or Asian majority populations. All South Gate tracts have Hispanic majorities. The central Los Angeles areas are composed of mostly block groups with median incomes below the 2020 State median of S87,100. Block groups with median incomes exceeding S125,000 are more concentrated in coastal communities and the areas around Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, and Burbank and Pasadena.
Loca) Trend
As shown in Figure D-19, there is one block group in South Gate where less than 80% of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group located along the eastern City boundary.
There are no block groups with median incomes exceeding !>125,000; most block groups have median incomes below the State median of S87,100. Therefore, there are no areas in South Gate that are considered RCAAs.
I Goetz, Edward G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019) Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation.' Published by the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) of the u.s. Department of Housing and Urban Development in Cityscape: AJournal of Policy Development and Research (21,1, 99-124).
D-38 Housing Element
321
345
Figure D-17. Regional Predominant Racial/Ethnic Population (202'l) 'tJLil..! . _a
--'- ---' rrtami;- ' _ ,._
"'a'a""' Yl"1%' .-, ' ic>p_l
hj J_iuit
'lk : ' I ( .. . _ ,
,17+TI I! ' L 111 J I l( 0 - ' -. - " fln (ffl iill_ 'alA.acJ s _i . ' _iixi I ,-, > > . '- & - I!i:iiWj' 'l"Xl:'llltl'a"',-;'J_)a'j- _l;_ """'k"-' _(n%'
-=-=,-.,_,J,_l-,_ o - --a -4
Ojl}t'
'a'fi"'='li' '_,._t!'1011': . ll_l.Ma"
"' t" i ' l_lag IJL* o -"
* @" a ( '. - " I l im a-Jl ffi . i
#) . ?AJn:l:_.71
'.i44i - .'i-
,ifi;,Q:m.)_,,,!r :..l,"
g,; w=Ga-=-;-".=" " " ' <-
, . i j;7- 2.' , ' = :
= . . .111,llll'. _L ,( .._%l, i: 1. '. 11. i J. it7 u..r ': ' --i I y' l'_t !
_aaaa -"':lklll'uL '!lll0i--'"'
, ..,-. ,-, _ , -,.,,_,. 'a..: ,:} i.. I4@p L
"""" = -= '-"f-',.J: .=. ,- . ,,,
,, .,,,,.,... ,$,,,,,,
I :'i _l Ill g I * :k Pl I I _ )Q A IJ
J .j , i , .,, I II I I . I II _ ' " I "IN I I I II. II II - I I I l II H i II It '.1 fil 1 TI II ' .ttl .I II , li . . I ,, I I l I ', I '1. II pll il I I 4 I I I 1. In 1 I }1.I I I I . I l 11 I i li I l I 111 I I l I i I #l " -a li i i I 1 : l o k : i:- il - . a a - or '- i o - li i i no. i i i "i iil i n - sii Ill A i Is . i 'J ii ii - li i ai il la , i i l I age I i ili I II Ill' li ' l i I i i 4 l I a 1. 11 Ill I l , li l . . " l 'l I Ill 11 1111 I I I I II ' .I II ll Ill I I ' I I II _ .1. l I II , li I 1. - II i i ii i a ole ni ii.i i i.i -i
a k - - ' - - ' L I I - ' I i %ia i i: _ l: # - _ S _ ' 4 - _ _ 4 I I I _ } ( _ _ - _ _ _ 4. _ ' I I _ _l S I i : _ _ _ _ _ _ E 4:i .
Suutce: H(;D AFFH Data Viewei 2021
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-39
322
346
Figure D- 8: Regional lledian Incom by Block Group (20'l9 Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021
D-40 Housing Element
323
347
Figure D- 19: Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations and ffiiedian Inconie by Block G roup (2018, 2019 Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewet, 20'l5-2C119 ACS, 2021
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-41
324
348
Access to Opportunities
HUD developed an index for assessing fair housing by informing communities about disparities in access to opportunity based on race/ethnicity and poverty status. Table D-14 and Table D-15 show index scores for are based on the following opportunityindicatorindices (values range from 0 tO 100):
* LowPoverty/ndex;Thehigherthescore,thelessexposuretopovertyinaneighborhood. * School Proficiency Index: The higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood.
* Labor Market Engagement Index: The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
* Transit Trips Index: The higher the trips transit index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
* LowTransportatfonCost/ndex;Thehighertheindex,thelowerthecostoftransportation in that neighborhood.
* Jobs Proximity Index: The higher the index value, the better access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
* Environmenta/Hea/th/ndex;Thehigherthevalue,thebetterenvironmentalqualityofa neighborhood.
To assist in this analysis, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened in the California Fair Housing Task Force (Task Force) to "provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD)." The Task force has created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state "to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas forfamilies with children in housing financed with 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)". These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators related to economic, environmental, and educational opportunities and poverty and racial segregation. Based on these domain scores, tracts are categorized as Highest Resource, High Resource, Moderate Resource, Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing), Low Resource, or areas of High Segregation and Poverty. Table D-13 shows the full list of indicators.
D-42 Housing Element
325
349
Table D-13: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Economic Poverty
Adult education
Environmental
Education
Poverty and Racial Segregation
Employment
Job proximity
Median home value
CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and values
Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Poverty: tracts with at least 30% of population under federal poverty line Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County
Source: CA Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for TCACfHCD Opportunity Maps, 2021.
Regional Trend
HUD Opportunity Indicator scores for Los Angeles County are shown in Table D-14. The White population, including the population below the federal poverty line, received the highest scores in low poverty, school proficiency, labor market participation, jobs proximity, and environmental health. Hispanic communities scored the lowest in low poverty and labor market participation and Black communities scored the lowest in school proficiency, jobs proximity, and environmental health. Black residents were most likely to use public transit and have the lowest transportation costs.
Table D-14: HUD Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity - Los Angeles County Total Population
White, non-Hispanic 62.59 65.09
Black, non-Hispanic 34.95 32.37
Hispanic 33.91 38.38
Asian or Pacific Islander, 5,57 5934non-Hispanic
Native American, non- 45104 46,0
Hispanic
Population below federal poverty line
White, non-Hispanic 50.68 58.06
Black, non-Hispanic 23.45 27.16
Hispanic 23.66 32.87
Asian or Pacific Islander, 42,7 5,52non-Hispanic
Native American, non- 29,5 3,12
Hispanic
Source: HUD AFFH Database (AFFH-T), 2020.
65.41 34.00
33.18 55.94
44.50 57.49
25.52 27.66
50.06 32.02
82.63 87.70
87.19 86.52
83.17 86.42
88. 65
89. 45
89.62 85.23
74.09 79.18
77.74 76.45
75.65 79.48
81.18 81 .02
81 .49
78.70 55.80
40.13 41 .53
51.82 44.24
57.52 36.59
42.84 54.19
46.35 18.99
11.66 vi.gi
12.16 16.74
16.66 11.62
10.30 9.84
16.01 South Gate General Plan 2035 D-43
326
350
As shown in Figure D-20, the central Los Angeles County areas around the City of Los Angeles are comprised of mostly low and moderate resource tracts and areas of high segregation and poverty. The EI Monte/Baldwin Park area and San Fernando area, including Van Nuys/North Hollywood, also have concentrations of low resource areas and some areas of high segregation and poverty. High and highest resource areas are most concentrated in coastal communities from Rolling Hills/Rancho Palos Verdes to Santa Monica, and areas in and around Beverly Hills, La Cariada Flintridge, and Pasadena/Arcadia.
Local Trend
According to HUD Opportunity Indicators presented in Table D-15, in South Gate, Black residents are mostly likely to be impacted by poverty and be located closer to less proficient schools.
Hispanic residents received the lowest scores in labor market participation and jobs proximity, while Asian or Pacific Islander communities were most likely to be exposed to adverse environmental conditions. Conversely, White communities scored the highestinlow poverty, and Asian or Pacific Islander communities scored the highest in school proficiency, labor market participation, and jobs proximity. Native American communities were the most likely to utilize public transit and Black communities had the lowest transportation costs.
Compared to the County, South Gate residents were more likely to be exposed to poverty, poorer schools, and worse environmental conditions. South Gate communities also had lower labor market participation and less access to employment opportunities than residents countywide.
Table D-15: HUD Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity - Sobiih Gate
36.67 28.00
28.81 Total Population
White, non-Hispanic 33.69
Black, non-Hispanic 27.66
Hispanic 30.72
Asian or Pacific Islander 32,9non-Hispanic
Native American, non- 32,6Hispanic
Population below federal poverty line
White, non-Hispanic 32.76
Black, non-Hispanic 21.33
Hispanic 29.19
Asian or Pacific Islander, 56,8 4921non-Hispanic
Native American, non- 19,0Hispanic
Source: HUD AFFH Database (AFFH-T), 2020.
23.06 20.59
18.94 38.83 24.12
34.93 21 .02
24.28 18.12
26.45 23.16
14.15 18.35
27.84 31.94 6.00
90.20 89.99
90.89 90.09
91.08 85.57
91.73 91.55
90.00 94.00
79.05 79.70
79.69 79.19
79.55 78.15
80.64 80.28
77.81 84.00
17.31 15.51
11.25 18.93
14.50 11.63
13.17 9.57
25.68 4.48
4.71 4.87
5.00 6.00
Opportunity map scores for South Gate census tracts are presented in Figure D-21 along with the City's sites inventory. Of the tracts in South Gate 50% (10 tracts) are characterized as Low Resource, 45% (9 tracts) Moderate Resource, and 5% (one tract) Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing). Opportunity map categorization and domain scores for South Gate census tracts are D-44 Housing Element
327
351
shown in Table D-16. There are no tracts in the City that are classified as areas of high segregation and poverty. The northwestern corner and most of the eastern areas of the City are low resource.
Table D-16: TCAC Opportunity Map Scores for South Gate Tracts Low Resource6037535501
6037535502
6037535503
6037535603
6037535604
6037535605
6037535606
6037535607
6037535701
6037535702
6037535802
6037535803
6037535804
6037535901
6037535902
6037536000
6037536102
6037536103
6037536104
6037536200
0.521
0.21 0.297
0.452
0.402
0.408
0.409
0.229
0.215
0.392
0.265
0.277
0.542
0.356
0.502
0.511
0.275
0.314
0.41 0.678
0.812
0.058
0.248
0.715
0.271
0.512
0.67 0.719
0.822
0.819
0.824
0.441
0.69 0.076
0.011
0.034
0.009
0.238
0.224
0.278
0.426
0.395
0.346
0.337
0.345
0.347
0.233
0.36 0.352
0.392
0.33 0.385
0.459
0.432
0.293
0.375
0.365
0.473
-0.431
-0.285
-0.036
-0.457
-0.331
-0.158
-0.28
-o.:ig
-0.256
-0.245
-0.23
-0.116
-0.216
-0.265
-0.039
-0.335
-0.547
-0.378
-0.655
-0.239
Low Resource
Moderate Resource
(Rapidly Changing)
Low Resource
Low Resource
Moderate Resource
Low Resource
Moderate Resource
Moderate Resource
Moderate Resource
Moderate Resource
Moderate Resource
Moderate Resource
Low Resource
Moderate Resource
Low Resource
Low Resource
Low Resource
Low Resource
Moderate Resource
Sites Inventory
Most units used to meet South Gate's 2021-2029 RHNA arein low resource tracts (68.6% of units) (Table D-17). Of the 3,313 lower income RHNA units, 77.9% are in low resource tracts and 22.1% are in moderate resource tracts, including rapidly changing. In comparison, 60.7% of moderate income units and 63.1% of above moderate income units are in low resource tracts. While the City"s RHNA strategy does promote a variety of housing types, including lower, moderate, and above moderate income units, in low resource tracts, larger proportion of lower income units are in low resource tracts compared to moderate and above moderate income units.
Table D-17: Distribution of RHNA Units by TCAC Opportunity Area Categorization Low Resource
Moderate Resource
Moderate Resource
(Rapidly Changing)
Total
2,581 77.9% 743 60.7% 2,478 63.1% 5,802 68.6%
571 17.2% 482 39.3% 1,285 32.7% 2,338 27.6%
161 4.9% o O.O% 161 4.1% 322 3.8%
3,313 100.O% 1,225 100.O% 3,924 100.O% 8,462 100.O%
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-45
328
352
Figure D-20: Regional TCAC Opportuniiy Area IViap by Tract (2021) !,_( .., ,,., .,. j_, i .. .4.. !-, ffl -.-_.ff::,- ,.,,-, - --- :,_,:Z , -a , ,_ 0;I. ' -_ ,. :u==iS'. Jl:=ia-i, X,, ,n,,, :: jj'J%:;a::f:: - i;,:_7!li x77:ti-m',- I ,,7J7f,W'aW%li,,-" 4 ; ' T y " ! . . ' + 'a"-""' "-"a 'a" "'*"';* 's """;,aoi'h. , 1p_nba**j@:i." ," ,i" a a - ' _ ( ' i " " : " -a a - 4_ i. i , _ s fi ,* l I'r ' a " ': " i ai#=; " - - -" #. . i..(,, . :- i, ,-" u.k""'l,-h-+:@l:, a, ai jl,,"' l'0'i=l"ai 'llj'la-l !' - " " 'i.At.7]-- :l> " a'!Wi:'ii . -'-u+-D -" . i ,,-T,,,),,,4.,..i.,,? ,,s,,.._ tinrii ,=,.,,,:-;...,='-,.,,_ ,I,:.-, . . , _ .. ._, .__ ae. . i = : ! t.yu.i._,UstLJ_t a' . :,. a;-a.a. J', _ _ ." ii , ," ' "i" -!1!l'u'4 aa' ' i )lx -. i 13-' a :ratl a.; ( ' - a t ,a a *l e _l_ 5==i . _\ -biru.'srs- ' 1-_) J;2:], '4 a , 6in-1, ' :& ' : ._,,,:_ yt,u'54,)'::.:-.,,.,r,,":,l: _ : , .1<A:]'T. :'.l_i;!__Th!!,l< 'a(" ' a' " - o - La""o;""'a'a - " " 'a"'t a" "a'l=l' ""' a" " ':" I "".-"+. , ' - -" " .a "" a " '>.%"-i X,,J !', 2 _aasii ' Ihi_ll..r, L) ' , l - l,," .<, .. ai.: ' jk.. ." ' _ ' " 'r -r , a' 4 '-- - - , , -= { _ - - ff- i.z.< .,,,,_r;+ -. g,,.., J ' s".. : I ' (> .,.Q,, ,l:;.i,; , -:,.. .,, ,,, :
""" """ '-,?-%== € "'-"'.,.:,ff- " ,i-.-.
'it"'ay1i!i;zlaa a. '
€
' i i ' lrl -. 11,- l + ,1,
"i: '-':, I . ,_ _ ' Jl(uR+_u) _ , -
ra I icrl[i5.@ii '__, , , ,0.1! 1. I I pj, ': :-,a _i _ _ I 'l: ,__l [1 ___: .. . +" :,! ._ ,, l._:- - % . i ""7", -=\"%-=-__!'-. '-a': -""'-'l:-
A"i""' """::EF"'--/II5 '::n='hJi"",":""i -' i'ci'i'ms':n ," y7a'T):t:l& - I . :0I' l _ ' ! . '%l 'Cal ycar3s'a+y;'1 ' "T ' gi_cii.ii:ix- Ll [F . 4<i'.,_. _ , :i" ki t .
-. . -,Affi2-.,-.,- ...
' ' i ' a ' fl. . ,,' l! ;:i i,
'=-'-=,.._-,.." O -, ,.. _ , . .,, ,
U _' I I 1_ I :i l- j a P).1 _-) ,x,-,
€ i ) . i . . ai i n li l € A 11 n i- i . a i 'i '.i ii i a a' i l i i Iv i 'i i i i i m a Tl o' -ii =% I I I %li il' si I #l I I i' . ii i' F i l'. #l I 21 1_ I i 'i i . 21i a 'i-,, l- F.a' .I II II ._ -a - - i "' Tt - 'uva n - i n i r > # I _l ill i - i ntr 'n i . l# -l I 11 l' - -l I .1' f I ' }.V l'l l a i i i ".S.! I I tj l.' I Th I 101 - ( H I jl ' % H , .1111 I I ! " { # I . I I I l- I - . - I I r H 51 I - V . I a' A1i II ii I I I l' l 11 I ' -l 4
I - a - a - l _ I I 4 - - - HIT l I - 4 - - l: : - _ _ H _ : ' _ _ E 11 I - 0 - _ _ I = _ _ - _ _ I _- 0 -l H I I I l l - - - I _ _ 0 -= = . - Scurce: HCD AFFH Data Viewet, TCAC 2021 2021.
D-46 Housing Element
329
353
Figure D-21: TCAC Opportunity Map by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021) WalnutPari< ,,e
i:%-.-..
X %. a-ii s ss i) , . _
tax, 1' OJ g- """ol.
