Important Note:The metadata description below mentions the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (or RHNA). Part of meeting RHNA Eligibility is satisfying a list of criteria set by the State of California that needs to be met in order to qualify. This dataset contains both RHNA Eligible and non-RHNA Eligible sites. Non-RHNA Eligible sites are those that didn't quite meet the eligibility criteria set by the state, but will be still eligible for Rezoning per Department of Regional Planning guidelines, and thus represents a full picture of ALL sites that are eligible for Rezoning. The official Housing Element Rezoning layer that was certified by the State of California is located here, but it should be noted that this layer only contains sites that are RHNA Eligible.IntroductionThis metadata is broken up into different sections that provide both a high-level summary of the Housing Element and more detailed information about the data itself with links to other resources. The following is an excerpt from the Executive Summary from the Housing Element 2021 – 2029 document:The County of Los Angeles is required to ensure the availability of residential sites, at adequate densities and appropriate development standards, in the unincorporated Los Angeles County to accommodate its share of the regional housing need--also known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Unincorporated Los Angeles County has been assigned a RHNA of 90,052 units for the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period, which is subdivided by level of affordability as follows:Extremely Low / Very Low (<50% AMI) - 25,648Lower (50 - 80% AMI) - 13,691Moderate (80 - 120% AMI) - 14,180Above Moderate (>120% AMI) - 36,533Total - 90,052NOTES - Pursuant to State law, the projected need of extremely low income households can be estimated at 50% of the very low income RHNA. Therefore, the County’s projected extremely low income can be estimated at 12,824 units. However, for the purpose of identifying adequate sites for RHNA, no separate accounting of sites for extremely low income households is required. AMI = Area Median IncomeDescriptionThe Sites Inventory (Appendix A) is comprised of vacant and underutilized sites within unincorporated Los Angeles County that are zoned at appropriate densities and development standards to facilitate housing development. The Sites Inventory was developed specifically for the County of Los Angeles, and has built-in features that filter sites based on specific criteria, including access to transit, protection from environmental hazards, and other criteria unique to unincorporated Los Angeles County. Other strategies used within the Sites Inventory analysis to accommodate the County’s assigned RHNA of 90,052 units include projected growth of ADUs, specific plan capacity, selected entitled projects, and capacity or planned development on County-owned sites within cities. This accounts for approximately 38 percent of the RHNA. The remaining 62 percent of the RHNA is accommodated by sites to be rezoned to accommodate higher density housing development (Appendix B).Caveats:This data is a snapshot in time, generally from the year 2021. It contains information about parcels, zoning and land use policy that may be outdated. The Department of Regional Planning will be keeping an internal tally of sites that get developed or rezoned to meet our RHNA goals, and we may, in the future, develop some public facing web applications or dashboards to show the progress. There may even be periodic updates to this GIS dataset as well, throughout this 8-year planning cycle.Update History:12/18/24 - Following the completion of the annexation to the City of Whittier on 11/12/24, 27 parcels were removed along Whittier Blvd which contained 315 Very Low Income units and 590 Above Moderate units. Following a joint County-City resolution of the RHNA transfer to the city, 247 Very Low Income units and 503 Above Moderate units were taken on by Whittier. 10/23/24 - Modifications were made to this layer during the updates to the South Bay and Westside Area Plans following outreach in these communities. In the Westside Planning area, 29 parcels were removed and no change in zoning / land use policy was proposed; 9 Mixed Use sites were added. In the South Bay, 23 sites were removed as they no longer count towards the RHNA, but still partially changing to Mixed Use.5/31/22 – Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted the Housing Element on 5/17/22, and it received final certification from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on 5/27/22. Data layer published on 5/31/22.Links to other resources:Department of Regional Planning Housing Page - Contains Housing Element and it's AppendicesHousing Element Update - Rezoning Program Story Map (English, and Spanish)Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) - Regional Housing Needs AssessmentCalifornia Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Element pageField Descriptions:OBJECTID - Internal GIS IDAIN - Assessor Identification Number*SitusAddress - Site Address (Street and Number) from Assessor Data*Use Code - Existing Land Use Code (corresponds to Use Type and Use Description) from Assessor Data*Use Type - Existing Land Use Type from Assessor Data*Use Description - Existing Land Use Description from Assessor Data*Vacant / Nonvacant – Parcels that are vacant or non-vacant per the Use Code from the Assessor Data*Units Total - Total Existing Units from Assessor Data*Max Year - Maximum Year Built from Assessor Data*Supervisorial District (2021) - LA County Board of Supervisor DistrictSubmarket Area - Inclusionary Housing Submarket AreaPlanning Area - Planning Areas from the LA County Department of Regional Planning General Plan 2035Community Name - Unincorporated Community NamePlan Name - Land Use Plan Name from the LA County Department of Regional Planning (General Plan and Area / Community Plans)LUP - 1 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 1 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*Current LUP (Description) – This is a brief description of the land use category. In the case of multiple land uses, this would be the land use category that covers the majority of the parcel*Current LUP (Min Density - net or gross) - Minimum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaCurrent LUP (Max Density - net or gross) - Maximum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaProposed LUP – Final – The proposed land use category to increase density.Proposed LUP (Description) – Brief description of the proposed land use policy.Prop. LUP – Final (Min Density) – Minimum density for the proposed land use category.Prop. LUP – Final (Max Density) – Maximum density for the proposed land use category.Zoning - 1 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 1 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Current Zoning (Description) - This is a brief description of the zoning category. In the case of multiple zoning categories, this would be the zoning that covers the majority of the parcel*Proposed Zoning – Final – The proposed zoning category to increase density.Proposed Zoning (Description) – Brief description of the proposed zoning.Acres - Acreage of parcelMax Units Allowed - Total Proposed Land Use Policy UnitsRHNA Eligible? – Indicates whether the site is RHNA Eligible or not. Very Low Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Very Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementLow Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementModerate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementAbove Moderate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Above Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementRealistic Capacity - Total Realistic Capacity of parcel (totaling all income levels). Several factors went into this final calculation. See the Housing Element (Links to Other Resources above) in the following locations - "Sites Inventory - Lower Income RHNA" (p. 223), and "Rezoning - Very Low / Low Income RHNA" (p231).Income Categories - Income Categories assigned to the parcel (relates

As of December, 2024, there were over ** thousand listings for room and apartment rentals in London on the Airbnb website, the highest of any other major European city. Airbnb listings were also high in Paris, Rome and Madrid. Paris accounted for around ** thousand listings, while Rome and Madrid had over ** and ** thousand, respectively. Controversy of Airbnb in Europe Airbnb has become an increasingly popular option for tourists looking for local accommodation. Visitors are attracted to using Airbnb properties instead of hotels and other traditional travel accommodation mainly due to cheaper prices, but also for the location, and to gain an authentic experience. However, the site is facing ongoing legal problems, with some destinations moving to ban or restrict rentals from the site because they worsen housing problems and undermining hotel regulations. Many European cities, including Amsterdam and Paris, have placed limits on the length of rentals, and others such as Barcelona have introduced strict regulations for hosts. The rise of Airbnb Airbnb is one of the most successful companies in the global sharing economy. The company was founded in San Francisco, California in 2008, after being conceived by two entrepreneurs looking for a way to offset their high rental costs. Airbnb was developed as an online platform for hosts to rent out their properties on a short-term basis. It now competes with other online travel booking websites, including Booking.com and Expedia.