'1 %%,,'J._ aii r %, Cudahy
%
0 s , _ _ %
"s % '% ' % j a-l S O Ll t 5 G a k e % * as
% m " .', bath Ja, j!7, _, '% ;a,' h aii b,I
I
"ao" "%s!
"r'=, "-=-'="'-'-G' - -!' -. r "---------.,,
l,. ;J_ = '!,ha = it; *
bsy % it - sr /
I a"- [8 z 'l
D &: "
', ' 4%,>g,a>gnN,s,%;,%g&.,=,y, ;
's %, i,"! 'a"'aab ' @
-'=,'7 : ' -"J i&lla#, 'a' I '
"-' "=-""-"-------.-.4 k/
a, l*lH I
& a @ x, , % , I
a ffl
I jly5a l@,
I aai.lea
% a-
I_ y n wo o cl s
"s I 'fi ii, V
-;+ ;% ! ,, h /
k
s' X
s *')s -I s(i
.%a - %
l , % %i+
A/illovvbrook %ii% ,'a !! %'ii
'%',i:-.3a ,l
. L - J o ' % ii
%% j
%[
L7nlA/00d ' = i nii l-
Gardens " 4
,q
li '
i I
County of Los Anqeles, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, (tips,_u_s[)_A....._.- City of South Gate Housing Element Update 2021 - 2029 N S!ieS Inventory tth TCAC Opportun!t%r Areas 2021 ,;-,-- timwrap ..q=;>: cis
TCAC Opportunity Areas 2021 - Composite Score (Tract) Sites Inventory Highest Resourai Income Ca+egor'} 0 0.5 1
HighResoutt_e g,Lower
' i Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) g Modeiate Miles ModeriteResounce gAboveModeralp
LowResounce !,-Mixed
High Segregahon & Fbver7 ', ,- ', City Boundary O!Ll%vnld!a+ Missing/InsufficiaitDati k"'n)DauanmeniOIHaslQjmCttumuttt1txnmngi{l}llllltlld} l'ulhiilm Tili l%uxug Dlffl iud Mitong ustti (!l hZ llillh iliii mautii oliid hhaittii
Source: HCD AFFH [)ala Viewer, TCAC 2021, 2021.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-47
330
354
Economic
As described previously, the Fair Housing Task Force calculates economic scores based on poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. See Table D-13 for the complete list of TCAC Opportunity Map domains and indicators.
ReHional Trend
Figure D-22 shows TCAC Opportunity Map economic scores in the Los Angeles region by tract.
Consistent with final TCAC categories, tracts with the highest economic scores are in concentrated in coastal communities, from the Rancho Palos Verdes to Santa Monica, and areas around Beverly Hills, Burbank, Pasadena, and Arcadia. Tracts with economic scores in the lowest quartile are concentrated in the central Los Angeles County areas, San Gabriel Valley cities around El Monte, and around the cities of Long Beach and Carson.
Local Trend
According to the 2021 0pportunity Map presented in Figure D-23, most of South Gate has economic scores below o.so. Tracts on the western side of the City tend to have lower economic scores compared to the eastern side. Four tracts scored in the lowest quartile, and four tracts scored between O.50 and O.75. The remaining tracts received economic scores between O.25 and o.so.
D-48 Housing Element
331
355
Figure D-22: Regional TCAC Economic Score by Tract (2021) "1" r j
't 4%,.
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer TCAC 2021 2021.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-49
332
356
Figure D-23: TCAC Economic Score by Tract (2021)
v g
i I la
Source. HCD AFFH Data Viewer TCAC 2021 2021
D-50 Housing Element
333
357
Education
As described above, the Fair Housing Task Force determines education scores based on math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates. See Table D-13 for the complete list of TCAC Opportunity Map domains and indicators.
Regional Trend
TCAC Opportunity Map education scores for the region are shown in Figure D-24. The central County areas have the highest concentration of tracts with education scores in the lowest percentile. There is also a concentration of tracts with low education scores in San Fernando Valley cities east of Burbank. Areas around coastal communities, Burbank/La Car'iada Flintridge, Arcadia, and Whittier have the highest education scores. Communities north, south, and west generally received education scores similar to South Gate, while Downey, east of the City, received higher education scores.
Local Trend
Nearly all tracts in South Gate, shown in Figure D-25, received education scores between O.25 and o.so. Two tracts in the northwestern corner of the City scored in the lowest quartile. One of these tracts also received an economic score in the lowest quartile and is considered a low resource tract (see Figure D-21 and Figure D-23).
Gate General Plan 2035
South
D-51
334
358
Figure D-24: Regional TCAC Education Score by Tiact (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer TCAC 2021 2021.
D-52 Housing Element
335
359
Figure D-?5: TCAC Educatioi Score by Tract (?021 )
j' - l I
f " fJ
48 .1 , i,
a 11tx
g, ,l . ,
q
Source' HCD AFFH Data Viewer, TCAC 2021 2021
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-53
336
360
Environmentcil
Environmental health scores are determined by the Fair Housing Task Force based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to considering (1) environmental factors such as pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure and (2) sensitive receptors, including seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants, CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. See Table D-13 for the complete list of TCAC Opportunity Map domains and indicators.
Regional Trend
A larger proportion of Los Angeles County has environmental scores in the lowest percentile compared to economic and education scores (Figure D-26). The central Los Angeles County, San Gabriel Valley, South Bay, and San Fernando Valley areas near Burbank all have concentrations of tracts with environmental scores in the lowest percentile. Tracts with the highest environmental scores are in western South Bay areas (i.e., Rolling Hills and Redondo Beach), and areas around Inglewood, Altadena, Whittier, and Lakewood. Environmental scores for South Gate tracts are generally consistent with surrounding jurisdictions.
Local Trend
Figure D-27 shows that the eastern side of the City has the highest concentration of tracts with low environmental scores. Tracts on the western side of South Gate received highly variable environmental scores. Four tracts scored in the highest quartile, six scored between O.50 and
0.75, and the remaining tracts scored below o.so. Most low resource areasin South Gate received environmental scores in the lowest quartile (see Figure D-21).
The February 2021 update to the CalEnviroScreen (CalEnviroScreen 4.0) and the City's sites inventory is shown in Figure D-28. A census tract's overall CalEnviroScreen percentile equals the percentage of all ordered CalEnviroScreen scores that fall below the score for that area. The areas with the highest (worst) scores are in the eastern area of the City and along the western City boundary. The central part of the City scored slightly better than the western and eastern ends of the City, but all South Gate tracts scored in the 70th percentile or above relative to other census tracts in the region, indicating South Gate residents are more exposed to adverse environmental conditions at a higher rate than other Los Angeles County residents.
Parks and open space should also be an accessible resource for residents. The following parks are located in the City:
* Cesar Chavez Park
D-54 Housing Element
337
361
* Circle Park
@ Gardendale Tot Lot
* Hollydale Community Park
* Hollydale Regional Park
* South Gate Park
* Stanford Park
* South Gate Dog Park
* Triangle Park
* State Street Park
Parks are generally concentrated in the northern and eastern areas of the City. There are no City parks in tracts along the southern City boundary. The Healthy Places Index (HPI) analyzes community conditions and variables related to economic, education, transportation, social, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare access to estimate healthy community conditions.2 According to the HPI, tracts along the southern City boundary scored in the lowest quartile for access to parks and open space, while most of the remaining areas of the City scored in the highest quartile.
Sites Inventory
The February 2021 update to the CalEnviroScreen (CalEnviroScreen 4.0) and the City's sites inventory is shown in Figure D-28. A census tract's overall CalEnviroScreen percentile equals the percentage of all ordered CalEnviroScreen scores that fall below the score for that area. The distribution of RHNA units by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score is presented in Table D-18.
Approximately 78% of all RHNA units are in tracts that fall within the highest (worst) percentile score range (glst to lOO'h percentile), including 82.7% of lower income units, 88.5% of moderate income units, and 71.5% of above moderate income units. Approximately 22% of units scored between the 70'h and 90'h percentile, including 17.3% of lower income units, 11.5% of moderate income units, and 28.5% of above moderate income units. There are more lower and moderate income units in tracts with worse environmental conditions compared to above moderate income units. It is important to note that environmental conditions Citywide tend to be less desirable, all scoring in the 71"' percentile or higher.
Table D-18: Distribution of RHNA Units by CalEnviroScreen 4.O Percentile Score cPearlEcanvtijloes:croeerin(T40ract) oWe"n'coma n"a ModerUafn€itrsnacomaAbinoave,,Meoudneirtaste AllRHNAUnaits 71-80%
81-90%
91-100%
Total
377
197
2,739
3,313
11.4%
5.9%
82.7%
100.O%
81 60
1 084
1,225
6.6%
4.9%
88.5%
IOO.O%
500
617
2,807
3,924
12.7%
15.7%
71.5%
100.O%
958
874
6,630
8,462
11.3%
10.3%
78.4%
100.O%
2 Public Health Alliance of Southern California, California Healthy Places Index. Accessed April 2022. https ://www. healthypla cesindex. org/.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-55
338
362
Figure D-26: Regional 'rCAC Environmental Score by Tract (202'l) 'ij_exrc lfi saQ@!l!!! Iffllli _-!'m-'- -' _ !. 1. i "' ffi s s s Wlll fflr 3 ;.-s a-
J4 '*a=iI;" i YJ ' 'ffl Q'- ' %dJACT'k- 'aE"' "%'. i.. W- = -- - -__ W"'! i%
m
ti
'17(-I
i!ffl$ I _7;-=-". . _7
"a" --;-y -,_H'= 'r'M"J"-' "-i.-'----z-xr'L'2'a . . - . l_ l'- ii , %
', , ' ' i _ -" t_ L -- i -. i , 1_ ,.' i I '0 i . - - :'a% '1 , , ' - - _l _ I I - . _,_ _ _
J1 ' l' a, ' --'- ' 7o+ '
' a X. i ' -, k i . . '
-! _.;i- _( _ _
I
i,xT , ;"31X,>.iTTtl!l,,"' -l: ," t -' Q' ,: ,,H,,:O""'- t,'! ".:,",-"'-"..'_'i _,-"" . a =-=-:-'{'!.,7,i,
, _ ll_....l.,'_. llll'_' _' _i (o Xi' mcaaB_!+- J"': X I: r &i Ii I ..__,, . . ) _a08- - , _ l,_,, . . ._y:,,i l_.,
-- I, i- . %. . . . m _- _ i.P_ ,
'a="" - " i ' i ' l' . ' :-- " -
-= ( i
7!t_4-"-"__ - }. /l-- _< .'s I
' - - "'-:""'-"' ""=-"L = . ":i'-":,-" -
' _9 _!l)_ I S _" _a P'il l'j "l A' l'i
2 i l Intii alTlll 11.111(" l ali
a I Tl -}l ill all ' 11 Ill0 # # 1 _tl: I l El l I I II I I lV l XI I )l # -T .11 ' :li _ -, -, ' -- - 8 _5 Ls . P i .11 % Ei i n i i n i i a' ilsl ' " ' i i - i 8 t'i i l !11 II. 'r '.i - ii +i i i i -i t : il lllli I i I _ = _ - a - I _ i i I - i - ; Hi( E i i a - I la ; i - _ 'I ( _ - - _ _ I l 41 . - .i a - _ - _ _ _ }l - _ _ ' _- -i - 'I i I l - - - - - _ _ I -k a E Source: HCD AFFH Data Vlewet TCAC 2021 2021
D-56 Housing Element
339
363
Figu ae D-27: TCAC Environmental Score by Tract (2021) II, : I I l'lllll -
17jl
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewet TCAC 2021 2021.
340
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-57
364
Figure D-28: CalEnviroScreen 4.O Percentile Score by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021) i" - :..: '.-:"(.," p.. l' '"o'a"'-'l'
_ _, , _ _ , , - -- - , :: _ ; a_ % 2 ' .': - - % , , _. l ' , Li -#" *I ' - ' l! a_'_"'=-'ii>,a" - - i ''i 'i--:l--:'li L"lail5,4.5) ' -"- , <- a '=- € WalnutPark 'I "f:?-;*'= -s- -.- -= -:z " _-y;f_' . -' - -- - -'La-_ _ _. = i, _x- = --- =, -- = * Bea - ,o '- -} -"j -' l ' - a 1 ' " ' - -"R- t:ffi- _, _ , ;4 ir,l; 3 C _. ' Q - _1..'- y:0,'4- ==,14r,7. _. . i ._ _ - _ ..a '..j,;'A'te -.=\#'==' -"'-=-= "-' = -=: "o-
II "'T 'I""F :' "':. ('IT -la ';'f'sh 's. ,- - h-'_ %' ".. . '. i i. " } ' t:f: ' : rti ! . v:=a % i,' , , ai. :a,ni- - ' :_; * z a,, - " ' 1110 ,_<"_ v ss. "( ' - . , t 's "'ah,:"'i "-,us "'ya,,,,. ;%%" %; _ Cudahy "(
I & _ ,__ . _ %
" s ' "0 Sout6a Gate ' .'. ' % piiii ' a-J('111n-a' "";NO _ 's 3,@'&a,, " a FO(;'F4 " m-"";;ia7aL .= . -.
T % , . .4 _ J%y!:se9n,%7, lii,) " - T:" ' a aa % . %- "-' , , - ., 'r@i-7 ., .
!, . ' - :':, , l_' a'_ _ , _, -t , . ",!FlrOstc+, aivcl . ";, ' ! - ---.-F- '- r-,_ ..:,_.. C _ . _ ,-a%-" " .z - >= -.___ i " - 'a 'a (IQ o ,' _ ' _ . a '
.1 -5 l : 'p4@, s'a'tb_s . . . 'laa ay "'r_:_:i-l :.'_ l_ k '} .,' "a'Th t5 %Q- i;" *'=' a : . _i! f:_-, Js,I 3j'V@,!1!_#_,__i,, y.bv __ .. .. _ @, _ a1 X'4-,'.-%la5 'il'ol;ai4;.i",a715,yBha, . . -.f'- #r; . _l? ';i,, t:a;laa,ai. .i)i'll""gl'iliiiq',_z:' i' ,la,i - l_ /"4 -
#-
"' " 't"; -' , ' -__J! l i!'J'- '
H 4'*7i -" "a', v " & a asz * y , a-m :i 4* t. .a4a =:4"*2aa il ha u i'a fflo" " . I = - a D m i vi " 'JQ - t" , -*- - # I. . _
i .,,:, ' ,=-.a;=.'-=-7---=,;=,=,,p-,,;;.§ :_,,:i,! ';",,',-ai I l # I . . " i'I '-.
. I , 'p ' _ a <; v+ii(ic- _ I I I f, / ; i * '. 11: 1- ls, -ai .)t i' i . a ' i"l - _ (, . _ -_ <_ b Pz * i * ffi s , MT'gi8 . ay, - l- . :A')" '%, -,. z 'N? -. (.1- =a- >G -' ', ,.I Lynwo_od' -=,. _ = ' !'7;,:j IJ'-""v.."'i_:"'- (: - = -;,- fi o'_ -i
:4m = , :;Q,I<_. ,,-:,-;.-r.- '.J -.:-,:,,,a _ _ ':,l".;"l,, 1,4%%,';Ji%7J,F!,)':>,lJ;;,A,e,{,;" - \"r"' " .<r.l : 'l' ":'a: : {:'i '_:, il': '-I. ,a" "'it,. 1< b-- ." {.egiiiqi a ':'. :-.a, aa"ra.i,i41-,,':. ,) l)',_ % (')oet, -.,5 "'.' "a 4 % _ _ ,
z a -0 % '-- , -: "
, ,, : I (I* ai i= -' - "o iii a ' -. , a s l i a I . Ii,"'. {3"s.., i " _ li l" % B 'J'%
- ;+. ." % Di " 'E"'ff- %"s}':'l' -'/Villowbrook ." T ' i_= . -. . ::t,i " a' ' -'''t' a i s. i ' -_ - % b ," 'a -=- i(fa ) %a ; _ , ,. , _ , _,g h
=:-' " " -- -, a=..__"-.- =( '! .%El' ! %'<'
""" ' a':.,-ta': i:'- ,,'a":';:'a"..J' nWaOOd '%'a'Ja,.,1%)'"'\""iI:I;abJo""i"'..".'l"l':7:.Wll,.a%"'r%""!;4""m7'Joa"'ah"'a)""' , ,_, . - ',Gardens t' ," -:r'i-';+ -i v-=i _i +. ' . 4 17 -" - " : ' :
. - ""I AY a: ': I:-'i ',i: 5 ( ""' I -. - - :
a _ _ , H - , ! J l , _ '_ _' " a. - - -- tli
_ '- .-: _ = - A=', _ . _ . , "::;)tl5:', -l '. '._.-,' : a .o) i . i '-- . - i _ = R :_. _- - :i '-'
:a _ = -l ._' 0 .ir la- '.'-=
- - _. _ . - _ _ _. , _ _: , %# , il . _ - _s-,, - :Cqlinty of Los-Angeles;Esri;4HER:E-, cam'iin,-saWHvir+it4,mgx,_usB,;y;)(ireau aELan§,P_lan_a_genyt:i%cEF!A,-N$,_j:IglA-;,, , City of South Gate Housing Element Update 2021 - 2029 N Sites Inventory with Environmental Justice Communities .-"=-_"-:. DRAwrAP ..x-.=..: cis
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 51-6o'o Sites Inventory
61 - 70%
CIscoreP Income Category o o 5 I71 -80%
aia:,.-:-,ll-10o*(LowestScores) si-go(%) Loer Miles
:; " ':X II - 20o/o 91 - 100% (Highest Scores) 6 Modera'e 21 - 30% 8 Above Moderate
31-40% aM:Xed DrlilmndBv
Ciliinr Dtpa IIIY(la 01 Haiilq Illd Canlllll)l D@ld((Tnlll 41 _ 5 0 o/o r. iii -; (_, 8 0 u n d a, AIN mlOl-h ":;'i:W":'.'l";:::'.;7.= Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2021 CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021.