IntroductionThis metadata is broken up into different sections that provide both a high-level summary of the Housing Element and more detailed information about the data itself with links to other resources. The following is an excerpt from the Executive Summary from the Housing Element 2021 – 2029 document:The County of Los Angeles is required to ensure the availability of residential sites, at adequate densities and appropriate development standards, in the unincorporated Los Angeles County to accommodate its share of the regional housing need--also known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Unincorporated Los Angeles County has been assigned a RHNA of 90,052 units for the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period, which is subdivided by level of affordability as follows:Extremely Low / Very Low (<50% AMI) - 25,648Lower (50 - 80% AMI) - 13,691Moderate (80 - 120% AMI) - 14,180Above Moderate (>120% AMI) - 36,533Total - 90,052NOTES - Pursuant to State law, the projected need of extremely low income households can be estimated at 50% of the very low income RHNA. Therefore, the County’s projected extremely low income can be estimated at 12,824 units. However, for the purpose of identifying adequate sites for RHNA, no separate accounting of sites for extremely low income households is required. AMI = Area Median IncomeDescriptionThe Sites Inventory (Appendix A) is comprised of vacant and underutilized sites within unincorporated Los Angeles County that are zoned at appropriate densities and development standards to facilitate housing development. The Sites Inventory was developed specifically for the County of Los Angeles, and has built-in features that filter sites based on specific criteria, including access to transit, protection from environmental hazards, and other criteria unique to unincorporated Los Angeles County. Other strategies used within the Sites Inventory analysis to accommodate the County’s assigned RHNA of 90,052 units include projected growth of ADUs, specific plan capacity, selected entitled projects, and capacity or planned development on County-owned sites within cities. This accounts for approximately 38 percent of the RHNA. The remaining 62 percent of the RHNA is accommodated by sites to be rezoned to accommodate higher density housing development (Appendix B).Caveats:This data is a snapshot in time, generally from the year 2021. It contains information about parcels, zoning and land use policy that may be outdated. The Department of Regional Planning will be keeping an internal tally of sites that get developed or rezoned to meet our RHNA goals, and we may, in the future, develop some public facing web applications or dashboards to show the progress. There may even be periodic updates to this GIS dataset as well, throughout this 8-year planning cycle.Update History:1/7/25 - Following the completion of the annexation to the City of Whittier on 11/12/24, 27 parcels were removed along Whittier Blvd which contained 315 Very Low Income units and 590 Above Moderate units. Following a joint County-City resolution of the RHNA transfer to the city, 247 Very Low Income units and 503 Above Moderate units were taken on by Whittier. 10/16/24 - Modifications were made to this layer during the updates to the South Bay and Westside Area Plans following outreach in these communities. In the Westside Planning area, 29 parcels were removed and no change in zoning / land use policy was proposed; 9 Mixed Use sites were added. In the South Bay, 23 sites were removed as they no longer count towards the RHNA, but still partially changing to Mixed Use.5/31/22 – Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted the Housing Element on 5/17/22, and it received final certification from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on 5/27/22. Data layer published on 5/31/22.Links to other resources:Department of Regional Planning Housing Page - Contains Housing Element and it's AppendicesHousing Element Update - Rezoning Program Story Map (English, and Spanish)Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) - Regional Housing Needs AssessmentCalifornia Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Element pageField Descriptions:OBJECTID - Internal GIS IDAIN - Assessor Identification Number*SitusAddress - Site Address (Street and Number) from Assessor Data*Use Code - Existing Land Use Code (corresponds to Use Type and Use Description) from Assessor Data*Use Type - Existing Land Use Type from Assessor Data*Use Description - Existing Land Use Description from Assessor Data*Vacant / Nonvacant – Parcels that are vacant or non-vacant per the Use Code from the Assessor Data*Units Total - Total Existing Units from Assessor Data*Max Year - Maximum Year Built from Assessor Data*Supervisorial District (2021) - LA County Board of Supervisor DistrictSubmarket Area - Inclusionary Housing Submarket AreaPlanning Area - Planning Areas from the LA County Department of Regional Planning General Plan 2035Community