D-58 Housing Element
341
365
Transportation
HUD"s Job Proximity Index, shown in Table D-14 and Table D-15 previously, can be used to show transportation need geographically. Block groups with lower jobs proximity indices are located further from employment opportunities and have a higher need for transportation. Availability of efficient, affordable transportation can be used to measure fair housing and access to opportunities. SCAG developed a mapping tool for High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) as part of the Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). SCAG defines HQTAs as areas within one-half mile from a major transit stop and a high-quality transit corridor. This section also utilizes All Transit metrics to identify transportation opportunities in Los Angeles County and South Gate.
Regional Trend
A)I Transit explores metrics that revea) the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service.3 South Gate's All Transit Performance score of 7.3 is higher than the neighboring cities of Bell Gardens (6.31 Cudahy (6.8), Downey (6.9), Paramount (6.8), and the County (6.8), but lower than Huntington Park (7.9) and Lynwood (7.7). Los Angeles County All Transit metrics are shown in Figure D-29. The County's All Transit score of 6.8 indicates a moderate combination of trips per week and number of accessible jobs enabling a moderate number of people to take transit to work. All Transit estimates 93.9% of jobs and 90.1% of workers are located within H a mile from transit.
Figure D-29: Los Angeles County All Transit Metrics Iit?::"";" -': . - :.:a '=: .-: '7""'-":
@-t!". OSps W!N! lm ! :4 e;';'!
Uj a!'Q&N?"a-i;i.-z-L-.i=:JJ'4(§0:fl ! d WD 2iR
1 W I ii:: WXr,t €B ; M 5;s'GJi G=m=;=
' J.'-"-"i.-':' -=:"a"" 'a" -"- ""-"-'-'=-
:'-J='=-':-.-:,Q.2=-'=-"'-')J-"-Th=-=-,,.-_J>-,, 6.8
h ,,,,, ,,,,:'!:'P'r',-li _ :W,.s.'!:.::f.)._,___,a...,=3,a..,,,, ,,11:Jl,,,,,,___,.._,,_Il, CotintylosAngeles,CA'oi'to talcd=tate com5ination of (l IOS pet week and ,.,l J:,;,il- 7 J'_ " J7'aJ :J io ,,l, ,2,,1,a _,-,:,,'_," : ' ,,,,,,,,,'a ,- .,=l" !, >%a;-.l'.q-?..al;(11""rtla.,l%lllJ,,,11,,,l,,,,_ll,-.,,,.,,,%,,a"=::,,,"',,Q' .=',:J1:,: 11U:l; :: l,:: :[i:::: :"::l:I:;:,,: :':7ff:: te I
',1' a '- a':"'g"" o3'a ' :I- ." ,::. ai":':A:sa '/[,- ;_(___.. ________ _1, O_nAvei.igp Ho+iivliakliliave '-. "'t3*;! _ '-,-',':":-!..rl-,..5'i'=.%'!-ai E!!=-,-,.,..,-==-.,.=,.===- I ' t'-I'i-"'.a"' .'J)',:f>f'-=a:<f.,"'=-=r-:-=iD-=,,=-,.====,-==. 7 - 4..=':a.-",,\ = =o',)-:-':::.-,lThi,-!;;-/'=.-=)m!--==.=-,=-.,,,..=-... I ( .,!f5:, ':"."':" ": ;7:i::-aA;-):a::J;;".:i >=S;=i.-,:::':="x-' a!!l==""'oU"-" I ( 'i,r";'14z,)l'-a'la"a5d,l'a,'7:Larut;eulil,lx'-1_:i"al:.€a):;t:al'4-,,:.i'.if.,_,':l> S, . ,, -' ri ;,'!i,,"_ ai ,al %'_j".,%II!J::':10:.._,,:II,, Sa.n jA_,1i_a:al<aa,% Show Ti tnsirA,aenaey i421 = 'j '- t - )z. .g y 0 %. % ,a - ,%,
" - n-. ! _a - - . . . ) y :::: 3( !l - i-T i :o :_ !i }.( )- } + = --C Overall transit score t)iai looks at connectivity access to jolii and fi equency of iervice.
R l m i 2 2 2 - ;i -' I:i: a s - - - * i -
3ource: All Transit Metrics: All Transit Performance Score - Los Angeles County, 2019. 3 AllTransit. 2019 Metrics: AllTransit Performance Score. htps.//alltransit.cnt.org/. Accessed October 2021.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-59
342
366
As shown in Figure D-31, block groups around Santa Monica/Beverly Hills, Glendale/Burbank, Torrance, downtown Los Angeles, and coastal areas around EI Segundo have the highest jobs proximity index scores indicating employment opportunities are most accessible in these areas.
Central County areas, from Inglewood to Bellflower, southern South Bay cities, and parts of San Fernando Valley have the lowest jobs proximity index scores. Most of the central County areas and San Fernando Valley are considered HQTAs.
Local Trend
All Transit metrics for South Gate are shown in Figure D-30. South Gate received an All Transit Performance Score of 7.3, indicating a good combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit. All Transit estimates that 100% of jobs and workers in South Gate are located within % a mile from transit.
Figure D-30: South Gate All Transit Metrics
JJaJJa2J..a:-2J..a:'.'.l.%a='aa::1. a'H-a:+*zaA!ia'=+i,,ZZ-2TRm_ -#-i,-
'7"j)TJfJa"i.,,=Q'JJ.."J7,.mmiii'aaa"2..
OVerall !TalTSit ICOTe that 100kS at conneciivitV aCCetS tO iObi. anti frequency Of Sel VICe M ! :] ' 2 0 2 . j : 'l 5, z -. a : 1-
Source: All Transit Metrics: All Transit Performance Score - South Gate, 2019.
Based on HUD Opportunity Indicators shown in Table D-15, South Gate residents, regardless of race, have less access to employment opportunities compared to residents countywide. As shown in Figure D-32, census block groups on the western side of the City have jobs proximity scores below 20, while block groups on the eastern side of the City received jobs proximity index scores between 20 and 40. Despite a majority of the City being considered an HQTA, jobs proximity index scores throughout the City indicate employment opportunities are generally less accessible to South Gate communities. According to HUD's low transportation cost index, South Gate residents pay less in transportation costs compared to the average countywide.
D-60 Housing Element
343
367
Figure D-31' Regional HIJD Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group arid HQTAs (2020, 2021) "",=:'I-"=Hi, :-p.a' i@y'J2-4 :,g"- :x':"J('="='@.I'.:,.,I, -=-====- =,bf*'a'<.' ,,-,. ,. .== _.-,I.=,-, -,=;-:;=,
' .-..xt -!ff='iq,: .,;_=.',""_...:I:=.'i7=?=-_".;..,, =-;:":"L.::;':.a=_=a,$,?,i,J., ,,,.,..,,s.._,.,l_, ":-"o-'-"-'6.'-"aajJ!E;(;-
a\ii ,' i ', 4" ;, L,, o ' av'm,,' (ai;Nijt"ll k. ', 'i,',, ' , " h(4! ',' -€ -}l_ _ - - - - l ':' - - _ :; I# _ + ' i ' , ' -0 '76 - - -"l- 0 --l - - - - '-=-=7f,4=H:.,,:5i,;,,",,j=-,,-,,-,,F:,_,,-, .,,,-,,
-__ ffll
a' li ' - .<,':, ':l' l ]
=='=-t"='J!=--- -=-.,------------ 2')%.-: ....=,. , . .__.-=..,-... =-_ _ .:='=)"%. ,_.-,. """"' "!;'a- '-€'tFS:'i"""" - 'T-"-"
-"=-h-u!-==-L=- =,I.:,-
=&'
4-
. ,i) -.
'i " ' " '. " 4_f*a_'yx_;:_.tl . _ z.',3na _-'Iji'-"'aii(iaj"'i%,(::5-,a,;, ' " _" :U_' I 5 _'l _'al P %l I .l'a -'i T
'ZI Ilij' I I )l -011' l I 1.T . I ' l I I I 11 ) ' I ' -i ' . I'll I I i I I I 11 l I I lilll Ill .I I 'l I I l I ' I - I l I I -l I " I I I ] illi -l I ii ii ;.n rtl. i i la' _ i i .. i
; I I lli ; i i tl I 'r I i tls i -I l_l :i 4yl l-! _J17 i P i i L l a i il I i ii i 17 I m ii ' i ii }ali4} liii - i __':: a i i i i i i s i P V II I I -. i i t _ - - 0 - _ l l' I - i - i 0 Hi:i ;' - l' - i - _ _ s _ - - _ _ ; al i _ t - _ _ 'f = _ o - _ _ I - ' -i ' H i I I l (- - - i - i _ _ u -i@ i i Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewei (HUD 2020, SCAG HQTA 2021), 2021 Socith Gate General Plan 2035 D-61
344
368
Figur'e D-32: HUD Jobs Pro:timity Index by Block Group and HQTAs (2020, 2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2[)20, SCAG HQTA 2021), 2021.
D-62 Housing Element
345
369
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing problems for Gardena were calculated using HUD's 2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data based on the 2013-2017 ACS. Table D-19 breaks down households by race and ethnicity and presence of housing problems for South Gate and Los Angeles County households. The following conditions are considered housing problems:
* Substandard Housing (measured by incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities) * Overcrowding (more than 1 person per room)
* Cost burden (housing costs greater than 30%)
In South Gate, 51.7% of owner-occupied households and 72.6% of renter-occupied households have one or more housing problems. The City has a larger proportion of households with a housing problem compared to the County, where only 38.9% of owner-occupied households and
62.3% of renter-occupied households experience a housing problem. In South Gate, Pacific Islander renter-households experience housing problems at the highest rate (100%). Black, American Indian, and Hispanic renter households also experience housing problems at a higher rate than the City average. Additionally, 54.2% of Hispanic owner-occupied households, a larger proportion than the citywide average.
Table D-19: Housing Problems by Race/Ethnicity
Cost Burden
White 36.0% 40.0%
Black 7.3% 85.7%
Asian 3.5% 64.0%
American Indian O.O% 95.0%
Pacific Islander O.O% 100.O%
Hispanic 54.2% 73.6%
Other 57.1%
All 51.7% 72.6%
Source: HUD CHAS data, 2013-2017 ACS, 2020.
32.1%
41.5%
38.3%
39.7%
39.7%
48.2%
36.5%
38.9%
52.6'!/o
63.7%
56.3%
56.4')'o
55.5%
71.1%
55.7%
62.3%
Households are considered cost burdened if housing costs exceed 30% of their gross income for housing, and severely cost burdened if housing costs exceed 50% of their gross income. Cost burden in South and Los Angeles County is assessed using 2020 HUD CHAS data (based on 2013- 2017 ACS estimates) and the HCD Data Viewer (based on 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS estimates).
Regional Trend
Cost burden by tenure and race/ethnicity for Los Angeles County is shown in Table D-20.
Approximately 45% of Los Angeles County households are cost burdened, including 35% of South Gate General Plan 2035 D-63
346
370
owner-occupied households and 54.2% of renter-occupied households. Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic renter households have the highest rate of cost burden of 59.6% and 58.3%, respectively. Non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Pacific Islander owner households have the lowest rate of cost burden of 31.1% and 33.3%, respectively. Cost burden is more common amongst renter households than owner households regardless of race or ethnicity.
Table D-20: Cost 8urden by Race/E(hnicity and Tenure - Los Angeles County Owner-Occupied
White, non-Hispanic 31.1%
Black, non-Hispanic 40.0%
Asian, non-Hispanic 34.4%
American Indian, non-Hispanic 36.9%
Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 33.3%
Hispanic 39.5%
Other 34.9%
Renter-Occupied
White, non-Hispanic 49.4%
Black, non-Hispanic 59.6%
Asian, non-Hispanic 47.6%
American Indian, non-Hispanic 48.8%
Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 47.9%
Hispanic 58.3%
Other 50.9%
Source: HUD CHAS data, 2013-2017 ACS, 2020.
27.5%
34.8%
25.5%
26.8%
22.5%
30.5%
27.5%
648,620
104,895
255,890
3,215
2,165
470,670
26,905
541 ,545
206,950
226,765
4 420
4 355
755,590
43,210
As presented in Figure D-33 and Figure D-34, cost burdened households are generally more concentrated in the central County areas; however, most of the region has a high concentration of cost burdened owners and renters. Cost burdened renters are more prevalent than cost burdened owners in almost all tracts in the region. Coastal cities with lower concentrations of racial/ethnic minority populations, persons with disabilities, children in female-headed households, and LMI households generally have fewer cost burdened households (see Figure D- 3, Figure D-6, Figure D-10, and Figure D-13).
Local Trend
Cost burden by tenure based on HUD CHAS data is shown in Table D-21. Pacific Islander and Black renter-occupied households have the highest rate of cost burden in South Gate (100% and 73.8%, respectively). There are no cost burdened owner-occupied American Indian or Pacific Islander households in the City, and only 3.5% of Asian owner households and 7.3% of Black owner occupied households are cost burdened. For all racial and ethnic groups, cost burden is more prevalent amongst renter-occupied households. Overall, 51.3% of South Gate households are cost burdened, and 24% are severally cost burdened. Nearly 60% of renters in South Gate pay more than 30% of their income in housing, compared to 40.2% of owners. A larger proportion of households in South Gate are cost burdened compared to the County.
D-64 Housing Element
347
371
Table D-21 : Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity and Tenure - South Gate Owner-Occupied
White, non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Asian, non-Hispanic
American Indian, non-Hispanic
Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
Renter-Occupied
White, non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Asian, non-Hispanic
American Indian, non-Hispanic
Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
Source: HUD CHAS data, 2013-2017 ACS
33.1'!/o
7.3%
3.5%
O.O%
O.O%
41.7%
40.0%
73.8%
60.0%
20.0%
IOO.Oo/o
60.5%
28.6%
2020.
19.7'!/0
7.3%
O.O%
O.O%
O.O%
17.1%
23.8%
35.7'/0
30.0%
20.0%
O.O%
29.7%
O.O%
890
55 115
4 25
9170
o
400
210
100
20 4
12,490
70 Figure D-35 and Figure D-36 show cost burden by tenure in South Gate using the 2015-2019 ACS.
The HCD AFFH Data Viewer also includes tract level cost burden data using 2010-2014 ACS estimates. Since 2014, the proportion of cost burdened owners has decreased in nearly all South Gate tracts. Currently, between 40% and 60% of owner households are cost burdened in a majority of tracts. In two tracts in the center of the City and on tract along the eastern City boundary, more than 60% of owner households with mortgages spend 30% or more of their income on housing.
Like owner-occupied households, since 2014 the proportion of cost burdened renters has decreased in most tracts. Between 60% and 80% of renter-occupied households in most South Gate tracts overpay for housing. In six tracts, mostly concentrated on the western side of the City, more than 80% of renters are cost burdened.
Sites Inventory
Figure D-35 and Figure D-36 also include the sites inventory used to meet the City's 2021-2029 RHNA. As presented in Table D-22 and Table D-23, most RHNA units are located in tracts where 20% to 40% of owner-occupied households are cost burdened and 40% to 60% of renter-occupied households are cost burdened. Nearly 26% of lower income units are in tracts where more than 60% of owner households overpay for housing and 21% are in tracts where more than 60% of renter households overpay for housing. In comparison, only 1.8% of moderate income units and
16.1% of above moderate income units are in tracts where more than 60% of owners are cost burdened. It is important to note that only 61.6% of owners overpay for housing in the tracts with the highest rate of cost burdened owners. Additionally, only 5% of moderate income units and 17% of above moderate income units are in tracts where more than 60% of renters are cost burdened. While the City's RHNA strategy does place more lower income units in areas where cost burden is more prevalent, lower and moderate income units can better serve the existing South Gate General Plan 2035 D-65
348
372
cost burdened communities. Further, the City's RHNA strategy generally distributes units of all income levels throughout the City, ensuring a variety of housing types are offered to cost burdened households.
Table D-22: Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent of Cost Burdened Owner Households 20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
Total
I 754
710
849
3,313
52.9%
21.4%
25.6%
100.O%
917
286
22 1,225
74.9%
23.3%
1.8%
100.O%
2,094
1,198
632
3,924
53.4%
30.5%
16.1%
100.O%
4,765
2,194
1,503
8,462
56.3%
25.9%
17.8%
100.O%
Table D-23: Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent of Cost Burdened Renter Households 40-60%
60-80%
Total
2,615 78.9% 1,165 95.1% 3,256 83.0% 7,036 83.1%
698 21.1% 60 4.9% 668 17.0% 4 426 16.9%
3,313 100.O% 1,225 'IOO.O% 3,924 100.O% 8,462 100.O%
D-66 Housing Element
349
373
Figure D-33: Regional Cost Burdened Owners by Tract (2019) - -_a+_ - , _ia, r, _ ,,q.. 13 ,,, q;o 4 ' <I } %- !,,a4_:*! J t1-, %'-"A -"-':'!t"r"a'4:';",aq_="'o"'a"o":<a:i,.1,_,""a5r:)n,,,aa.au-= eciasg4i,i: " a i,h H s . 'l , -*rt_m ao -* '%"'%' :t ri :%H- imy-"k'-';'!""'a;-'!"-"'fl_'t'-"!*au'i'a' 'Lh I .._ g -* II,,l, %! !IW C14-'::,.'l""'- ' )-":',4T=9'-"" ==-===-"J4'%;**a2a_i,,_ :.l"'._',%ll' .,,__ ,.l_l, _ K ' .-" tal - ,W!T,;;a_, a :JJI .vs ia""' a.+i,,yl,a7:-'aa "!'r('s'a I Ws:=p:'!,,'4=" O'
. -,_,Q .,
Tmta":"J) '.";'R """,',,L%..'Th"".!t!- p;a;,""'15'; .0- ',R'7is ;Jf a{:ggffl
k-_-
"'a " ". -" a l.i: QJ%jZ. :'y
" :': F- .'=ht' 4,. _ . : l: 'l!l) a ,, ,,o'Pa. 'ate;f ',-i= , ,. eP4
I _' I jl l_ I R _ 'l I Pll I _gll Q'.15
01 ' Ill, I I 1. I 1111 I l I II II a ' 11 0 lil 0 a" i l;l l'aW li*l } by Hi il ii* . I.'. n-l si 'a Jl I '; - _i i ' i i - -i li ' 8 I.i i . lli I J - :
a _. ffl .,
e!a I II I I II , ,
I _ _ ' - ; - _ i l i i - i - I E H9E ' ;a # la a i ' _ _ S : _ a - _ _ E l l I - a - _ _ - _ ! _ _ at - _ _ ' :" -l 4 H i , I l + : ' - - + - i _ _ E -E" i 0 I Ssutce: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-67
350
374
Figure D-34' Fleg'onal Cost Buidene-J Renkers by Tract 120 19) -,-="- " =='= - ==' ==- ""'!-='-,.-i,!J-=- ----,," ]
. .1. :. .111( . a. y,'al(ffi'-l'i"lr"a0 a,k,11. }%l%(lli,!(l*... ,..-., ";a "' !'-' ""-g' "=' " ',\!':',m,L&,"""':'M,%'h,',,, _,,4t. ,,,,, ==.",-a'i<*' Ar4' a ' = ' -! ;J i',,p4'\::AM"','-'i "'a''-i+ at.ffl"'dJ-"y:J4a!,"(11.4":ia(a'W'tk.%'\5J'-aiff'-..""': "t.,'Ajlak4"'t,";aa:aC'!I"'fta{ -a, , . -==='$-; -==P=,.,, -='-ax_-.'!!i::.:;'!F- a:-, ,., _ ,4:,' ,.1.. -fJ '- !- - "l ' 0 ='.. } ...-=
a , iRA l
. ., . -, i } , + _; . r .
r !-%
_. 1, i ,. ,,, .,a'4, .- .. }A_ -. t!II-IT I a ),7
'. ' -: "v alffi:. A-'!* /l " x;,' + - , , '- a . ;.7." I_,y.s 2.;.-i ' %.,%>.)',,-:': !II'a . , , ?> ! -+
! ' a.4" j' - "-
- .==a4'=? ?' == =-=r, i-!'-
" - -- - ao'i.a' -),.: ::-'P">&,6 - _a a - ==-"$=,4!? " r' n)
-=? -= Q--'-'-= =-= -
l'L: a:4,'_j!' ." " -.\'( '!':' ='\"f" :"
y., . , __ % . (. = ' - "'i,a
!l ->
l
i'! i - -i ;j ,,V '=- == -
i _ai 4' 1_ I 5 ': I 54 P M I _ !' l A' i"i
li-i v I i i.i i i ' i i t I 11 II ffle!5 i Ci" iiri . -!l . =a-l atl I l#l I ' I I y R-I l,-l -tl . 21 l R - _ I i ' I - TI II I m I .11 - ill . " -a e ..,. ffl ,.,
ffl! li
I I _ - - - 4 - I . I - - E Hit i I 5 - l: @ l - _ _ ' H T _ - _ _ I i :l I - - _ _ - - _ _ al - _ _ I _ - l-l I i S I ' I t - - - - _ _ H = 0 0 I Sntutce: HCD AFFH Data Viewet, 2015-2[)19 ACS, 2021
D-68 Housing Element
351
375
Figure D-35: Cost Burdened Owners by Tract and Sites Inventory (2019) -:" - - 'w='iZ';'-v-"-"',T:\ - - ' - _ '' i" :' :"!' iL"" a" - i.:.Jill!,f::)Ji,Q,;- - ' . _;,,,p,-A:J: _J,,X ,.;__.i)-,, .: T -" :: A* :€ - ;F ; " _ ' Be , _ . _6 ii H _ 1,,,,_ , ..
v-'-i-'%='-",,.; -' .- -==.=", -"7;";5-:,__=;-z-,
'="-""'-ffi===-i-='=='=':,'=-:r-=-=-=-"-J-i-,X-' ;'-:"="'' a:4a-%'--.',:_ "_i' a3 . - _ -__-_ - . . % , +. - - %, T4-,,-.-'-' -- a%-. -.4%tH _a-i_ =' I ' - } -
_i_--,; xi,_--_-J,i ,'3"' :_:'__H%;-<,1,:.%=-.-CudaP7c'; __%,__ -"--' "='4>'"i% :Sout5Gate _i;-:-%"*-_-_'l-i;(io' -.lyJotr_iiAa'%. k_@ '1 - o ' - . _ - '_- ,_ _ ' *- - - - ' 4 - r c +', F oid #_ "-9 i' _ ,, '!_
.1-
- , '.#ia'l)'l%ia- :J'!}. !
t(ha -(:. 4 Jt lit: ' ai f. *f-.. . , __, _==.= car:-, -.. . --- - l- - - u"i- >' :' a=" =-,.-' "-;'- . ,=.,- =-= is&=i-=-==l,.,,@:l- SJ.:,,' -'.,s:'t.( .Ji K-r-:4,)a 'A - = o-r:'.ra 'a J" ' ::. f.-Ii'.- l..aT;,It""""""a' ":' " -. ; ,_ . . . " - - n ar - '- - -a-" 45 - (11
'.- )0,1 tL" +_ _"
all'!=';a'a'.-_a";i;{:%'y(_l!,,l,%c"y.,-iaiussa,-s'4,a',"_-1 - 4,%_ lIlilloi ,, , a,*/-+____-_:
f
t-'l-.-,a-.;'i-'.'a:-l,-'."J%!:j""::':\'fuyT'b-a'!'!"-:"a'at=%"'cg3:.-:-4.i-l::i-rl lf 4a,'1" a+a"ya/;aia-- "'i a I . ' -aa " h, ,'i _, ': -:y t ;';,p-, l.,4,, , i.. ., ; ., ,, ,,,, ,. :i' , _ ,: 1,14,1, '-_aiJ' . ; __,. ,@,, ,_, _ . ya_= - "" - - - ' : ""'-==-==-===-.-,.rj; K>
-""f:,.'fJ,,- - L ,-.=..,,..= ,:,,-[:i- -.-\
4__.._,,.MW>1%!,:v--za_m'al,,4;a,,,,,,.l%-_-1Y5.+.,-, ,:Ly,n,,,,o"-yo,l,..l,,l:. ,4,,,:el,,%.11Th,,k, Ja%'y,,,%17:g7%.%. 1,
'J7:r.._l:.l'_l_%,1'.,-ll,l,,_lL'3.'a"":'ol%a'.;1%!lL.'-_--%_,a _-.;I+:.'a,";'l""a%;;llla(1111,'laH,:)._-_s5.;t.,_#,-bkea_;(:_,. :l1l, ,i) v 1%-, i 11 ' a " ' _ _ .,'-. ,_, 1 a- -.g - ' -' - - " i % _=_ _ _ . . , .. . a'ip- . ii, .- "" } t;ta ',_,...,, \-V,< ,, , - . := -. ,-=-.=, =, ,. ;r - =-, - :I,+ ll!' -_ i'l 'i_,: . : -t}(ll , _,,7 '-l 4,&,%o,a. it. S,",,,(_--jaJfJ'-'= , . 'J4' ,,, !-a, . %*,_ %a*a, e,.,,:,a. , r "=' -.-.-__.'- :-' "j"S-- -: :",J':= i ,lj,% =.- % X, .
NHloWbr"ok"l-_-J7"7-:-' ['-:$.%:':,'":'=";>'#2'. .:S:I:J._Q.%':: -0"-' ci*s' . :'---'- -4ao'-o.'i'_ 0 -l ss
'l'-; I (:, . (a !, _+ _ u(;h ,o ' - ,r, %_ !+ !_ -)
i'- ' -]'i' -"'.-'-r*"-a-:{' . --
' __ ;% -,' :l: . - ") "" " J"'- ._,':." L)/nWW'd ' 2; :4 'a ":ThF" :"e'*'m'id'4"p'-Q'$D'h'!5.9J" _ +r. - -'ffil: --I :. . i' qa.rdrr:s,If;I_ _JI!, ;a"'i -i ':: ;---,, I 'W::
-"-'--- " l';! ' +; - ""-----"'a" - E-la"-d-A ' I ,_ -q* I =A , i _-_
-%reau of-Land I'lanaJle'nblTh5geBA,'Ng'ij,I@Q,A,+,,,
- _- - . -: j . _ . : : , _ - _ _-
'; - :_.,. i't = ty% : - 14. , a aL ; _ . ' ; ,,_: !. I , ?, - l,-'.lffi.,- -,.. -?=,_ _'.1- . _.__ _l. _ _ , = _ -- ' = : - __ - - -' . a;e'3piiyof-l:os'(An,ge;<is;;Eyl7zHrRE,-Ga%lir),-SafAOfTp'l:i','ME7i'!QA!9',H',p9q!§I;--,, .
City of South Gate Housing Element Update 2021 - 2029 N Sites Inventory with Cost Burden 2019 - Owners .a<";.a D'wTs' ; [::IS
Overpayment by Home Owners (2015-2019) - ACS Tract Level Sites Inventor B25091_calc_pctMortGE30pctE Income Category 0 0.5 I <zooio 6Lower
20'+'o-4(No (eiModerake Miles
4r3op _ Bo% 8 Above Modei'ake
60%-80% Mixsd
> BOo/o , ,' - ', City Boundary
(mi Pmn S
Cil limi Dmx tiyt olHaiiix ml (anmuriTh (emmn-i I Alnrnilr )ni*iiJ }in 14nuH llz iril Miotniq Rginvtii hoi jltilh dilr Ib('l(!! oral hh ut(it
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-69
352
376
Figure D-36: Cos( Burdened Renters by Tract and Sites Inventory (2019) - - _ ' " a ' - - .'-' a l ' - a - - -" - - I } -a - - ' -- - - ' ' - - ' - - -' "a- -" ' ' '4 ' 0 ') a-" - -' P " - - -- - - '.i .-_ l-, I,,,e aa'a'ik ji :_J:-i 'S. .!0'a. ;', :) ;. _ -sr i.ai';- ,N,-- '- 1, ),, ' .1- ' l _F --" . t, _ '- ' :, - -i'" --'b ,-.._-. ' -' - u "'s' "-':;_'-' : . aj '! a-- - - _._1-" : " - _ ' ' o a- _-- .- . - - _ - - : - L = {ii5 'a " i: - :Walnut Park -"e=b-st'- i ii.:a-i - _:.yh___- -_ _ .' - , ; '. ='-!"' = a .-: __ , ..'':_-,.' -{-- _____,:3'- ..a-; 7_":"i_, . " %a i7_---i" '- - ,,' a- .5-h . ,s' __ ,_t--. i_ ,,,i-rl , Be. - --. a-a - --: .. . _ . I " ""'" a-r iv:_9,rjn.o__'a;;i," i..:_:_i'6: (L"'1..% . _l;- 41i .. v .y: (:_:, . i, . ., e - - ' - - - - , I ,. :, ' --_<"jl!S: - :G. :"""' ?'} fi."
-"l"'f""-j%'Saai=4:=.....- -.,.,-, - '_: _ '-' ,.," A' "'-H' -Q
i,%s%%' >,, ("" s;'-!al,''l;'_b,@1,'-,@"'-'%, :- ,,. . f,l 711" } '.- - _l -.+
_ ",z2 % ' a,:;:a! '_ 'H_,a. , 110,,> -=. -a" i "%! jy ,'q_ l( ,, ,':;,:.y .Jlf.J %, ' . i'l)-J. - __, , _ cud'a"-a- -;y- :..j":S..,a;,]" __, - _ . - , ' .. .. + 'h:" ' . _ ' I -d - , . X - . _ ,. . _ _ _ -. =-i7. _ . , . . alt . , _ , rli: . _ _ % '*ii- . . _ : _ __ _1, if . _ ,. . _, = _ ; ._- fi.-' s , 'Jz ,q, _. ' :i Sout5-Gate_,,-=..+ } _I:( =.. , _ ;y.;;..,y. . ' gv.7__s_%. i' ( . ' 4j{a . ,a;1 .iLch7, :_l _.,"'l'a"""o"!':' --' ":"'J,""s'Y"'i;"'a,l'J""ff'pl""'!'J":';W__a:"-""':a""t"':""":"f";'a"a-": """ '-' "%X;-<f ' :' _ l" "a'-- ,"a'- ,l" -.. -, =,i,l ..=,,.,:,. : 1,-==.==,;-r:,,,J,,-%.%-sonb-&I<ffi,-.,.i,,,'. :":"""--""a'b"":='";:-.a,"'a;"""oat-4,iaa:,i," J'J7,1""'ioI."_aa";l""-.H',,l',ll_.,11,,,s,:J,,l;,,_}_._ 3... , . !. _' -- " 4:,aa"i ' -l ia-7r -' -- '*. ___ 'j"(l _ ".<i==::a.;,a,,,!r_ t+mii-p":,'i_a I, as, :, . y _ ..,,,;-._I,',, - _ _ -!. *'
"ailk8%l>'>ilzA', . .WQ!%,%A
l"'1" "' "-""""aa"-'"' "" "pima-i-',ii"',,ila"""i'i:'-7.i""s'as'jtv"""':aa"";;\" :' J ta-""':_:""""""""";a":-' ." "'-':"%"- '-a- ' " ' -4, r" _D- "- r _ _;l ' ' - a- ! ra:-.- - '- , 3 - " .J k , ,a ' - --- , I,
':a'ia: ,'a*fa";'ai@,BJ__;ll%r-,"i;iS"L-;ln,a'+l'p,',aa_.; 'i.-11,,q'_JiJ3, ,li o-@'€..' -f" i ,1 - a I _ ;t_lr-," " o - a ffim_i 6 . -&"'J_ 9,-s%ai" vi _=ii _ _ o%r.ral I Ji I , _ 3j _ ."'---ml" + - , , :_J . j X*-,?o . _i I ."':t>. il ,,=-:f,:i , , , aaia-b=.,,.,:#_,,:_,,;H,:=:,,7a_', 5i4-, :-I.a ,, '--rI:: -! - :_ '--l-___-o. _ ("ilis'ili3lHi,,___"-a:1('i:,..'5:'_:o(17111a"y:-'y., 1,,"'(_1>-4%'y;."._a_,.ll,,l-1:%. _, ; li' :, _. - 1,_,liija:;i4;'i ,1, %_ _ ," M(5_,a:.: ::');B,,,." "'i o:.' _:, i_:.y. '. -' _i0 -'.-
;. ", ':i :L - -'_ -t-'}Jl . _ , %. .,':, -"i., ,' A2'-W- '<+ -'-""j5;:., ";L - lynwood- :-; ' =i ' . .,'!7 '- or.'!!':"J.':= ? -i - _% f * :, ," - , 2'l :;r%-11, . .