Name - Unincorporated Community NamePlan Name - Land Use Plan Name from the LA County Department of Regional Planning (General Plan and Area / Community Plans)LUP - 1 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 1 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*Current LUP (Description) – This is a brief description of the land use category. In the case of multiple land uses, this would be the land use category that covers the majority of the parcel*Current LUP (Min Density - net or gross) - Minimum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaCurrent LUP (Max Density - net or gross) - Maximum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaProposed LUP – Final – The proposed land use category to increase density.Proposed LUP (Description) – Brief description of the proposed land use policy.Prop. LUP – Final (Min Density) – Minimum density for the proposed land use category.Prop. LUP – Final (Max Density) – Maximum density for the proposed land use category.Zoning - 1 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 1 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Current Zoning (Description) - This is a brief description of the zoning category. In the case of multiple zoning categories, this would be the zoning that covers the majority of the parcel*Proposed Zoning – Final – The proposed zoning category to increase density.Proposed Zoning (Description) – Brief description of the proposed zoning.Acres - Acreage of parcelMax Units Allowed - Total Proposed Land Use Policy UnitsRHNA Eligible? – Indicates whether the site is RHNA Eligible or not. NOTE: This layer only shows those that are RHNA Eligible, but internal versions of this layer also show sites that were not-RHNA eligible, or removed during the development of this layer in 2020 – 2022.Very Low Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Very Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementLow Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementModerate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementAbove Moderate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Above Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementRealistic Capacity - Total Realistic Capacity of parcel (totaling all income levels). Several factors went into this final calculation. See the Housing Element (Links to Other Resources above) in the following locations - "Sites Inventory - Lower Income RHNA" (p. 223), and "Rezoning - Very Low / Low Income RHNA" (p231).Income Categories - Income Categories assigned to the parcel (relates to income capacity units)Lot Consolidation ID - Parcels with a unique identfier for consolidation potential (based on parcel ownership)Lot Consolidation Notes - Specific notes for consolidationConsolidation - Adjacent Parcels - All adjacent parcels that are tied to each lot consolidation IDsShape_Length - Perimeter (feet)Shape_Area - Area (sq feet)*As it existed in 2021

As described in the Executive Summary below from the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, these are the parcels from the 'Rezoning Program' as of 7/26/21. For more information about the Draft Housing Element, please click here.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (from Draft Housing Element):The County is required to ensure the availability of residential sites, at adequate densities and appropriate development standards, in the unincorporated areas to accommodate its share of the regional housing need--also known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The unincorporated areas have been assigned a RHNA of 90,052 units for the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period, which is subdivided by level of affordability as follows:Very Low Income – 25,648Lower Income – 13,691Moderate Income – 14,180Above Moderate Income – 36,533The Sites Inventory (Appendix A) is comprised of vacant and underutilized sites that are zoned at appropriate densities and development standards to facilitate housing development. Other strategies to accommodate the RHNA include projected number of ADUs, specific plan capacity, selected entitled projects, and capacity or planned development on County-owned sites within cities. The remainder of the RHNA is accommodated by sites to be rezoned to accommodate higher density housing development.MORE DETAILED INFO ON METHODOLOGY: ((PLACEHOLDER for Appendix G from BOS Consent posting))UPDATE HISTORY:1/5/21 - Coded Supervisorial District for each parcel2/4/21 - Added four fields that show the proposed / existing Land Use Policy / Zoning that display the category + brief description + density range - done mainly for the Story Map. Also, renamed the GIS layer (removed 'Adequate_Sites_Inventory' from the name).3/16/21 - Added 'Status Update (2021)' field to flag those parcels for removal following findings from Housing Section and EIR consultant.3/31/21 - Began making edits based on QC done by Housing Section in March, 2021 and exported this layer to an ARCHIVE version so we have