.,l::,, <7
"',_.-'---U j@,_Lll,11!..,o-lo;'-al):%a".,Xa'5fTl%a.71,, ,;;.';;,5,5,.1'.:_ 51,1';.'_,,0"'5.1,1,l%l,' t-> *l,,,,,,l!@,a " :i o'ra'!:'_a:i'-= i-"s"-K;-e%-" _%l-liks,:_l=,l-"l: :,-e_,:":i-,_'-;a,_,,a{_, ?: }a, ](,,l, ' -'-----i,,; k:'-' N-=',.:%,""","-,"-,.=,'!=i===Th'%'=.E'_" _J
. XJ -i a - a g 0 '
Ill OW5 r 0 0 k _! a - 'o ." '! - : T,9"'., 4 ISe;a: - '- o,k,,"' -I.S ffi'a" ;f ';"%:"ji-% ,,' 5"' - A':'ffl'l; ""'=-== -=:. , ,,=,-- -.-L,.=4-i .,,, , ..i}-,- . 11;
: +. , , !, s . ,- a - _ - I-._ -. '. ' , . _ l' /%l l - , '! - - . _, __ .. :;?,l , , _ . _ i i._ _ _ 41 , , 0 , Th t,!:' . . ,i :(- ', { -% 'i _ . ' t . . F _i , : . :ai _ . - ..l . , ,0 l+ _ , , _ . } -j _ _ _ _ -, , . ._ _ .
l-, :.:1, :__- , :- - . , }: :il" . _ l_, .,,,:l_, . _ -i ;,, ' - r l_, _ - ,,';! . *:. _i - . _ " - 1 i'-""-: - '40'y' - ' - .' - " i" a:-" i'E"'4...*'l.a:.a:a_-,- "ihJ-J'."'-'l)-i"'-ra"": i "',,"',-iit:-'_ :(;Jtty':of'L'CB"Angele's7-E4?i;3HEfkE-, -GA,r,-4yl;"+are;Q[r-Mm%N;6pgJG5'J"reap:gf:Lpn,(i,Mari4gg+4?titEp.4, _iq3s,+y4,_,_,, City of South Gate Housing Element Update 2021 - 2029 N Sites Inventory with Cost Burden 2019 - Renters A :a:Zi=;aa-:: ri $Overpayment by Renters (2015-2019) - ACS Tract Level Sites Inventoy a B25070_calc_pctGE30pctE Income Category 0 0.5 1
<20% [gLower
20%-40% g5Moderake Miles
40% - 60% g Above Moderate
50o.4-80% QMixed
'soo" !#"aC"VBounda'V cilminrD+wtven?il+iaiiinHtrd(anmri"')i"(z"o'm't"(m_i=i lijmti )my Tuj wrr) (in jam-ln) Drh ind li.iO Ilsaim
hljoi Ililh*li reiytai aihai hbiia;li
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2015-2019 ACS 2021.
D-70 Housing Element
353
377
Overcrowding
A household is considered overcrowded if there is more than one person per room and severely overcrowded is there is more than 1.5 persons per room. HUD CHAS data based on the 2013- 2017 ACS and the HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS) is used to show overcrowding in South Gate and Los Angeles County.
Regional Trend
As shown in Table D-24, 5.7% of owner-occupied households and 16.7% of renter-occupied households in the County are overcrowded. Severe overcrowding is also an issue in the County, especially amongst renter households. Over one percent of owner households and 7.6% of renter households are severely overcrowded.
Figure D-37 shows concentrations of overcrowded households by tract regionally. Overcrowded households are most concentrated in the central County areas, including the City of Los Angeles, South Gate, and Compton, and in parts of the San Fernando Valley. Coastal communities, from the South Bay to Malibu, have significantly fewer overcrowded households in comparison.
Table D-24: Overcrowding by Tenure
South Gate
Owner-Occupied 1695
Renter-Occupied 4,095
Los Angeles County
Owner-Occupied 85,870
Renter-Occupied 298,460
Source: HUD CHAS data, 2013-2017 ACS, 2020.
16.5%
30.8%
5.7%
16.7%
450
1,530
23,025
U4,745
4.4%
11.5%
"10,255
13,305
1,512,365
1,782,835
Local Trend
Table D-24, above, shows that 16.5% of owner-occupied households and 30.8% of renter- occupied households in South Gate are overcrowded. Significantly more households are overcrowded in South Gate than in the County. A significant proportion of South Gate households are also severely overcrowded with more than 1.5 persons per room. Approximately 4% of owner-occupied households and 11.5% of renter-occupied households are severely overcrowded in the City.
Figure D-38 shows the concentration of overcrowded households in South Gate by census tract.
More than 20% of households in most South Gate tracts experience overcrowding. In most tracts, less than 20% of households are severely overcrowded; however, the tract along the eastern City boundary has a concentration of severely overcrowded households exceeding 65% (Figure D-39).
More than 80% of owners and between 40% to 60% of renters in this tract are also cost burdened.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-71
354
378
Sites Inventory
As presented in Table D-25, 80.1% of the units selected to meet the 2021-2029 RHNA are in tracts where more than 20% of households are overcrowded. A larger share of lower income RHNA units are in tracts where less than 8.2% of households are overcrowded compared to moderate and above moderate income units. Only 74.8% of lower income units and 72.2% of moderate income units are in tracts where more than 20% of households are overcrowded compared to
87.2% of above moderate income units. As discussed previously, the distribution of RHNA units by overcrowded households follows the trend Citywide, where all but two tracts have proportions of overcrowded households exceeding 20%. The City's RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower income units in tracts where more than 20% of households are overcrowded. Further, the City's RHNA strategy offers a variety of housing types in tracts where overcrowding is prevalent.
Table D-25: Distribution of RHNA Units by Concentration of Overcrowded Hociseho1ds <8.2%
15.01-20%
>20%
Total
652
184
2,477
3,313
19.7%
5.6%
74.8%
100.O%
o
341
884
1,225
O.O%
27.8%
72.2%
100.O%
142
361
3 421
3,924
3.6%
9.2%
87.2%
100.O%
794
886
6 782
8,462
9.4%
10.5%
80.1%
100.O%
D-72 Housing Element
355
379
Figure D-37: Regional Overcrowded Households by Tract (2020) "'-"'-"':----------- - a4-- ---74;_ --- -'- -=--
, u sl i: I , _ -.;-(i ;.l,,., ti . r i .-.i _i
6, . i ' : '% _
.....;.:.'=-" """' " '="';:": aG.,,"'.,'J,Ja": ""J-"'::".,.'az5,% >l" "Q',, I %Ja__ .
';:i+i2';i Th5cl"t-:"':'i" jfajba"'16,4).lhll" 0.
41ffl!14 -. A Ac
hn= ii '-h !ii> a k4 i / a"ffi _ay -- % _)it-i_ -._- Y '%, I v , o -it-'[,:"'f;" 4--"'Tit- ,,l. 4 -W"-"" ' a -' !
Iji i 'il I
.?1 '.:l'lT( 4
t'-ti ' i *'. T sX Th ' /
a ,i
'M'! rr $a ", -- a
','!rii'-- a'a- ., ' .Aa ' :i't!!'ffl " "!!!a
" "'P" ' - - at'N '- . _ ' - I . _ l* l
- "__ vi __:aafflt!. a!l")_"-'t'i}'g:aa"' "J!'e!"J)-"'aa"'l'iBH --tsi - : M" n 4j"
riiihiii+,_lll.l,, lin_%lA@""" - a4i'---'
iffll' Thi,, " 1!II:'{4;51tllil(_4t';i- "'1,1!%aH -la - -- e,,,,,,,,n _,, , :
-a ..,.,..,....'i ';J!,$"""'
_ " _ I I g _ _ I t' tl I _ -' a - '
€ i, I i . i i i n n i I I .
R - . = -l 11 P - i 'l ' -i u ' - _ i - - -
_._ =..=-=..-. ffi ..
..l
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2020 HIJD CHAS data, 2021.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-73
356
380
Figure D-38: Overcrowded Households by Tract (2020) - , ,- I ' . I ( I ,, .. ,
' 11 l-_ _ -a " i I i,,""" l a "'i I , a' i i _ , i ' . , li . l' J',") ' I- 'Walniit P'a5k-.-"'- ::.f-" "': _ '- a: j:- "o'-" : " -"' "'- ' -'' -' '., x.' . ' ":"" ,a' . :'Be- : - " -. I : ' --- - - " ll ' i ( - ' __ . - .
l ' - - _ - xa - '- - ' i ,
" i - - ._ a - - _ " ' l . l a-. " : . - - ' - _ : . ' a _ . . I . . ," , -i, _ - - ._ 1. . - l ,- _ - _. i - . , . , . -_ _ : . } - , , , , , . _ . , .. . = -= =-!i:.-..u,-=-=-"=-= = ..=.. -_ ...,,, -.._ '. -.- ,. .=:. """ --al- " li.("",*ll,l,'a.77,;aiaa-vazlaa" i .,'_,,Ill.. _ll, II , . __lll,_ i; ' % i ' : t ' % ' -.'t '
I I ,,"a 'l '%'i _:'l ' " . - ."" '. _t, ga. l , .ii." i i '. h % . . .
1. h =! I .. ., . , % - Il
%- '
,,l"::')'l:%t'7";Ila7$.l%l&"' =,,lsl-.s:j,(-,;II,: 9'.F-'11;lq!,".-yl4>l':stC"1d"rahi;"l'-1-ffl--%."-;":-,i"""'-- -=-==-.. '%dJ -.-.,a , :- ;:_-)ll'i:'ci ..,;.:- :"-; '.. = _. :, .-',.,......hl).';)._,:=,...;lz,,,,), ,l ,l I ."""" "'* ' i i a%-' .a" I ' _ ,, , _ , /q , ,, fl , , i , , , , , 4
- bi,ia ' "'- "" s a " "' a i" , . ._ ' -e / " ' "la a'aa""""-'l'4'Wa%;;, (,,ji,a,"""nl,l,"_% ,,'_ l,%,a:"' X -_ . i , , ii 4 '!67"" far6 ' # "
" s ' ,L -, ," a'-" Pa a%%4' 7a'7 > , a " i ' > " ' - ' @', :" 1. ,1 ' " " @ - ' : " ' =.%,, l ." " . 'i : -' / , i ' " a " ' " a s a, ' . ' -1 '%' as '-aa,'-' -' , " :':" " III ia" ' : i ' , l ; ' li : i ." " l /" i i = ' i
" ' I i ' " '
til '
a 'l_' /#
-, ,l.,". i (:. . " I b zCp."zfl;'," _ '! " 'aha"'a. z z' * ' 7 ffl ; as,r ffl :, Tia'; s,' ai "" ' :ii" i :" :a" - " " l " : ' " . . i .. , , -_3x
. , ',. ,.1 drip I
s
__ _ __- _ "a ""- --.4 k4! 1.;. : .s,
-l '_, .
i % -- I
-' --'ti,,,, - .' ;l'siilavss,j,_"_ '1- a
=_ i, :. .: _,._ ' " L9nwood , . 'it, €0 " '=4@,.,!%%- .p, :: I-'la..l,1111% =:. . . . ),1.1:,,.1,%l-@'a'> ,15j. .
J, .. . , . a /,
- = _ - = . i. , . % "
- - 'ti " ' " %
.'i " " "' . ' ; 'hb
/Villowbrook - = - - - x%. mi '!-,.,.,
""" ' - ' " -" a o : '- . "4:'-.%a' J'o "
Lynwood ' o':J?"' X" - ,,,,. ,; '- '-,i 4'
_ . ,, _,, I _l ,,:
County or LL'Ange:es, Esri,'a:'HERE,-:armln, Saf'<rapti,' MNASA,' USGS, =E!"ii'reau of Land Management,.EPA, NPS,'USDA:J.._ _ City of South Gate Housing Element Update 2021 - 2029 N Sites Inventory with Overcrowded Housing -"'-:;. mtaw"'ip Overcrowded Households Data - CHHS - (Tract) Sites Inventory PCT_overcr IncomeCategory 0 0.5 1
s8.2(StatewideAverage) gLower ilessl2 gModerate
sl5 m*oveModerake
S:20 QMixed
<7o 's:i'ac"YB"unda'Y ciiianiaaztranioihwiniiixitunni.r"iiioox"":"miigi" A;imr0idl TuThiiing }at liH Di5 im Mq Naimag
h(pi jlahlt tli la <nntt 21 hbaiaJi tut'
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2020 HUD CHAS data, 2021.
D-74 Hous ng E ement
357
381
Figure D-39: Severely Overcrowded Households by Tract (2020) 4 , = '-- ' - - _ " 91: I -- - -.__ _ _ 3
':,, S - -- - 'l l- - ' - ' 2""' -,- --7_'
:-__=_ -2:,,.
- ' - -'_ 1,-ln'Tai'El,_._ltl"a " 'a - ' - , I - - --' " _ ' I ' i - - - - ' E 'l 'i - Glof.s';*:lx- ",__, ' _ , , _ _, , - _ , 5( +. "')+S -_ . -U.
aa"")_,=-i'Y;*.. ' ">
;'7
e,- -i .'t"' - ffi.iffl --- --- - j
.i:-_ i . : --- -- '' -c--'g-_)p a7"
ffi! -il___ ..._'a'i'_a"4'-'-}'l.,;. ,+5"
- I ' , - - - {: Q5 '
I ' -' ; "
.1 - " _p-,l" t,i
27 p' a(
(Y"'-_::jail-; "o
I - .' f,, :;j" "-Y '
- - ' - '-., ,, t,_ (, --{,,"_., -(: 'd )0,,
I ..(. 's
,.1..,' ""0,*+, ,_a
_ 'l_-_
, ,; , -4_Aha';'TJ'?jy-_""";"=V;'a l,'ai_sc.:c ._ _H 4ffl _ - - . %- S"!' "'a;-- :" 9 'Q
6--5 ' f.a ;
.', - 11' 'i__l I # __ ._- r }
-_ ' &
_';=':g) . - -':
__:.. 'il\ : ,LQ'_a.e+:' ('7;i.;1"=" -ii% , I%a - -;
p.. s c
!l
<; l " '!
ai ' -- " - -- - -'i;,""'_''7,lLi . +0.,
I '. i I ' - "" a - / - - ' s , , - , -. - .-s
i C o 't" a I I I l-'- -- - -'
aliril'in.ii. l_ I
l'i i li ' i.= I ' .' I I I I i i _lll i I i..i I _ i i : _ - T xi.
I i - 1' 1
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewet 2020 HIID CHAS daia, 2021.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-75
358
382
Substandard Housing
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions. Incomplete facilities and housing unit age are estimated using 2015-2019 ACS estimates. In general, residential structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical system repairs.
Regional Trend
Only O.2% of owner-occupied households and O.6% of renter-occupied households lack complete plumbing facilities countywide. Lack of complete kitchen facilities is more common; 0.4% of owners and 2.5% of renters lack complete kitchen facilities in the County. A larger proportion of renter-occupied households lack complete facilities compared to owner-occupied households.
Housing age can also be used as an indicator for substandard housing and rehabilitation needs.
In general, residential structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical system repairs. In the County, 86% of the housing stock was built prior to 1990, including 60.5% built prior to 1970 (Table D-27).
Table D-26: Lack of Complete Facilities by Tenure
South Gate
Owner-Occupied 52
Renter-Occupied 32
Los Angeles County
Owner-Occupied 3,672
Renter-Occupied 11,410
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
5,823
44,44i
10315
13 756
1,519,516
1,797,279
Local Trend
In South Gate, more owner-occupied households than renter-occupied households lack complete facilities. Of owners, 0.5% lack complete plumbing facilities and one percent lack complete kitchen facilities. In comparison, only O.2% of renter households lack complete plumbing facilities and O.7% lack complete kitchen facilities. A smaller proportion of renters but a larger proportion of owners lack plumbing or kitchen facilities compared to the County.
Housing age is usually an indicator of needs for repair. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 91% of the housing stock in South Gate was built prior to 1990 and may be susceptible to deterioration and 76% was built before 1970 and may require major repairs. In comparison, only 85.9% of housing units Countywide were built in 1989 or earlier and 60.5% were built prior to 1970 (Table D-27). All housing units in tract 5353.06 were built prior to 1990. In addition to tract 5353.06, D-76 Housing Element
359
383
tracts 5358.03, 5359.02, and 5356.04 have the largest proportion of housing units built prior to 1990. These tracts are generally located on the western side of the City along the western and southern City boundaries. Tracts with the oldest median housing unit age, located west of Long Beach Boulevard, also have higher concentrations of renters, including cost burdened renters, and less access to environmental opportunities. Tracts 5356.03, 5361.02, and 5357.02 have the most new housing built in 1990 or later. Figure D-40 shows the median year built for housing structures by tract. Tracts where the median year built is 1948 or earlier are located on the western, northern, and southern City boundaries.
Table D-27: Housing Unit Age by Tract/Jurisdiction
Tract5355.Ol 72.9%
Tract5355.02 77.9%
Tract5355.03 74.5%
Tract 5356.03 75.1%
Tract5356.04 85.3%
Tract5356.05 62.0%
Tract5356.06 92.7%
Tract5356.07 83.6%
Tract5357.01 81.1%
Tract5357.02 69.9%
TraCt5358.02 81.0%
TraC5358.03 73.0%
Tract5358.04 60.7%
Tract5359.01 76.7%
TraCt5359.02 89.2%
TraCf5360 83.3%
Tract536l.02 48.3%
TraCt5361.03 82.3%
TraCt536l.04 77.5%
Tract5362 75.9%
SouthGate 76.0%
Los Anqeles County 60.5%
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
14.6%
13.7%
18.0%
7.9%
12.2%
25.9%
7.3%
4.2%
13.4%
14.8%
11.3%
26.1%
30.8%
12.8%
8.5%
8.9%
34.9%
9.5%
15.8%
13.3%
15.1%
25.4%
12.5%
8.4%
7.5%
17.0%
2.5%
12.0%
O.O%
12.2%
5.5%
15.3%
7.7%
0.9%
8.5%
10.5%
2.3%
7.8%
16.8%
8.2%
6.8%
10.9%
8.9%
14.1%
1041
1,263
643
1,048
1,038
1,122
481
,090
,505
,459
,651
,121
,388
,469
,598
,030
077
,492
,078
2,007
24,601
3,542,800
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-77
360
384
Figure D-40: Median Year Structure Built by Tract
Median year structure built-Estimate y in 20 Geos y in 2019 y S trteyl P rcgi a m - = - - i- ' s _ n i '- i' : i P i od uct i l s Z r = E - ' I .0' ( _ _ : i - " 'i -.
Geogiapliies ' - -. : -. i_i y
':. (-_i €Ea_J",
Ssl:cl ( ';it Gpi; B=:=map Tilile Nnie-
-+Tl=="lO}_ -",f-= ----------.,.,' =-""""-"-------._ " o' =.,=-"-,-, 535'.01 - S&l:101---l;:i;.iD-2" l' ; ,a . / '- / :!400 10 i SJ5ii)2 i P ..a ' : 53-12+)1 5'147031_ " "
____q___ _- ' I -i , -t I - _ r
2400 20 S-!)11 535(i.03 "3"'oa 5357 02 531iO - I _i ," ' a """so" aI P _l
- ..==,o-i- l ii:iiiao-i -=-- -_ " 2-12 I 2422 ,-sjssi6e !i3:fi 05 , 7s ,..l' i)li 2JO7 _i3.iii0=l - - A _,
242'l ' -" ,_ 5359.01 , / o - - a- -" "sog o" - S-.611J = I - ' / -_ - 5514 0'l / ' . . _LJ,,7117-1%.%J' 7,1111 l'. 5T35607 'i. 535802 Jt3rJ9o, ""'oy / I 55'l402 /a'- s'aoooia" "" -- '_ 5402.01
_ '- , I..a" !iS1fl
- Legend -8 ----"'i.- -'-- -- , ' 5515 at . " ,/ 5513 ' -;' 2' I !140202 , ,,a' "5.103 ._, ,_ 114
I Q 5 c-l ; I , 1, . _l, _
i 10 01 o 5 2 _ 115 5 I ___ _ 1 ---__- ' !O'l or _ - _ I ,,_, ( r ,. i X
_ , ..at ,/ %, r "'
_ - , l - 'I - ' - r
- T')4"i-lc':1 5il0203.' -- ' :'512111/ 7
'_1 , ,144-1 -yjl - 5-10501 _,(' / 1, , ,5a515 0?" """ o" a %"a ; t " / " J40 102 - a.-71q-', =7,-i,,-,-""'-,.2"-,"2o'-=__z- (I i, l: 's"j"""'i't"oX--'--i_,--_.5'41B01' -:-i,-;' %:"s_"asoa./a/ rl5lB S 3ource: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Displacement Risk
HCD defines sensitive communities as "communities [that] currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased development or drastic shifts in housing cost." The following characteristics define a vulnerable community:
* The share of very low-income residents is above 20 percent; and * The tract meets two of the following criteria:
Share of renters is above 40 percent,
Share of people of color is above 50 percent,
Share of very low-income households that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median,
The area or areas in close proximity have recently experienced displacement pressures (percent change in rent above County median for rent increases), or Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap).
Regional Trend
Figure D-41 shows sensitive communities at risk of displacement in the region. Vulnerable communities are most concentrated in the central County areas around the City of Los Angeles, Inglewood, South Gate, and Compton, East Los Angeles, and parts of the San Gabriel Valley and D-78 Housing Element
361
385
San Fernando Valley. There are fewer vulnerable communities in coastal areas and between Calabasas, Malibu, and Beverly Hills.
Local Trend
As shown in Figure D-42, the majority of tracts in South Gate are considered sensitive communities where the population is vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment or shifts in housing cost. There are only three tracts in the City that are not considered vulnerable communities. Vulnerable communities in South Gate are also TCAC- designated low and moderate resource areas (see Figure D-21). All sensitive communities also have racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 80% and LMI populations exceeding 50% (see Figure D-5 and Figure D-14).
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-79
362
386
Figure D-41 ' Regional Sensitive Communities At Risk of Displacement (202'l ) a, -1, L"- i. -' i 'l"i ": _ , , %"' ',,!Ill '( 'r I r ! i
iThrT, i .' . '. . llya,11111, ,ul,,L, 'N;'T<I ' "" 'al t -.i v l , ;IJ' 1111 -fl _ I I ., . I ' a ( , ' a - ':l , .,,, I ; - Ai:Lfk au( u 1.1, -' (l!II isl .411"-l__l-t,(,l, ffrr6ir _ . - i: . ," '-'l I.Tii'0l t-( , l"' ""-'-"l { - " i ':- l .""-" ' = Als 'l " :"aii it i_i_ i - - :a_%ml' . , ' a - " '-" i ' j Q. 'g '_ - _, :_ . - i . :,ia2 I.i r'{v t 'II i -- - ' - - .QillllJ'rk
XI;l'lDThcl'r . ,
j I _ , - I I
l-l .
l _- -- g' lil'lj 11;i ' I lye i
I - .
%i
_ _ _ _ jpl'iZ_ . _ !
i - , j i i _ 5 _ ' -l . _:{illl_i- -- 4 i - I
4J)1._1 .1 ' _-. - '
;,,f-=.-=-'=gl= ,.,, -
i - -- _ -l l..( l' r', _' a i =. !M_b
J!&L_..t
i- - - , , !'!lllJ__aba.llJ .-jut __.
, I,p(il_ _
' Illi.ll I(s I _
'T'Ti-a ' ). , . .
+I_ J la'l L__u , . ,_ _
IL___ i - - li.i_i-
- I
I ' - -rp++ii'iiri Il
i_ m J_ -' 4 - , I I!-Oi I i ' -
' -l ,_ , :"-_:_{"_1.7 i hJ(la
.uh h : i i& ll_nhula -l I
: fil i
_ j l_ I - _ L t I I a a
2 i i . i i i n n
- i i- i i i i - i ' - i i : i- i i- i i r . i - i - I le
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewet, UC Betkeley Urban Displacement Project 2021, 2[)21.
D-80 Housing Element
363
387
Figure D42: Sensitive Communities A( Risk oTDisplacement (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project 2021 2021.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-81
364
388
Homelessness
Regional Trend
The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) estimates there were 66,436 persons experiencing homelessness in the Los Angeles County, based on the 2020 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Point-in-Time (PIT) Count. Figure D-43 shows the Los Angeles County homeless populations from 2015 to 2020. Approximately 72% of the homeless population is unsheltered and 28% is sheltered. The homeless population has increased by nearly 50% since 2015, and
12.7% since 2019. According to Department of Finance (DOF) estimates, the entire Los Angeles County population grew by only O.5% between 2015 and 2020.
Figure D-43: Los Angeles County Homeless Popula(ion Trend (20'l5-2020) 6(i,436
55,048
52,765
58,936
44,359
46,874
48,041
,l 0 0 8 2
39139L'oi
l 4 2 l 4
31 112 E 34 701
13334
2 , 1 15
12.l7i 14 966 13,369 14,722
2 il l 1
18,395
Source: Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), 2015-2020 LA County/LA Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Counts.
Table D-28 shows the homeless populations in 2019 and 2020 by population type, gender, and health/disability. Approximately 19% of the homeless population belongs to a family with one or more child, 38.4% are chronically homeless, and 22.3% have a serious mental illness. Since 2019, the population of homeless family members (+45.7%), persons experiencing chronic homelessness (+54.2%), persons fleeing domestic violence (+40%), non-binary/gender non- conforming persons (+325.5%), and persons with a substance use disorder (+104%) have increased the most drastically. The population of transgender persons and persons with HIV/AIDS experiencing homelessness have decreased by 81.4 % and 4.7%, respectively.
D-82 Housing Element
365
389
Table D-28: Los Ange)es County Homeless Population Demographics (2(119-2020) Total
Individuals
Transitional Aged Youth
(18-24)
Unaccompanied Minors
(under 18)
Family Members"
Veterans
People Experiencing Chronic
Homelessness
Fleeing Domestic/Intimate
Partner Violence
Gender
Male
Female
Non-Binary/Gender Non-
Conforming
Transgender
Health and Disability"
Substance Use Disorder
HIV/AIDS
Serious Mental Illness
Percent of Total County
58,936
50,071
100.O%
85.0%
66,436
53,619
100.O%
80.7%
12.7%
7.1%
3,635 6.2% 4,278 6.4% 17.7%
66 0.1'/O 74 0.1'/o 12.1%
8,799
3,878
16,528
14.9%
6.6%
28.0%
12,817
3,902
25,490
19.3%
5.9%
38.4%
45.7%
0.6%
54.2'!'o
3 ffl 5.3% 4,356 6.6% 40.0%
39,348
18,331
200
1 057
66.8%
31.1%
44,259
21,129
851
197
66.6%
31.8%
12.5%
15.3%
325.5%
-81.4%
7,836
1,306
13,670
13.3%
2.2%
23.2%
15,983
1,245
14,790
24.1%
1.9%
22.3%
104.0%
-4.7%
8.2%
0.6% 0.7%Population
' Members of families with at least one child under 18. " Indicators are not mutually exclusive.
Source: Los Angeles County Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), 2019-2020 LA County/LA Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Counts.
The following data refers to the Los Angeles Continuum of Care (CoC) region, covering all Los Angeles County jurisdictions except for the cities of Long Beach, Pasadena, and Glendale. Special needs groups are considered elderly or disabled (including developmental disabilities), female- headed households, large families, farmworkers, and people experiencing homelessness.
Nearly 20% of the homeless population are members of families with one or more child under the age of 18, 9.9% are elderly persons aged 62 and older, 17% have a physical disability, and
8.3% have a developmental disability. Only 32% of homeless persons with a developmental disability, 17.3% with a physical disability, and 21.5% of homeless seniors are sheltered. However, most families (76.3%) are sheltered (Table D-29).
Table D-29: Homeless Populations and Special Needs Groups Developmental Disability 32.1%
Physical Disability 17.3%
Family Members 76.3%
Aged62+ 21.5%
Source: LAHSA, 2020 LA CoC Homeless Counts.
67.9%
82.7%
23.7%
78.5%
5,292
10,833
12,416
6,290
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-83
366
390
Figure D-44 shows the Los Angeles CoC homeless population by race and ethnicity. The Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, and White populations make up the largest proportions of the homeless population. The Black/African American population is the most overrepresented in the Los Angeles CoC region. Nearly 34% of homeless persons are Black or African American, compared to only 7.8% of the population countywide. The American Indian and Alaska Native population is also overrepresented, making up only O.2% of the County population, but 1.1% of the homeless population.
Figure D-44: Los Angeles County CoC Homeless Population by Race/Ethnicity At'iterican
1 lo-'o Asian I 2Q.)
Black/Africai'i
Amei ican, 33.8%.
M rilU- Rai-ial/Otlior
American Indian/Alaska Native 686 1.1%
Asian 774 12%
Black/AfricanAmerican 21,509 33.8%
Hispanic/Latino 23,005 36.1%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 205 0.3%
White 16,208 25.4%
Multi-Racial/Other 1,319 2.1%
Source: LAHSA, 2020 LA CoC Homeless Counts; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)
0.2o/o
14.4%
7.8%
48.5%
0.2%
26.2%
2.6%
D-84 Housing Element
367
391
Figure D-45 shows the distribution of homeless persons in the Los Angeles CoC region by age.
Adults aged 25 to 54 make up most of the homeless population, followed by adults aged 55 to 61, and children under 18. Children account for 11.8% of the homeless population and seniors (age 62+) account for 9.9% of the population; 6.6% of the homeless population is transitional aged youths between the ages of 18 and 24.
Figure D-45: Los Angeles CoC Homeless Population by Age
58.3"Xo
xgl s 55 i51
Underl8
18-24
25-54
55-61
62+
7,491
4,181
37,138
8,606
6,290
11.8%
6.6%
58.3%
13.5%
9.9%
22.0%
9.7%
43.2%
8.7%
16.4%
Source: LAHSA, 2020 LA CoC Homeless Counis; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates) Local Trend
Figure D-46 shows the homeless population trend in South Gate from 2016 to 2020. As of 2020, there are 399 persons experiencing homelessness in South Gate, all of which are unsheltered. Of the homeless persons in South Gate, 27.3% were on the street, 21% were in makeshift shelters,
17.9% were in RVs or campers, 15.3% were in vans, 14.9% were in cars, and 3.6% were in tents.
The population of persons experiencing homelessness in South Gate has increased from 108 South Gate General Plan 2035 D-85
368
392
persons in 2016, or nearly 270%. The population of persons experiencing homelessness is most concentrated in tracts in the northwestern corner of the City and on the eastern side of the City.
Figure D-46: South Gate Homelessness Trends (2020)
Search y Select 3 Ccnimurnty
S l') Ll ' h G 'j i e
399
Source: LAHSA 2020 Homeless County by Community/City - South Gate.
The Los Angeles County Coordinated Entry System (LA County CES) assesses individuals to match them with available housing resources and programs. From July to December 2020, 100 individuals in South Gate were assessed through CES, including five youths, 23 families, three veterans, and three persons aged 62 or older. South Gate is a part of Service Planning Area (SPA) 7, serving East Los Angeles communities including Artesia, Bell, Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Cerritos, City of Commerce, City Terrace, Cudahy, Downey, East Los Angeles, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, La Habra Heights, Lakewood, La Mirada, Los Nietos, Maywood, Montebello, Norwalk, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, Signal Hill, South Gate, Vernon, Walnut Park, Whittier, and others. South Gate and SPA 7 CES assessments and services are presented in Table D-30.
D-86 Housing Element
369
393
Table D-30: Cumulative CES Statistics (July 2020 - December 2020) CES Assessment
Total Persons
Individuals
Youth
Families
Veterans
Persons Aged 62+
Types of Services Provided
100
72 5
23 3
3 2,458
1508
161
819
178
173
InterimHousing 20 722 3%
RapidRe-Housing 18 934 2%
StreetOutreach(Contacts) 35 433 8%
StreetOutreach(Engagements) 24 266 9%
Other(Non-Permanent) 14 438 3%
PlacedintoPermanentHousing" 4 427 1%
" Includes persons that have moved into permanent housing during the reporting period (through either rapid re- housing, permanent supportive housing, ot other permanent destinations).
Note: For households with more than one person (including families), the assessment of the head of household is applied to all members.
Source: LAHSA Homelessness Statistics by City (July 1, 2020 - December 31, 2020), March 2021.
Sites Inventory
The City's sites strategy to meet the 2021-2029 RHNA is comprised of the following:
* Gateway District Specific Plan (GDSP)
* Hollydale Village Specific Plan
* Tweedy Boulevard Specific Plan
* Non-specific plan sites
* City-owned sites
The City's sites inventory by tract and AFFH variable is presented in Table D-31. Sites used to meet South Gates RHNA are distributed throughout the City and are located in all but one tract (tract 5402.01, small tract located in the southwestern corner of the City. The Gateway District Specific Plan is located in tract 5361.04 on the eastern side of the City, generally bound by Patata Street to the north, Atlantic Avenue to the west, and Imperial Highway to the south. The Hollydale Specific Plan is located in tract 5362 in the southeast corner of the City, generally bound by Gardendale Street and Imperial Highway to the north, Century Boulevard to the south, and Ruther Avenue to the east. Tweedy Specific Plan sites, non-Specific Plan sites, and City-owned sites are distributed throughout multiple South Gate tracts. The sites inventory by site type and AFFH variables are discussed further below.
era , e s R NA sites @e we iski rou out e . owar e easQide o e City has the gre#st residential ntial 'iqti two specific plan areas. In the northeast of th is the Gatewa District S ific Plan and southeast is the Hol dale Vill e S cific Plan. Th South Gate General Plan 2035 D-87
370
394
iri(O) rrim+s4ria-lmzi_ IPmlmc+l ffikpffl +5:>+ +H!o ri+si ic rniiriiiiuyjya H&kg:imiafkharc Jkk'r Ft-iz:iir roiiezaj 41- Jffl 1-lJ4gL( 14-l l- %- -gg0 - @ - Q L l- %- I L 7 I J l 141-1%!j Iljl 15 l)' l LI I C II It- Ll -) Q lclu4% pEP)Jgl(,3$'@d4yiss4mt G@$ l@@ie ane 47eslining ceidlfflusine4Hej ffiidie HvllmfikJe VjllsSuimfin Plan aat mav reauim renNgffiltion. ta&(JJhuhamnimi7,:i ,J P - ' - "-" IW - " 'W---04-g " - " -a- - " '-/ ' - 'al - a a - ' - a '&aPW - a - a ' a -4 -j7' a W -- T'a II!60 i- =- J )Hrml'rty[tl$Jnekbjecti*@f g's,i.!@@:for$!l houffin@44 areaNhe @y 7s imentifieafmi4 L-_,m:-_ Lx_.*x&nal ___------ va-....-..__ -____i_ -._____. z____..__...____._.__i -i- ___-_._._ _ JJ Izi ;.=';':.",=.;::H : ;;T;.,S :. ;llT:SSZ :':.. :;"'::',:t, ,-o@rd fhe 6stsmie 4the Ci@ is@t Tweedy burd S'peci@ ffbn a4wiere the ii )ls4riencirlg, ra ogBonresidytilparcels into 4tial ums. The EPA gr%lt alsJ )BiHitize4 tlis are.Bfor §ieSSment. Cionnecting sites in lieW tmt%fiC plan area@ ar! 'mwirir+immocjtlms(' i+id-c iiarjrinc +r:=ia.cririr+>+iriri rrsw;Arbacl 'fffl"" "WI'-" WNWW' " '-" Fl- 'Pffl" " -' " "I@I'H" ' " " " ' ""a "" 'Ul-"i D 88 Hous ng E ement
371
395
Table D-31 ' Sites Inventory by Tract a:m AFFH Vanaole Gateway District SpeciTic Plan
5381.04 1032 1533 606
Hollydale Specific Plan
5362 1945 737 153
Tweedy Specific Plan
5356.05 1122 24 0
5356.06 451 53 0
5356.07 1090 16 0
5358.02 16D 189 120
5358.03 1121 87 31
5358.04 1346 78 0
5359.Oi 1448 101 24
5359.02 1578 117 18
5361.03 1481 4 0
5361.04 1032 107 80
Outside Specific Plan Areas
5355.01 1017 472 320
5355.02 1246 58 26
312 615 94.70% 89.20% Low 37.90% 58.60% 31.90% Yes
341 243 8919o/'94.5% 50.Oo/o- Moderate 39.70% 59.40%77.3% 19 40% Yes 49 o
tg
10 7
TO
50 4
8 98.50o"o
99.00%
98.4%-
99.0%
98.20%
97.40%
98 50%
97.0%-
98.1%
95.2%-
97.4%
96.00%
94.7%-
97.7%
98.2o/o'
95.0%
98.50%
535503 643 322 161 0 161 98.80%
5356.03 1019 386 172 0
5356.04 1020 24 24 0
5356.05 1122 109 0 18
214
o
91 97.9%-
99.0%
98 80%
98.4'/o-
98.5%
69.10'!/o Modeiate Eil.40%
85 30% Low 52.70%
44.Oo/o- Moderate 57.70%78.6%
68'7o/o- Moderate 51 10%84.1%
85.90% Moderate 43.20%
70.20% Moderate 60.10%
37""/o- Low 51.50%85.2%
35'lo/o- Moderate 47.30%82.8%
44 60% Low 35 90%
74'6"/' Low 37.90%89.2%
75'3'o- LOW 38.4%83.8%
60 70% LOW 39.90')'0
Moderate
84.10% (Rap. 57.80%
Changing)
68'5o/o- Low 54.20%69.8%
78.70% Low 55.30%
69"o/o' Moderate 57.40%86.7%
50 30')'0 35.80%
55.20% 38.10%
71.30% 26.30%
51.50%
55.40%
7150%
58.40%
26.80'/o
22 80'/o
35.10%
27.00%
52.40% 24.50"/,
61.80% 25.60%
58.60% 31 90%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
66.00% 28.00%
55.90% 38.10%
73.30% 27.60')'o Yes
71 .40% 39 40%
52.40% 30.00%
50.30% 35.60%
Yes
Yes
Yes
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-89
372
396
535607 1090 16 0 0 16
5357,01 1420 130 21 0 109
5357.02 1439 617 197
5358.02 1609 15 0
5358.03 1121 40 0
5358.04 1346 14 0
5360 1008 693 160
5361 02 1038 533 391
5361.03 1481 118 45
5361.04 1032 1454 472
5362 1945 i=+g 31
420
15 40
14 453
142
73 772
118
98.5%-
99 0%
98.2%-
99.OVo
97.6%'
98.5%
97 70%
97.40%
98.50'/a
97.8%-
98.4%
729%'
92.8%
96.00%
94.7%-
97.7%
89.90%
63'5o/o- Moderate 57.70')'(1
71.8%
64'8a/' Moderate 34.60%64.9%
64'8o/o- Moderate 60.80%86.5%
84.40% Moderate 51.10%
85.90')'o Moderate 43.20%
70.20% Moderate 60.10'/a
6a 8o/o- Law 43.10%73.9%
47'2o/o' Low 61.60%64.5%
44.60')'o Low 35.90%
74'6"/' Low 37.90'/a89.2%
55.30% Moderate 39.70')'a
71.30% 26.30% Yes
55.50% 26 30% Yes
54.80%
5150%
55.40%
71.50%
5020%
55.40'/o
6180')'a
58.60%
59.40%
20.80%
26.80%
22.80%
35.10%
27.20%
6.90%
25.60%
31 90%
19.40%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
D-90 Housing Element
373
397
Gatewciy Dis-trict Specific Plan (GDSP)
The City is in the process of preparing the Gateway District Specific Plan (GDSP). The proposed GDSP was developed in preparation for the future Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station and to implement the Transit Village vision for the area, as established by the General Plan. The GDSP is generally located in the northeastern corner of the City and is approximately 59 acres, bound by Atlantic Avenue to the west, Patata Street to the north, and Firestone Boulevard to the south.
The GDSP is located in a tract with a small population of persons with disabilities, children in female-headed households, cost burdened renters, and cost burdened owners. Like much of the City, this area is comprised of block groups with non-White populations exceeding 81%. As shown in Table D-31, above, the GDSP is in a block group where 94.7% of the population belongs to a racial/et5nic minority group. Tract 5361.04, where the GDSP is located, is considered a low resource tract, where 89.2% of households are low or moderate income and 31.9% of households are overcrowded. Though the City's RHNA strategy concentrates units in this area, the GDSP aims to encourage transit-oriented development near existing transit and the future LRT Station, improve quality of life through open space and public realm improvements, and provide healthy community development strategies, expanded residential and non-residential opportunities, and potential jobs. The proposed GDSP will ensure RHNA units located in the Plan area have ample access to a variety of opportunities and resources. Further, a majority of RHNA sites in the GDSP are mixed-income sites and do not concentrate a single-income category in the Plan area, encouraging mixed-income communities and a variety of housing opportunities.
Hollydcile Village Specific Pjan
The Hollydale Village Specific Plan was adopted in 2017. The Hollydale area is located in the southeastern corner of the City, separated by the 1-710 freeway and Los Angeles River. As presented below, Hollydale is composed of moderate resource tracts with high concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities, LMI households, and overcrowded households. The Hollydale area also has moderate concentrations of persons with disabilities and children in female-headed households.
The Specific Plan aims to facilitate residential and mixed-use retail development adjacent to the Gardendale Eco-Rapid Transit Station. The Eco-Rapid Transit line is scheduled to be built by 2027 and includes two stations in the vicinity of Hollydale. The Hollydale SP is located in tract 5362 and is considered a moderate resource area with racial/ethnic minority populations ranging from
89.9% to 94.5% and LMI populations ranging from 50.0% to 94.5%. Overcrowding is less prevalent in this tract compared to other areas of the City, however 19.4% of households still experience overcrowding. Approximately 59% of renters are also cost burdened in this tract. Though RHNA sites in the Hollydale Specific Plan are concentrated in areas with some special needs groups and disproportionate housing needs, the Plan intends to revitalize the Holydale community through improved transportation and additional housing and neighborhood-serving retail opportunities.
The Hollydale SP allocates units to a variety of income-levels, including 153 lower income units, 341 moderate income units, and 243 above moderate income units. The array of housing types South Gate General Plan 2035 D-91
374
398
will promote a mixed-income community and serve households of diverse income-levels and housing needs.
Tweedy Boujevard Specific Plan
The Tweedy Boulevard Specific Plan was finalized in March 2019. The Plan area is approximately 622 acres and is located along southern South Gate along Tweedy Boulevard. RHNA units in the Plan area are all located in block groups with non-White populations ranging from 94.7% to 99%, consistent with the Citywide trend where most of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group. The Tweedy SP is located throughout ten tracts, six of which are moderate resource areas and four of which are low resource areas. As discussed previously, South Gate is comprised of only moderate and low resource tracts. Tracts 5328.02 (189 lower income units) and 5361.04 (80 lower income units) have the largest allocation of lower income RHNA units.
Tract 5328.02 is a moderate resource tract and 5361.04 is a low resource tract. More than 50% of renters in both tracts are cost burdened and more than 26% of households in both tracts are overcrowded. Both tracts are comprised of block groups that are considered LMI areas where more than 50% of households are low or moderate income. Lowerincome units allocated in these tracts can serve existing LMI and cost burdened populations. Further, 38 moderate income units and 58 above moderate income units are allocated in these tracts ensuring a variety of housing opportunities are available.
In addition to facilitating new residential development and expanded housing choice in the Plan area, the Tweedy Boulevard Specific Plan aims to improve transportation, access to regional open space resource, and pedestrian-oriented retail. RHNA units located in the Plan area are not exposed to adverse fair housing conditions compared to the remainder of the City. Further, through the City's revitalization efforts, the Tweedy Boulevard Specific Plan will expand housing choice, increase economic and transportation opportunities, and bolster resources in the area.
Non-Specific Plan Sites
In general, the remainder of the City's sites inventory is reflective of the trends and patterns Citywide. Consisten with the trend Citywide, non-Specific Plan sites are located in either low or moderate resource tracts with higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minority groups, LMI households, and overcrowded households. Non-Specific Plan sites are distributed throughout 17 tracts, ensuring housing opportunities are available throughout South Gate. Of the 17 tracts, 9 are moderate resource areas and 8 are low resource areas. The City has allocated 5,150 units towards the RHNA using non-Specific Plan sites, including 2,020 lower income units, 340 moderate income units, and 2,790 above moderate income units. The variety and distribution of housing units allocated will promote mixed-income communities and encourage a variety of housing opportunities for existing and future residents.
As shown in the sites inventory maps presented previously, all sites are generally evenly distributed throughout the City and reflect the characteristics of South Gate as a whole. Larger non-Specific Plan sites are categorized as mixed-income sites (30% lower income, 20% moderate income, and 50% above moderate income) and do not concentrate a single income-level in one D-92 Housing Element
375
399
area of the City. The non-Specific Plan sites selected to meet the RHNA will no exacerbate exiting fair housing conditions and will promote an even distribution of housing opportunities throughout the City.
i'::acs>ya,t,>,%: %c ,'i'tH:e ;s 5is,r Q' d i;.:o;- t, r :,a'zp;i%%4m' .i;%;%',xsat!chi-s :$O :3u@iprmht i'st*m WVe iai'hr)eral
jrhaensCpo'yrta'tsionalspool:ncy'ahnedpdrOeCseigSns a0pfpdroeaVc'ehopthnagt rceOqmuipreles'estrSe'eetse'sto cb0emppllaenIened,Sfredee'sSignsed' }perated and maintained to enable safe, convenient and comfortable travel and access for users if all ages and abilities regardless of their mode of transportation. As a City that relies on it= ictive industrial uses for employment, Complete Streets system is important to facilitate the safc ind efficient transition between residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The Compl@J< itreets projects currently in the City's Capital Irrlp(gyqlllq(ll Plan arel gather elf" pro1ects that support redevelopment includel Tweedy Boulevard Syn ronizatio
Long Beach Boulevard Street Improv m
Firestone Boulevard Improvemen
Hol d I Ar rovemen
Identification and Prioritization of Contributing
Factors
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
There has been no fair housing testing conducted in South Gate over the past four fiscal years. In 2020, 130 discrimination cases were opened in Los Angeles County, mostly on the basis of disability (66%) and race (21%). HUD reported 26 fair housing inquires in Gardena between 2013 and 2021. Since August 2010, 12 complaints were filed through HUD"s FHEO; over ttie past four fiscal years, 48 fair housinginquiries/allegations were filed through FHFin South Gate41lmiFY 20211 1{022, the rHr served 381 residents, 97% of which were White. T6 may !:luj5'pr:a4cj(h/L'aotWinaordcsomramcau'n/eitly'lnFcurmth'enr,OrtIhvegCr0ituyplsacsksnae:edqeudat:"fSa0iru"hhou'sain'ge osutreach PROGRAMS ,ncluding community worksiiops, surveys, and dissemination of fair housing information.
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-93
376
400
Contributing Factors 8.
* Lack of monitoring
* Lack of outreach towards special needs groups
* Lack of fair housing testing
Concentration of Special Needs Groups
The entire City has is highly concentrated with LMI households and racial/ethnic minority populations. There are also some areas in the City with higher concentrations of persons with disabilities and children in female-headed households. Many of these tracts were also identified as low resource areas or as sensitive communities at risk of displacement. While these patterns reflect patterns Citywide, tracts in the central western areas of the City tend to have the most overlapping fair housing issues including concentrations of non-White residents, cost burdened households, overcrowded households, and sensitive communities at-risk of displacement.
Contributing Factors §
* Lack of private investment
* Location and type of affordable housing
* Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure Substandard Housing Conditions
South Gate has an aging housing stock. In the City, 76% of housing units were built prior to 1970.
In comparison, only 60.5% of the housing stock countywide was built in 1969 or earlier. In general, aging housing units are more concentrated on the western side of the City. South Gate also has a higher concentration of owner-occupied households lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities compared to the County. Tracts with higher concentrations of aging housing units also tend to have larger populations of cost burdened and overcrowded households. Areas west of Long Beach boulevard also have worse environmental conditions and all of southern South Gate has less access to parks to parks and open space. However, these fair housing issues are present Citywide.
Contributing Factors
* Age of housing stock
* Cost of repairs of rehabilitation
D-94 Housing Element
377
401
Displacement Risk of Low Income Residents Due to Economic Pressures
Most of the City is considered a sensitive community at-risk of displacement. Sensitive communities at risk of displacement are generally more concentrated on the western side of the City. More than 60% of owners and renters overpay for housing in more sensitive tracts. These areas also have high concentrations of racial/ethnic minority populations and LMI households.
The homeless population has increased from 108 individuals in 2016 to 399 individuals in 2020.
Contributing Factors
* Unaffordable rents
* Concentration of poverty in some tracts
* Availability of affordable housing
* Increasing population of homeless individuals
211 areas of the City are categorized as 'iFCAC rrioderate-or low resource tracts. While there is no' lsingle area of the City with a concentration of low resou:rce tracts, Souith Gate as a whole iy tharacterized by large racial/ethnic romiRy anm!i Lffil household populations. ThereforeI >ducational, economic, and environr@,ental oipiportuiriities $ less accessible to these populatio@4 aesiding in South Gate. Though there are l';llg R/ECAils s TCAC areas of t'igh segregation anl roverty in the City, most tracts are considered so@sitive communities at risk of displacement. Due :o the demographic composition of Sput7Gaa;, racial7!:ethnic minority populatipns Qnd LI rouseholds may gxp@(jt,11q@ displacement or hae redut4@d Jl€CeSS tQ gpp<;il"$unitiesi The availability, type, freq.uycy, and reli -o -pu ffi 5 Lack Wf private investmerqits in specificil0eiig9e;irai Private discriminatiorf
South Gate General Plan 2035 D-95
378
402
ATT ACHMENT C
SOUTH GATE PRESS
3731 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 840, LOS ANGELES, CA 90015
Telephone (323) 666-5720 / Fex (213) 834-0584
Tilts 9paC$ LOT rillnti rtamp oiily
Office of the
South Gate Clty Clerk
JAN I 8 2024
FILED
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
CITY OF SOUTH GATE /CITY CLERK
8650 CALIFORNIA AVE
SOUTH GATE, CA-90280
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 c.c.p.)
State of Callfomla
County of LOS ANGELES
NOtlCeT)71)e: HRG-NOTICEOFHEARING
Ad Description:
Final nraft 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) General Plan Housing Element Llpdate
I am a d(lzen of the llnited States and a resident of the State of Calirornia; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or irderested in the above entitled matter. I am the ptlnclpal cletk of the ptinter and publisher of the SOUTH GATE PRESS, a newspaper published In the English language in the dty of SOLITH GATE, county of LO8 ANGELES, and adjudged a newspaper of gsneral clrculation ss defined by ths laws of the State of Califomia by the Superlor Court of the County of LOS ANGELES, State of Califomia, underdate 04/19/'19z9, Case No. 273415. Thatthe notice, afwhlch the annexsd is a printed copy, has been published In each regu!ar and entlre issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement (hereof on the following dates, to-me:
PRE#: 3771935
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR1X3
CITY COUNCIL
of the Clly o( South Gale mll hold a Public
Callfornla or Members of the public wlshlng lo
obsem the meeting may loln !hmugh a Call-InConterence. For khe uodaled Oal-In xumber and Canmnce Cods toi this Jantiaty 23, 2024. City
Councll meuciQ please Vigil lh& Cl.'s WshsRs at
www.dlyoTsoutngale.orgtAgendsCenterreaaidlno the followlno Ilems:
s;-o"p 6n :- ":-"Are a:-' :ool-#2:'dH'ou:::
(A) Sedlon 15061ib%3), whicl3 proyldei lhal
envlnonment
Pursuant lo Government Code Secllon ei5009. It
you challenge tne I(ems llsled above In i.ouil, you
may be llmllad lo ialslng on§ l+xise Issues you or
someone else ralsad at Ihg public heartn
datctlbsd In lhls nolka. or In wd})en
correspondence dellizred to Uie Plannlng
Commlsslon at or pilot lo the publlc hearing.Phone: S23.563.9b26 E-mall; Yallnl Sliia. 8enor Planner
[email protected]'OatBdi
Inroimacldn eF espa!ld acetca de esla luntapueda ser obtenlda Ilarnando al 323-5eis-%29.SPl'lr24 PRE-377193S#
80uTH GATE PRE88
01/i 1/2024
[@BcuRed ol'i: 0j/j2/2024
At Los Angeles, California
I certify (or declare) under penalty or perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signature
IIJII))lllllillThlnllllllllllillllllllllll)
Email
379
403
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA
sou!eeoAA'!m
jAN 0 4 202J#
FILED
NOTICE IS HEREBY GtVEN that the City Council of the City of South Gate will hold a Pubiic Hearing at 6:30 PM onTuesday, January 23, 2024, in the Council Chamber at South Gate City Hail, 8650 California Avenue, South Gate,California or Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may join through a Call-in Conference. Forthe updated Dial*ln Number and Conference COde for the January 23, 2024, City CounCil meeting please ViSit theCity's website at ww.cityofsouthzate.orH/AgendaCenter rezarding the following items:
Final Draft 2021-2029 (6'h Cyclel General Plan housing Element Update: To consider the adoption of theFinal Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, as required by State Law (Government Code Section 65580- 65590 et. seqJ and approving environmental c(earance pursuantto California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3), which provides that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential forcausing a significant effect on the environment.
Pursuant tO Government COde SeCtiOn 65009, ityOu challenge the ITEMS liSted abOVe in Court, 7ou ma'y be )imitedto raising only those isSueS you or someone e!se raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in writtencorrespondence delivered to the Planning Commission at or prior to the public hearing.
Phone:
E-mail:
323.563.9526
Yalini Siva, Senior Planner
[email protected]
Posted: January 11, 2024
South Gate City Hall
lnformaci6n en espaFiol acerca de esta Junta puede ser obtenida Ilamando al 323-563-9529. 380
404
Item No. 3
€ffYMANAOER'S OFFICE
J",',,,7202% Ciffl of South Gate
CITY COUNCIL
ACENJDA BI[LL
Department Director:
For the Regular Meeting of: January 23, 2024
ent: Public Works
Ciffl Manager:
Rob ousto
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION DECLARING A CONTINUED EMERGENCY AND
AUTHORIZING REPAIR, REPLACEMENT OR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC FACILITIES RELATED TO THE URBAN ORCHARD, CITY PROJECT NO. 539-PRK WITHOUT PUBLIC BIDDING, PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY
CONTRACTING PROCEDURES OF THE SOUTH GATE MTJNICIPAL CODE AND
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE
PURPOSE: To declare an emergency still exists and to authorize the repair, replacement or maintenance activities of public facilities related to the Urban Orchard Project without public bidding. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Solid Waste Division ("County") issued a Corrective Action Order requiring construction to stop on the project. The declaration of emergency is necessary to streamline the process to procure a replacement contractor to provide maintenance activities to preserve the site in a safe condition until the County authorizes construction work on the project to resume.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The City Council will consider making a finding and adopting a Resolution declaring an emergency still exists and authorizing repair, replacement or maintenance activities of public facilities related to the Urban Orchard, City Project No. 539- PRK, without public bidding, pursuant to the emergency contracting procedures of the South Gate Municipal Code and the California Public Contract Code.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact to the General Fund. The Urban Orchard Project ("Project") has received a total of $30.5 million in grant and other funds for design, construction, operations, and maintenance, as summarized below, inclusive of a $5,000,000 grant from Caltrans,
ANALYSIS: The Project was under construction and approximately 80% of construction work has been completed. On December 29, 2022, the City received a Corrective Action Order ("Order") from the County. The Order required the City to stop all construction activities until such a time as a Post Closure Land Use Plan ("PCLUP") for the Project site was approved by the County. Given the PCLUP approval process and input received to date, it will take at least several months, possibly six or more, to obtain approval.
To avoid the significant delay damages that would be payable by the City to the general contractor during a prolonged suspension of the project pending approval of the PCLUP, the City 1 405
Council terminated the general contractor's agreement at a Special City Council meeting on February 6, 2023. Such termination provided both immediate and long-term cost savings to the City but also created an immediate need for the City to retain an interim contractor to perform certain ongoing maintenance and safety activities; a need which must be met sooner than the time necessary to engage in normal public bidding procedures The proposed Resolution declares a continued emergency exists pursuant to the authority granted by South Gate Municipal Code § 1.54.470 and California Public Contract Code § 22050. Those Code Sections allow cities, by resolution, to approve the City's entry into contracts without engaging in public bidding where certain emergency conditions are found to have occurred. Staff continues to believe that the County's Order directing all construction work to be ceased on the Project, constitutes such an emergency due to the public's safety with an unfinished construction site and the need to respond accordingly to additional directives given by the County related to ensuring public safety. Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Resolution so that the City can avail itself of the accelerated contracting procedures authorized by those Code Sections. The Resolution, (1) declares an emergency, (2) authorizes the City Manager to take such actions deemed necessary to cause the maintenance activities to be performed and to procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies all without giving notice for bids for contracts, (3) requires that at each regularly scheduled City Council Meeting, the City Manager present to the Council the reasons justi:tying why the emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, why that action is necessary to respond to the emergency, and that the City Council review the emergency action to determine, by a four-fifth's vote, that there is a need to continue the emergency action until the emergency action is terminated.
The City is working diligently to secure the PCLUP approval. The process has been initiated with the submittal of technical documents such as the Workplan for interim measures and a Summary of Site Investigation, and the City continues to address the requirements imposed by the County.
Since the original Resolution declaring an emergency was approved by the City Council on February 6, 2023, the following contracts, expenditures, and milestones have been undertaken:
1. NR Development Inc., was informed that Contract No. 2021-66-CC was terminated by the City Council effective February 13, 2023, except for maintenance activities. Staff met with NR Development Inc., to discuss the steps to close out construction activities and continue maintenance activities. As of February 16, 2023, NR Development Inc., is no longer providing any project services or maintenance activities.
2. City forces provided maintenance services on the site. The site was secured with perimeter fencing and security contract services.
3. Coordination with the Trust for Public Land ("TPL") to complete the process to prepare the technical documents necessary to secure a replacement contractor was completed. Preliminarily selected a recommended interim contractor; conducted a field review; and received a fee proposal for the interim maintenance and construction activities approved by the Local Enforcement Agency ("LEA"). Received a proposal from the contractor and have begun negotiations.
2 406
4. Submitted to the LEA the Summary of Investigations Report, Workplan of Interim Control Measures ("WICM"), Supplemental WICM and Phase II Workplan. Received approval of the WICM and conditional approval of the Phase II Workplan. Submitted a revised WICM as requested by the LEA. Submitted the revised Phase II Workplan on April 18, 2023. On May 9, 2023, the LEA approved the Revised WICM for which the safety measures were implemented by May 12, 2023.
5. Approved a funding increase for TPL in the amount of $50,000. On January 24, 2023, the City Council approved a $250,000 budget for Amendment No. 6 to Contract No. 3352 with TPL, however, Amendment No. 6 had a budget requirement of $300,000. A budget increase of $50,000 was administratively approved to align the amount of the budget authority with the $300,000 budget requirement for Amendment No. 6, which provides 'tunding for the technical services required to comply with requirements from the LEA.
6. A bid was received from LA Engineering to complete the construction of maintenance activities in the WICM approved by the LEA for the Urban Orchard Project. A construction contract in the amount of $2,919,248 was executed administratively under the authority granted by the subject resolution.
7. Construction work began on the scope of work approved in the WICM. Progress to date includes completing backfill of overflow structure at the south wetland, completing the north wetland slope stabilization, backfill of the reservoir, construction of the easement road, and boarding up the education and maintenance buildings.
Construction is substantially complete for the work adjacent to the Bandini Channel.
Pending work includes completion of the electrical distribution system, and the installation of the security cameras. Due to procurement delays, construction of the WICM is scheduled to be completed in mid-February 2024.
8. Methane gas monitoring began as of June 2023 and was completed in December 2023.
There are 16 probes throughout the 7-acre site. One probe has detected low traces of methane; however, the amount is below regulatory requirements. A preliminary meeting was held with the LEA to review the results and discuss next steps. The City's consultant has submitted a final report. Comments are expected between 30-60 days.
BACKGROUND: The Project is a part of the FY 2022/23 Capital Improvement Program. The Project is located between the Los Angeles River, Firestone Boulevard, the Thunderbird Villa Mobile Home Park, and the I-710 Freeway. Two primary purposes of the Project are to divert and treat storm water run-off from the Los Angeles River and provide recreation opportunities to South Gate residents.
The Project is being constructed on a property that was used as an unpermitted landfill until 1949 by an entity la'iown as Southeastern Disposal and By-Products. The property site is identified in CalRecycle's Solid Waste Information System ("SWIS") as an Unpermitted Closed Solid Waste Disposal Site and SWIS No. 19-AA-5545. In 1984, the State of California Department of Health Services, Toxic Substances Control Division concluded that the clean-up work completed effectively mitigated waste constituents to proceed with the Lewis Homes residential development project. The requirements of the PCLUP came into effect in 1988. As such, the 3 407
project site is subject to State solid waste regulations that require the PCLUP before any change to the current land use, construction, or land preparation can occur.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Solid Waste Management Program, acts as the LEA for the State of California's Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery ("CalRecycle"). The County is authorized by Division 30 of the Public Resources Code ("PRC"), Section 43209 and 45000, Title 14 and 27 of the California Code of Regulations (14 CCR & 27 CCR), to enforce applicable solid waste regulations and to ensure solid waste sites meet the state minimum standards within the County of Los Angeles. As such, the City is working with the LEA to obtain approval of the PCLUP.
Construction is currently at the 80% completion stage. Improvements that have been substantially completed include, but are not limited to, rough grading, drop inlet for storm water diversion structures in the Bandini Channel, a wetland overlook area, the stream adjacent to the education/flexible space building and wetland, south bio swale, construction of 18 raised planters, planting of 75 trees, installation of the prefabricated education center and the restroorn/maintenance building, two shade structures, a water element at the playground, installation of multi-use walking and bicycle pathways, exercise equipment located at various stages along the walking and bicycle paths, benches, picnic tables, drinking fountains, trash cans, and pathway lighting. The total estimated cost of improvements completed to date is over $12 million.
The Project has received the listed grants. The process has begun to enter into an agreement with Caltrans to receive an additional $5 million for a grand total of $30.5 million.
Grants Amount Grant Recipient
State Water Resource Control Board (Prop l) $7,975,100 City
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) $3,000,000 Los Angeles County Flood Control District $530,000 Safe Clean Water- Municipal Funds $1,435,401
Safe Clean Water- Regional Funds $5,438,000
State Parks- Prop. 68 Grant $1,919,847
Conservation Corp of Long Beach $713,015
Caltrans $5,000,000
Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Funds $4,404,798 TPL Private Donations $90,000
Total $30,506,161
ATTACHMENT: Proposed Resolution
GD:lc
4 408
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY OF SOUTH GATE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
GATE, ST ATE OF CAI,IFORNIA, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY STILL
EXISTS AND AUTHORIZING REPAIR, REPLACEMENT OR
MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC FACILITIES RELATED TO
THE URBAN ORCHARD PROJECT WITHOUT PUBLIC BIDDING,
PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY CONTRACTING PROCEDURES OF
THE SOUTH GATE MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE
WHEREAS, at the Special City Council meeting on February 6, 2023, the City Council for the City of South Gate ("City") considered and passed a Resolution declaring an emergency and authorized the repair, replacement or maintenance activities of public facilities related to the Urban Orchard Project ("Project") pursuant to the emergency contracting procedures of the South Gate Municipal Code and the California Public Contract Code; WHEREAS, construction activities at the Project site began on August 2, 2021, and have reached the eighty percent completion stage, but the Project will require several more months of work before it is complete;
WHEREAS, the City has received notice from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Solid Waste Management Program ("County"), demanding that the City immediately cease all construction work on the Project until such time that a Post Closure Land Use Plan ("PCLUP") is submitted to the County for approval before any change to the current land use, construction, or land preparation can occur to comply with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 27 (27 CCR), Section 21190 (the "Cease and Desist and Corrective Action Order");
WHEREAS, the City has terminated its construction agreement withthe contractor, except for the requirement for the contractor to perform certain maintenance activities; WHEREAS, although no construction activities will occur at the Project site until the County issues its PCLUP, it will be necessary in the interim for certain minimal maintenance activities to be performed at the site for the protection of the existing improvements and/or for public safety (collectively, the "Maintenance Activities"); WHEREAS, at a special meeting of the South Gate City Council ("Council") held on Monday, February 6, 2023, the Council received information provided by the City's Public Works Department establishing that the City does not have sufficient manpower to perform the Maintenance Activities with its own forces, and that the immediate need for the performance of the Maintenance Activities does not permit a delay that would result from a competitive solicitation for bids; and
Page l of 3
409
WHEREAS, the City is working diligently to secure the PCLUP approval. The process has been initiated with the submittal of technical documents such as the Workplan for interim measures and a Summary of Site Investigation, and the City continues to address the requirements imposed by the County.
NOW, THEREFOR, BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH ABOVE, THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. The County's issuance of the Cease and Desist and Corrective Action Order at the current stage of the Project work, coupled with the immediate and ongoing need to perform the Maintenance Activities, has created an emergency for the City with respect to the Project; and
2. The emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids to perform the Maintenance Activities; and
3. The actions to be taken pursuant to the Resolutions set forth below continue to be necessary to respond to the emergency; and
4. The City is working diligently to secure the PCLUP approval. The process has been initiated withthe submittal of technical documents such as the Workplan for interim measures and a Summary of Site Investigation, and the City continues to address the requirements imposed by the County.
NOW, THEREFOR, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby declare that the above recitals and findings are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2: Pursuant to the authority granted by South Gate Municipal Code § 1.54.470 and California Public Contract Code § 22050, the Council hereby authorizes and directs the City's City Manager and his designees to take such actions as the City Manager deems necessary to cause the Maintenance Activities to be performed, and to procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies therefore, all without giving notice for bids to let contracts, and without regard to the dollar amounts of the contracts for such activities, equipment, services and supplies.
SECTION 3: At each regularly scheduled meeting of the Council after the date of the original Resolution, dated February 6, 2023, until further notice from the Council, the City Manager has and shall continue to present to the Council the reasons justifying the emergency, that the emergency declaration will reduce delays and associated costs that would otherwise result from the competitive solicitation for bids and why that action is necessary to respond to the emergency.
SECTION 4. At each such regularly scheduled meeting until the emergency action is terminated, the Council shall review the emergency action to determine, by a four-fi'tth's vote, that there is a need to continue the emergency action.