the original data if needed. Made the following updates in AltadenaCoded all 'GC' categories as 'N/A' for RHNA Eligible and removed proposed LUP / Zoning category - THESE CAN NO LONGER BE COUNTED IN REZONE.Downgraded Proposed MU to Proposed CG for all current 'MU / Commercial Zones', and updated min/max density. Nulled out proposed zoning categories. Need to re-do unit calculations!4/1/21 - Continuing with Altadena QC, updating Status Update (2021) field:Downgraded Proposed MU to Proposed CG for all current 'MU / Non-Commercial Zones', and updated min/max density. Need Proposed Zoning from HE Section for consistency with CG category. Need to re-do unit calculations!Coded the ones marked 'Zoe to review'4/4/21 - Coded additional parcels that were condos (missed from before). Updated '2021 Update notes' and condo-related fields (including units). In Altadena, re-calculated units for all that are downgraded from Prop LU MU > CG. Identified those not meeting 16 unit minimum, and of those that were RHNA eligible, were coded as 'No'. Noted in the '2021 Update notes'.4/5/21 - Made the following edits per QC results from Housing Section:Lennox / W. Athens - coded '65 dB' parcels as "N/A" (removing from Rezoning list).Altadena - verified that no additional RHNA eligible parcels removed due to the criteria: “Existing residential buildings 50 or more years old, where the number of units allowed under the new LU is at least 2 - 3 times what's on the ground”All areas - coded Density Bonus of 27.5% as identified from the Housing Section as blank4/6/21 - Continued making edits per the QC results from Housing Section from the Rezoning list.4/7/21 - Continued making edits per the QC results from the Housing Section for Altadena.4/10/21 - Double-checked all Rezone edits. Re-calculated all units for all those that were updated (Status Update 2021 IS NOT NULL) and are on Rezoning list (RHNA Eligible? <> 'N/A'). Exported RHNA eligible to spreadsheet and double-checked unit maths.4/12/21 - Updated last proposed zoning categories in Altadena (confirmed by Housing Section). Updated current / proposed zoning descriptions (removed zoning suffices).4/13/21 - Made additional QC updates to some statuses regarding parcels that overlap with ASI.4/14/21 - Updated current zoning for the recently adopted By-Right Housing Ordinance Zone Change (all of these cases have the status of "N/A" - or, not considered for rezoning)4/15/21 - Researched 11 parcels that were coded as 'Yes - Rezoning Program' for RHNA Eligibility AND were flagged as not RHNA eligible for the model runs done previously 'Filter 2b'. Confirmed they should all remain RHNA eligible with the exception of 2.4/27/21 - Updated status for additional sites during week of 4/19, and on 4/27. Updated 107 parcels to the RHNA Eligibility Status of "Yes - Moderate Income"4/28/21 - Updated 310 parcels to the RHNA Eligibility Status of "Yes - Above Moderate Income"5/4/21 - Updated RHNA Eligibility Status to "No" since it overlapped with ASI.5/5/21 - Updated RHNA Eligibility Status to "Yes - Moderate" and "Yes - Above Moderate", and also removed two parcels that were also Historical Sites, per QC requests from Housing Section. SUMMARIZED THIS DATA AS A TABLE TO RESPOND TO SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 1.5/11/21 - Updated schema:RHNA Eligible now just 'Yes' or 'No' (Rather than 'Yes + Inc level')Added fields for various income levels - to match what is in ASI layerKept 'Realistic Capacity' for the 'Non RHNA-Eligible' sites (these aren't broken down by Income level)Calculated 'Very Low' and 'Low' income levels to be 50/50 of the 'Realistic Capacity' (rounded up for VL, rounded down for L)5/12/21 - PREP FOR HCD TEMPLATE - Added field for Vacant / Non Vacant uses per the Assessor Use Code (ends in 'V' or 'X')6/2/21 - Updated one parcel that had 'Prop min density' blank. Trimmed Site Address field of trailing spaces.6/10/21 - ARCHIVED - exported to an archived layer as this is a snapshot in time from when it was sent to HCD on 6/7/21.6/28/21 - Exported the features (essentially copied the layer) as there was some strange behavior of attributes not selecting and joins not fully working - suspected that the data was slightly corrupted somehow, however a simple copy seemed to fix the issue. Modified several parcels per QC done by Housing Section in June, added some parcels as well.6/29/21 - Added sites per June QC and updated relevant fields - flagged those that need to have units recalculated in a temporary field.6/30/21 - Updated units for added sites. Flagged several parcels in FF and WALP for removal. RENAMED 'RHNA STATUS' CATEGORIES FROM "N/A" TO "REMOVE" (to be consistent with the ASI)7/1/21 - Removed or otherwise modified several parcels due to overlapping with new bldg permits / entitlements.7/6/21 - Updated based on refinements identified by the Housing Section on 7/1/21: Adding back Central Ave in Florence-Firestone and adding/removing sites in La Crescenta-Montrose, and updating some minor things (not related to units).7/7/21 - Checked math on all unit calculations using formulas in Excel - a small number of them were off by 1 unit (probably due to not rounding), and they were fixed. Added 'Planning Areas' field.7/20/21 - Incorporated changes following additional QC and zoning Inconsistencies identified in South and West Whittier following significant shortfall with the removal of Northlake Specific Plan:Added Income Category field and calculated valuesRemoved one parcel that overlapped with an existing Mobile Home ParkRemoved 1,122 polygons flagged as "REMOVED" that overlapped with the South and West Whittier changes (select by location against "Zoning_Inconsistancy_Parcels_SDs_345" layer.Added parcels for Above Moderate RHNA units from "Zoning_Inconsistancy_Parcels_SDs_345" layer and filled in fields as necessary.Added Adj Cluster IDs for 8 of the newly added parcels (adding to the next highest available ID in the whole dataset)7/24/21 - Coded all empty Site Addresses with nearest Street Intersection. See analysis fields starting with "Street_Intersection" in 'Housing_Element_2021_2029' File GDB.7/25/21 - Added ZIP Codes for those that were blank.7/26/21 - re-worded the metadata description (above UPDATE HISTORY)7/30/21 - 7/31/21 - Added Proposed Florence-Firestone TOD parcels.9/13/21 - Slight update to calculate the 'Income Category' field for those with RHNA Eligible = NO - to make those NULL.11/16/21 - Removed Density Bonus from the bottom 15% of sites (71 sites out of the 468) per HCD's comment. For the sites that fell below the 16 units, they were moved to the Above Moderate income category to receive RHNA credit.12/30/21 - Added updated Supervisorial District ID from 2021 update.2/17/22 - Cleared out Realistic Capacity and all income level units for "RHNA Eligible = NO". This is a clean-up measure. Kept all unit calculations for these up until the 'Realistic Capacity' field.3/15/22 & 3/16/22 - Re-allocation of income-level units per recommendation by HCD. New fields were added to indicate the original income level unit numbers (as submitted to the state following the Board Hearing), and an HCD Comments field was added to flag these parcels that changed, and the transfer of units between the income categories.SLA - move units from VL/L to Mod. Added 2,238 to Mod and subtracted 1,144 from VL, and 1,094 Low Income (lots with sf < 5,950). Checked if there were any project-specific allocations to income levels and there were none.SLA - move units from L to AM. Remaining Low Income after Step 1 is 5,819, so take approximately half of that. Selecting from pool outside of those selected in STEP 1, and lot size < 10,000sf, moved 2,566 from Low Income to Above Moderate. Checked if there were any project-specific allocations to income levels and there were none. OTHER SUBMARKET - move units from L to AM. Moved 10,031 units from L to AM (lots < 90,000 sf). NOTE, that this was most of

Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section...Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, for 2010, the 2010 Census provides the official counts of the population and housing units for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns. For 2006 to 2009, the Population Estimates Program provides intercensal estimates of the population for the nation, states, and counties..Explanation of Symbols:.An ''**'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate..An ''-'' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''-'' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''+'' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''***'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate..An ''*****'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. .An ''N'' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small..An ''(X)'' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available..Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2000 data. Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..While the 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the December 2009 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities..Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, for 2020, the 2020 Census provides the official counts of the population and housing units for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns. For 2016 to 2019, the Population Estimates Program provides estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and intercensal housing unit estimates for the nation, states, and counties..Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Technical Documentation section.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..The 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the September 2018 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delineations of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. In certain instances, the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB delineation lists due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero.