Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFY 2020/2021 - 2024/2025 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Tig - ftPpr�vVM_ -l c�� �At W City of Huntington Beach File #: 20-1728 MEETING DATE: 7/6/2020 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Oliver Chi, City Manager PREPARED BY: Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development Subject: Approve FY 2020/2021-2024/2025 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Plan, FY 2020/2021 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Programs, FY 2020/2021-2024/2025 Citizen Participation Plan, and FY 2020/2021-2024/2025 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Statement of Issue: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that the City, per the citizen participation requirement, conduct a Public Hearing to approve the 2020/2021-2024/2025 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Plan, 2020/2021 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Programs, 2020/2021-2024/2025 Citizen Participation Plan, and 2020/2025-2024/2025 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing. Also per HUD, the City is required to conduct a 30-day public comment period, which commenced on June 5, 2020, and concludes with the public hearing scheduled and noticed for July 6, 2020. The draft documents were posted on the City's website and hard copies were made available to the public on an appointment basis. Financial Impact: There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund. The City was awarded to receive $1,237,224 in CDBG funds and $619,677 in HOME funds for the 2020-21 Fiscal Year. Additional funds from program income and prior-year resources total $2,020,717 in CDBG and $3,454,800 in HOME funds. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the following in compliance with the Consolidated Plan Procedures of 24 CFR Part 91: A) Approve the 2020/2021-2024/2025 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Plan; and, B) Approve the 2021/2021 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Programs; and, C) Approve the 2020/2021-2024/2025 Citizen Participation Plan; and, City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 5 Printed on 7/1/2020 poweret-14 LegistarT" File #: 20-1728 MEETING DATE: 7/6/2020 D) Approve the 2020/2021-2024/2025 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing; and, E) Authorize the City Manager to sign all necessary documents. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the plans, and direct staff as necessary. Analysis: A study session was held before the City Council on March 2, 2020, regarding the actions related to the above-referenced draft documents and associated timelines. These four draft documents were presented to the City Council on April 6, 2020. Per HUD's 30-day public comment requirement, these documents were made available to the public by posting them on the City's website and placing them at the Office of Business Development's public counter to review by appointment. CONSOLIDATED PLAN The Consolidated Plan functions as a strategic plan prepared through a comprehensive planning process that incorporates local needs, priorities, specific objectives and strategies. Along with the Five-Year Consolidated Plan, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires an Annual Action Plan outlining the City's uses of the federal grant funds for one year. HUD allocates federal grants including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME) funds to eligible jurisdictions on a formula basis. For the 5-year Consolidated Plan period, Huntington Beach's estimated budget is $7.8 million in CDBG funds and $6.2 million in unallocated HOME funds, a total of approximately $14 million. The City's Consolidated Plan has identified the following priorities as having the greatest need in the community: • Sustain and strengthen neighborhoods • Preserve existing and create new affordable housing • Support efforts to address homelessness • Support agencies that assist special needs populations • Increase access to community services to low- and moderate-income persons • Preserve existing and create new public facilities • Provide needed infrastructure improvements • Planning for housing and community development A variety of public outreach and citizen participation strategies were used to develop the Consolidated Plan. The 2019 Housing and Community Development survey was used to help establish priorities throughout the City by gathering feedback on the level of need for housing and community development categories. A public meeting was held prior to the release of the draft plan to garner feedback on preliminary findings. ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Each year, the City prepares an Annual Action Plan in connection with the Five-Year Consolidated Plan which details how the City will spend HUD federal funds, specifically CDBG and HOME. The Annual Action Plan has two principal purposes: 1) The Annual Action Plan identifies the projects and programs to be undertaken City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 5 Printed on 7/1/2020 powereRRY LegistarTM File #: 20-1728 MEETING DATE: 7/6/2020 during the upcoming fiscal year, and the proposed objectives and outcomes to be achieved within the overall context of the Five-Year Consolidated Plan; and 2) The Annual Action Plan acts as the City's application process for federal formula grants, principally comprised of as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs. For FY 2020/21 specifically, Huntington Beach's estimated budget is $2,020,717 million in CDBG and $3,454,800 million in estimated HOME funds (inclusive of program income and unallocated carryover). Funds are designed to assist the City in providing decent and affordable housing; provide community and supportive services; improve public facilities and infrastructure; and expand economic opportunities and anti-poverty activities for primarily low-and-moderate income persons. The City is proposing to allocate CDBG and HOME funds in the FY 2020/21 Annual Action Plan as follows: CPAB recommendation 020/21 CDBG Allocation CDBG Projects City of HB--CDBG Program Administration $231,139 $257,445 Fair Housing Foundation--Fair Housing Program $30,000 $30,000 City of HB--Housing Rehab Loan Administration $65,000 $65,000 City of HB--Owner-Occupied Residential Rehab Grant Program $100,000 $100,000 City of HB--Owner-Occupied Residential Rehab Loan Program $90,000 9000 City of HB--Special Code Enforcement $190,000 $240,000 City of HB--Homeless Outreach $85,000 $85,000 City of HB--Senior Services Care Management $44,000 344,000 City of HB--Children's Bureau $60,637 380,000 City of HB--Oak View Family Literacy Program $10,000 310,000 Robyne's Nest-Housing for Homeless Youth $10,000 S10,000 StandUp for Kids--OC $15,000 $15,000 City of HB--ADA Curb Cuts--Maintenance Zone 3 $400,000 $393,732 City of HB--Central Library Lower Level ADA Restroom Improvements $286,000 $286,000 Unallocated Funds for Back-Up Projects-- Cameron Lane Navigation /A $314,540 Center Facility Improvements TOTAL = $1,616,776 $2,020,717 HOME Projects HOME Program Administration $69,468 $154,919 Affordable Housing Projects $1,304,348 $2,399,881 Tenant Based Rental Assistance $550,000 900,000 TOTAL = r 1,923,816 3,454,800 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN The regulations implementing the Consolidated Plan submission requires the City of Huntington Beach to adopt a Citizen Participation Plan for the consolidated planning, application, and reporting processes. Part of the Consolidated Plan process entails the grantee to certify that it is in full compliance and is following a detailed Citizen Participation Plan consistent with the requirements of City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 5 Printed on 7/1/2020 powere174 LegistarT" File #: 20-1728 MEETING DATE: 7/6/2020 24 CFR 91.105. The City's Citizen Participation Plan is designed to ensure equitable representation of all segments of the population and to aid communication between the City and its residents on matters pertaining to the use of all federal funding from HUD. Due to the National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) declared in March 2020, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has made available temporary guidelines for citizen participation relative to the public comment period, reasonable notice, and opportunity to comment for substantial amendments. HUD recognizes the efforts to contain COVID-19 require limiting public gatherings, such as those often used to obtain citizen participation, and that there is a need to respond quickly to the growing spread and effects of COVID- 19. Therefore, on April 24, 2020, HUD waived these requirements and allowed the City to shorten its public comment period to 5-days, and to determine what constitutes reasonable notice and opportunity to comment. The Amended Citizen Participation Plan for 2015-2019 outlines steps the City will take during the national emergency to support communication and encourage involvement between the City and its residents on matters pertaining to the use of all federal funding from HUD, particularly those funds that will be used to prevent, prepare, and respond to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. These temporary guidelines will apply to Community Development Block Grant funding under FY 2019/20, FY 2020/21, and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funds, as well as Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME) funds under FY 2019/20 and FY 2020/21, unless otherwise extended due to a longer period of national emergency. The Amended Citizen Participation Plan may be administratively amended further from time to time to include additional or revised procedures issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in response to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Updates to the Citizen Participation Plan were done administratively. REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS Since 1968, the Fair Housing Act has required that federal agencies and federal grantees affirmatively further fair housing. Accordingly, jurisdictions that receive funds from federal sources, such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), are required to, every five years, prepare an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and an action plan to address those impediments that are within their ability to control or influence. In Orange County, cities have taken a collaborative approach to identifying and addressing impediments by agreeing to review these issues on a regional basis. For the current Al, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (consultant) has performed extensive outreach into the community, reviewed and analyzed local data and reports and worked with the cities to ensure the appropriate breadth and scope of work. In the Al Report, 45 factors were determined to contribute to fair housing issues across Orange County. The Al also includes the following cross jurisdictional goals: 1. Increase the supply of affordable housing in high opportunity areas (areas which offer a stronger infrastructure for education, transportation, environmental health and economic opportunity). 2. Prevent displacement of low- and moderate-income residents with protected characteristics, including Hispanic residents, Vietnamese residents, seniors and people with disabilities. 3. Increase community integration for persons with disabilities. 4. Ensure equal access to housing for persons with protected characteristics, who are disproportionately City of Huntington Beach Page 4 of 5 Printed on 7/1/2020 powereV4 LegistarTM File #: 20-1728 MEETING DATE: 7/6/2020 likely to be lower-income and to experience homelessness. 5. Expand access to opportunity for protected classes. Staff recommends approval of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, Citizen Participation Plan, and Regional Analysis of Impediment. Environmental Status: The proposed requests are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), which exempts projects where it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question has no possibility of causing a substantial adverse impact on the environment. Furthermore, the proposed action does not constitute a final funding commitment to any of the identified activities, as the grant sub-recipients of the activities would be required to enter into contractual agreements. Appropriate environmental review of each funded activity will take place prior to commencement of any activity. Strategic Plan Goal: Strengthen long-term financial and economic sustainability Attachment(s): 1. 2020/2021-2024/2025 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Plan 2. 2020/2021 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBF) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Programs 3. 2020/2021-2024/2025 Citizen Participation Plan 4. 2020/2021-2024/2025 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing City of Huntington Beach Page 5 of 5 Printed on 7/1/2020 powered LegistarM ATTACHMENT # 1 i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN JULY 1? 2020 - DUNE 30, 2025 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT June 5 - July 6, 2020 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 181 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 ES-05 Executive Summary-24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.22o(b) 1 THE PROCESS 5 PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.2oo(b) 5 PR-10 Consultation -91.1oo, 91.20o(b), 91.215(I) 6 PR-15 Citizen Participation 14 NEEDS ASSESSMENT 18 NA-05 Overview 18 NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment-24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c) 19 NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems— 91.205 (b)(2) 36 NA-2o Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems—91.205 (b)(2) 39 NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens— 91.205 (b)(2) 42 NA-3o Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion —91.205(b)(2) 43 NA-35 Public Housing—91.205(b) 45 NA-4o Homeless Needs Assessment—91.205(c) 49 NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment-91.205 (b,d) 53 NA-5o Non-Housing Community Development Needs— 91.215(f) 59 HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS 62 MA-05 Overview 62 MA-10 Number of Housing Units—91.21o(a)&(b)(2) 62 MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing-91.21o(a) 70 MA-2o Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing—91.21o(a) 81 MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing—91.21o(b) 88 MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services —91.210(C) 89 MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services— 91.21o(d) 91 MA-4o Barriers to Affordable Housing—91.21o(e) 93 MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets— 91.215 (f) 94 MA-5o Needs and Market Analysis Discussion 107 MA-6o Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low-and Moderate-Income Households- 91.21o(a)(4), 91.31o(a)(2) 119 MA-65 Hazard Mitigation -91.21o(a)(5), 91.31o(a)(3) 120 STRATEGIC PLAN 121 SP-05 Overview 121 182 SP-10 Geographic Priorities— 91.215 (a)(1) 123 SP-25 Priority Needs-91.215(a)(2) 127 SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions—91.215 (b) 132 SP-35 Anticipated Resources-91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2) 133 SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure—91.215(k) 136 SP-45 Goals Summary—91.215(a)(4) 141 SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement—91.215(c) 147 SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing— 91.215(h) 148 SP-6o Homelessness Strategy— 91.215(d) 150 SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards— 91.2150) 153 SP-7o Anti-Poverty Strategy—91.2150) 154 SP-8o Monitoring—91.230 155 2020 ANNUAL FICTION PLAN UNDER SEPARATE COVER 183 Executive Summary ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.22o(b) Introduction In 1994, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued new rules consolidating the planning, application, reporting and citizen participation processes to the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME).The new single-planning process was intended to more comprehensively fulfill three basic goals: to provide decent housing, to provide a suitable living environment and to expand economic opportunities. It was termed the Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development. According to HUD, the Consolidated Plan is designed to be a collaborative process whereby a community establishes a unified vision for housing and community development actions. It offers entitlement communities the opportunity to shape these housing and community development programs into effective, coordinated neighborhood and community development strategies. It also allows for strategic planning and citizen participation to occur in a comprehensive context, thereby reducing duplication of effort. As the lead agency for the Consolidated Plan, the City of Huntington Beach hereby follows HUD's guidelines for citizen and community involvement.Furthermore,it is responsible for overseeing citizen participation requirements that accompany the Consolidated Plan. Huntington Beach has prepared this Consolidated Plan to meet the guidelines as set forth by HUD and is broken into five sections: The Process, Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Strategic Plan, and Annual Action Plan. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment Overview The goals of the CDBG and HOME programs are to provide decent housing, a suitable living environment for the Area's low-and moderate-income residents,and economic opportunities for low- moderate income residents.The City strives to accomplish these goals by maximizing and effectively utilizing all available funding resources to conduct housing and community development activities. These goals are further explained as follows: • Providing decent housing means helping homeless persons obtain appropriate housing and assisting those at risk of homelessness;preserving the affordable housing stock;increasing availability of permanent housing that is affordable to low and moderate-income persons without discrimination; and increasing the supply of supportive housing. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 1 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 184 Executive Summary Consolidated Plan • Providing a suitable living environment entails improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods; increasing access to quality facilities and services; and reducing the isolation of income groups within an area through integration of low-income housing opportunities. • Expanding economic opportunities involves creating jobs that are accessible to low- and moderate-income persons; making down payment and closing cost assistance available for low- and moderate-income persons; promoting long term economic and social viability; and empowering low- income persons to achieve self-sufficiency. Evaluation of past performance Huntington Beach's evaluation of its past performance has been completed in a thorough Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). These documents state the objectives and outcomes identified in each year's Annual Action Plan and include an evaluation of past performance through measurable goals and objectives compared to actual performance. These documents can be found on the City's website at: https•//www huntingtonbeachca gov/business/economic-development/cdbg/ Between 2015 and 2019, the City of Huntington Beach has rehabilitated 4o homeowner housing units and 13 rental housing units. The City has provided tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) to 140 households, vastly exceeding its goal of 5o households. The City has made ADA and public facility renovations to benefit over 30,000 persons and needed public services to over 3,000 persons.' The City's infrastructure improvements have benefited almost 30,000 persons. City support for homeless agencies have benefited over 1,000 persons. Housing code enforcement has benefited over 3,000 housing units. These efforts have exceeded most of the goals the City established in their last 5-year Consolidated Plan. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process A variety of public outreach and citizen participation was used to develop this Consolidated Plan.The 2019 Housing and Community Development survey was used to help establish priorities for throughout the City by gathering feedback on the level of need for housing and community development categories. A public meeting was held prior to the release of the draft plan to garner feedback on preliminary findings. The Plan was released for public review and a public hearing will be held to offer residents and stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the plan. Summary of public comments Comments made during the public review meetings are included in the form of transcripts in the Appendix. A summary of comments is included below: Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan z Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 185 Executive Summary Consolidated Plan Not applicable. Summary The Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, which has been guided by the Housing and Community Development Survey and public input, identified seven priority needs.These are described below. • Households with housing problems: The need for affordable housing options in the City continue to be high, based on the proportion of households in the City experiencing cost burdens. Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing as well as Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods. • Homelessness:Homelessness continues to be growing and pressing issue in Huntington Beach and regionally. The City will continue to fund and support efforts that address homelessness and serve persons experiencing homelessness. • Special Needs Populations: There are a number of special needs populations in the City that need continued services and support. These include, but aren't limited to persons with severe mental illness,veterans, persons with substance abuse addictions, and seniors. • Priority Community Services:There are a number of vital community services in the City that need continued funding and support. These community services serve low to moderate income households and include activities such as youth and senior services. • Priority Community and Public Facilities: The City recognizes the high need for public improvement activities throughout the City in order to provide for and maintain a safe and decent environment for its citizens. Identified priority needs include, but are not limited to, homeless shelters, parks and recreational centers,youth centers, and healthcare facilities. • Priority Infrastructure Improvements: The City recognizes the high need for public improvement activities throughout the City in order to provide for and maintain a safe and decent environment for its citizens. Identified priority needs include, but are not limited to, street and road improvements, sidewalk improvements, flood drainage improvements, and tree planting • Other Housing and Community Development Needs: The City has identified the need to provide support for the HOME and CDBG programs in the City, as well as to affirmatively further fair housing. These activities are vital to the continuation of the City's efforts to administer these programs. These Priority Needs are addressed with the following Goals: Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods Using CDBG funds, the City will sustain and strengthen neighborhoods by eliminating unsafe conditions and blight while improving the quality of life for residents within the community. Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 3 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 186 Executive Summary Consolidated Plan To the extent possible, based upon the availability of funds and a project's viability, HOME funds will be used to assist affordable housing developers in the acquisition, construction and/or rehabilitation of low-income rental and/or owner housing units, and in the provision of Tenant-Based Rental Assistance(TBRA). Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Using CDBG public service funds,the City will provide assistance to homeless service providers. Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to various social service agencies that provide community and public services to special needs households in the City. Provide Needed Community Services to LMI Persons Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to various social service agencies for programs for youth,fair housing, anti-crime,and general public services. Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities Using CDBG funds, the City will provide financial assistance to improve public facilities and parks. Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements Using CDBG funds,the City will provide financial assistance to improve public infrastructure. Support Community Development Programs The City will conduct the following administration/planning activities: (1) General Administration of CDBG and HOME Program, including preparation of budget, applications, certifications and agreements, (z) Coordination of CDBG-funded capital improvement projects, (3) Coordination of Public Service Subrecipients, (4) Coordination of HOME-funded housing projects,(5)Monitoring of CDBG and HOME projects/programs to ensure compliance with federal regulations, (6) Preparation of Annual Action Plan, and (7) Preparation of the CAPER, and (8) Fair Housing Foundation counseling, education and enforcement (CDBG funded). Up to 20%of the annual CDBG entitlement and up to 1o%of the HOME entitlement is allowed for administration activities. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 4 Draft Report for Public Review:03111/2020 187 The Process PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.20o(b) Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. Agency Role Name Department/Agency CDBG Administrator Huntington Beach Office of Business Development HOME Administrator Huntington Beach Office of Business Development Table 1—Responsible Agencies Narrative The Lead Agency for 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is the City of Huntington Beach, Office of Business Development. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information Ursula Luna-Reynosa Community Development Director Office of Business Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 5th Floor Huntington Beach,CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 5 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 188 The Process Consolidated Plan PR-io Consultation - 9moo, 91.2oo(b), 91.2150) Introduction The City developed its Five-Year Consolidated Plan through consultation with the Orange County Housing Authority; City departments; health and social service providers; and adjacent local governments. The City encouraged comment on its daft plan and participation in the Housing and Community Development Survey. Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction's activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies(91.215(1)). With the use of CDBG funds,the City employs one part-time Homeless Coordinator and three part-time Homeless Case Managers who coordinate services provided to the Homeless. The Coordinator oversees a collaborative comprised of local homeless service providers and faith-based organizations who conduct monthly meetings with the purpose of coordinating efforts and sharing information to most effectively address the issue of homelessness in Huntington Beach. The Coordinator and Case Managers are joined by two Huntington Beach Police Homeless Liaison Officers, which make up the City's Homeless Task Force. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children,veterans,and unaccompanied youth)and persons at risk of homelessness The City of Huntington Beach, through its Homeless Outreach Case Manager, participates in the Orange County Continuum of Care,led and coordinated by 2-1-1 Orange County and the OC Community Services.This public-nonprofit partnership helps ensure comprehensive and regional coordination of efforts and resources to reduce the number of homeless and persons at risk of homelessness throughout Orange County.This group serves as the regional convener of the year-round CoC planning process and as a catalyst for the involvement of the public and private agencies that make-up the regional homeless system of care. The Orange County Continuum of Care system consists of six basic components: 1. Advocacy on behalf of those who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless. 2. A system of outreach, assessment, and prevention for determining the needs and conditions of an individual or family who is homeless. 3. Emergency shelters with appropriate supportive services to help ensure that homeless individuals and families receive adequate emergency shelter and referrals. 4. Transitional housing to help homeless individuals and families who are not prepared to make the transition to permanent housing and independent living. 5. Permanent housing, or permanent supportive housing, to help meet the long-term needs of homeless individuals and families. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 6 Draft Report for Public Review:o3/11/2020 189 The Process Consolidated Plan 6. Reducing chronic homelessness in Orange County and addressing the needs of homeless families and individuals using motels to meet their housing needs. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS The City of Huntington Beach does not receive ESG funds. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities Table 2—Agencies,groups,organizations who participated 1 Agency/Group/Organization Orange County Housing Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing PHA Other government- City What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Need Assessment Consultation? Public Housing Needs Homelessness Strategy Non-Homeless Special Needs Anti-poverty Strategy Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 2 Agency/Group/Organization AIDS Services Foundation of Orange County Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by Non-Homeless Special Needs Consultation? Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 3 Agency/Group/Organization Alzheimer's Family Services Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 7 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 190 The Process Consolidated Plan What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Need Assessment Consultation? Public Housing Needs Homelessness Strategy Non-Homeless Special Needs Anti-poverty Strategy Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 4 Agency/Group/Organization Beach Cities Interfaith Services (BCIS) Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by Homeless Needs -Chronically Consultation? homeless Homeless Needs- Families with children Homelessness Needs-Veterans Homelessness Needs- Unaccompanied youth Homelessness Strategy Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 5 Agency/Group/Organization Build Futures Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Need Assessment Consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 6 Agency/Group/Organization Children's Bureau Agency/Group/Organization Type Services—Children What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Need Assessment Consultation? Homelessness Strategy Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 8 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 191 The Process Consolidated Plan Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 7 Agency/Group/Organization Collette's Children's Home Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Need Assessment Consultation? Homelessness Strategy Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 8 Agency/Group/Organization Community SeniorSery Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Elderly Persons What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Need Assessment Consultation? Homelessness Strategy Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 9 Agency/Group/Organization CrossPoint Church Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Need Assessment Consultation? Homelessness Strategy Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 10 Agency/Group/Organization CSP, Huntington Beach Youth Shelter Agency/Group/Organization Type Services- Homeless City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 9 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 192 The Process Consolidated Plan What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Need Assessment Consultation? Homelessness Strategy Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 11 Agency/Group/Organization Dayle McIntosh Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services- Persons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Need Assessment Consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 12 Agency/Group/Organization Family Literacy Program Agency/Group/Organization Type Services- Literacy What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Need Assessment Consultation? Homelessness Strategy Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 13 Agency/Group/Organization Huntington Beach Hospital Agency/Group/Organization Type Services- Health What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Need Assessment Consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan io Draft Report for Public Review:03111/2020 193 The Process Consolidated Plan 14 Agency/Group/Organization Huntington Beach Police Department Agency/Group/Organization Type Services- Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by Homeless Needs Consultation? Homelessness Strategy Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Homeless Collaborative Meeting. was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of CPAB meeting. the consultation or areas for improved coordination? 15 Agency/Group/Organization Huntington Beach Senior Services/Senior Outreach Agency/Group/Organization Type Services- Elderly Persons What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Need Assessment Consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 16 Agency/Group/Organization Project Self-Sufficiency Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by Homeless Needs -Chronically Consultation? homeless Homelessness Needs-Veterans Homelessness Strategy Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 17 Agency/Group/Organization Regional Center of Orange County Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Need Assessment Consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan ii Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 194 The Process Consolidated Plan Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 18 Agency/Group/Organization Society of St.Vincent de Paul Agency/Group/Organization Type Services- Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by Homeless Needs Consultation? Homelessness Strategy Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 20 Agency/Group/Organization St.Vincent DePaul Society, St. Mary's by the Sea Agency/Group/Organization Type Services- Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by Homeless Needs Consultation? Homelessness Strategy Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization Invitation to participate in the was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of survey, public input meeting, and the consultation or areas for improved coordination? comment on the draft plan 21 Agency/Group/Organization U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Agency/Group/Organization Type Government—Federal What section of the Plan was addressed by Housing Need Assessment Consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Non-Housing Community Development Strategy Anti-Poverty Strategy Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization The U.S. Department of Housing was consulted.What are the anticipated outcomes of and Urban Development has been the consultation or areas for improved coordination? consulted regarding the COVI D-19 outbreak. Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 12 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 195 The Process Consolidated Plan The City was inclusive in its outreach efforts. Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Lead How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap Name of Plan Organization with the goals of each plan? Continuum of Care OC For the past several years, leadership and Partnership, coordination of Orange County's Continuum of 2-1-1 Orange Care planning process has been the shared County and responsibility of OC Partnership, 2-1-1 Orange the OC County and the OC Community Services. These Community organizations use housing and demographic data Services. obtained through HMIS and Homeless Counts to determine needs and to pinpoint gaps in housing and services. This in turn helps to pool and coordinate resources with the City and cities to develop coordinated homeless access and assessment centers. Huntington Beach participates in building the regional continuum of care to address the homeless and persons at risk of homelessness. Huntington Beach 2013-2021 City of The City's Housing Element is for the 2013-2021 Housing Element Huntington period. Key housing policies and programs from Beach the Housing Element have been reflected within Planning the Consolidated Plan. Division Table 3—Other local/regional/federal planning efforts Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan (91.215(I)) The City of Huntington Beach notified the adjacent local governments of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Westminster and the City of Orange of the availability of the draft Consolidated Plan for 3o-day review and comment. Huntington Beach coordinates with the Commission to End Homelessness in implementation of the Consolidated Plan's homeless strategy, and with the Orange County Housing Authority in implementation of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 13 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 196 02 / [ k / - a \ ƒ o / \ \ 3 / % f 2 \ d § 0 k / § ƒ 0 / \ o s 0 / / t) / \ 0 / / \ g ° K § / E a y , � m y Ln 6 § 41 \ � / / k / 41 ) ° 3 o % 2 a u 2 » § \ § ƒ 2 0 % _ 3 - § � / \ / k / Ul � \ / G £ § 2 k \ k � C: E 2 2 £ a 2 $ o 4- 2 % tA w / § a 0 0 / 2 2 # ) 0 F E 0 � 6 o � / �LA W -0/ • y / § c / / / c 3 u S 3 @IL § ' 0 e 2 / t '§ § 0 3 �. 0 2 { / f \ c ra� b G a y 3 CL 0) w � c » _ E ƒ Qj [ } § \ a : E u $ E g E 2 * E E E g e / � ' ƒ s ) E bb LA E « m % § k \ / - % 3 / \ N % � \ / Ln E g o s 2 41 O / v c y= O 00 .� o a J V N y a ro = (L in 72 o a 3 c v IA in L' V) v vi a) v o of y + +� 4, cc i = o- 0 v 3 v 3 v 3 = —E E EE v� vv v Iv °' a �° ' vo ' v o O41 o C u0 N O — O Q r0 Q r4 Q r0 v K w � V "M rd r0 °� V '•6 O — CCro L VI (0 c E 41 N .11 ++ x C _Q Q L LA O 'V c E ra Z " N bD E v v +E E ° _ E `n E � E .- a� : a Q v (.� v o a o f S N E V +� v E ro N c O N :F' O F- Q Q Q Q V V 4' c 4' c bA CJ Q c u vi L O O ? 4J p H +o N c voi '^ >, in` w 3 ,, o� v Oo > o S- o -0 O 6 ' 6 vN c +1 c m Qv NVv L ++ O _ 41 c E v°Ji µ- °; _ �, a' o a o 'v v +� �_ o o c a E E VI o O v ° Du mub�_.o a `° •a" O bbb c h0 c E o In O L d' v 4' V E c .� +' v L N i m m c N ,U N Q > L H E V 2 ul -'n c in I— d m O S v Ln ro '6 OV N m m 0 O O O O >-. 41 A ate+ H O v +l N N +, M c bA c b0 c + E E ° E a' E E c E E E Y a Z ov Z ov Z ov V) v O c v V 71 O �' j v v m c O a 2 c — o on c v c O ++ L x rL L O Ol 0 L T F O V N M v O rn m Na) a JN U -D cc N ro a ¢ Q •o m Z z C - N O ' � C p QJ C C QJ E E E v a E E u i o � ° 'v v o CU o L- - e V O O V V p Q) V p QJ V O N O Q v ra Z Z 3 v cc ro -0 o C D 4 b�D QJ Q1 v in p ro X X X }, > 4- > Q) + a v v O O y C C U C r0 C ro C .C v E 0 6 v v O (v Q) p v o U v = o a m a m +' C C > m ra Vl p C + V C O Q) QJ C >� Vl N_ VI L •Vl L 'VI N f0 f0 L O C ++ rO 41 �..� fu 41 O C C O C o 7 +� Q) O C Q) O p Q) V � O -O +, v V 2 Ql 2 QJ E M N n o — v 0 N +' O v + O d > C S V m m U In U U Vl U U w > O V v Ln O C y m CC: O C N V o O � O O ° c � � c a a o +� C m 0 a E o f °c m f0 +�+ 6 c Q1 C 7 N C m p L p C p p + p O } mC 0 L p V +1 41 p o ru Q1 > O O ++ O p w w O 4+ E A C w p O + mCL) = ,v C C v E w vi bA ra U � O m N -O NN E ++ E C p � -F N � C QJ C �n • O O O E vi vj -C a� bo a `n Q, o ° te a bo Qj n lw v N v_ c a E a tw v i b o 0 o v o 0 o Qc' c � o Q>i o Qf°i °-v o o a, o 0 Q U N a f0 y- EL m C O Q (a a 0 a V O a +� vl N Q V1 O O t a v v O O V C D > b0 C O C: Ln O v O •O .O O O i, mi +� QJ L C O ++ •ra I— o i O O m _ ``- Q v 41 1> +1 >. �+, �; Q) +t v +� E a i C �n E UA C bD C ai o a v v a L zi L o V O v QJ i ° +�0 E E+ c.L N a E O a c E C: E O O a tQl1 N Z OV Z pV a� L � O 4- s ° m to m C V O +' '`-' + Ln a � N v -0v m O d Z Q 2 0 0 tw N c � C N � 2 d O Q/ 0 L Y - O V [r L11 l� a v� 00 a J U o N v •Q � � a ¢ Q Q fn r0 Z Z Z o v c V 4- '� yr 4- v vi v v v O h W C v +J ++ cc c v v v c Qj U aEmE d vv E .Ov_ v> O .vO 41 E U cn- O - - 0- v O ++ v V W V 4J N atO C _ o= V U _ U U _ U U O O Q v r9 Q v r9 Q v r0 C cc GJ X X X > t -D t .O O .uamj C C m C C MCC v O v v O v v O v L L m Z- °- m v +v� ° E aa aa + o . QoQ mo •+2, - Q C +1 +� CE bA • m bA m E L Q Vl c L Vl C L. }+ a••+ V 2 v E 2 v E 2 v E u N N N mv v v � 4J +' O N :'-' O N +�' O i V) u u Vl u u V) u u 1 O CO u _ rp C V U •� .- Cro N -D -O 'O O O o ^ Cl� C O O O CO v N t O O rya Q C rII y Q O .� +� in - — +� O a ON "v L_ 4-1 C 7 -O •u N 3 c ° Q a0i o ° � H 3 ¢ v C N O u O v- - d N U u - Q C N ++ L O O m C D ro O } Q U Q O t Q O m C V Q u Q r� E V U_ u +� Q c a r\ C: o 0- m N d Q �r Z r� H ra m O v 0 O O L H O v 41 v +> v +>� bA C bA C bA C E E +' E E E c E a Z Z Ov Z Ov v Y ru L O O m b.0 ro = dJ by V .D u d u •L _ _ v O O t ( t N o° O a Z Q rz 2 a ho C N C U L = O ++ v = O U1 0 L aT L f- V 00 Needs Assessment NA-05 Overview Needs Assessment Overview The following section will describe the socio-economic and housing situation in the City of Huntington Beach. The population in Huntington Beach has grown from 189,992 in 2010 to 2oo,641 in 2018. With this growth there has not been a significant change in the racial or ethnic makeup of the City,according to the American Community Survey (ACS). Households with incomes over $1oo,000 have grown as a proportion of the population,while conversely, poverty has also grown. The proportion of persons in poverty has grown from 6.6 percent in 2000 to 8.9 percent in 2017. A significant proportion of households have housing problems, particularly cost burdens, with 38.1 percent of households experiencing cost burdens. Cost burdens are defined as a household paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Renter households are particularly impacted by cost burdens, at a rate of 49.3 percent. In addition, Pacific Islander and Hispanic households face housing problems at a disproportionate rate. The homeless population continues to need a variety of services, as the homeless population has grown since 2014,from 3,833 in the Orange County Continuum of Care to 6,86o in 2019, according to Point-in-Time counts. In addition,there are a variety of non-homeless special needs populations in the Area.This includes the elderly population,which has grown by 31.9 percent since 2010. The following Needs Assessment and Market Analysis include two different table types.The first is the default data sets that come from the eCon Planning Suite.These tables are brown.The second is a set of tables that has the most up-to-date data available for Huntington Beach.These tables are blue and come from a variety of data sources,including the U.S.Census,The Bureau of Economic Analysis(BEA), the Bureau of Labor Statistics(BLS), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). Most of the narrative in the following sections will reference the blue tables by table number. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 18 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 201 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan NA-io Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c) Table NA-1o.1 shows the population for Huntington Beach. As can be seen, the population in Huntington Beach increased from 189,992 persons in 2010 to 200,641 persons in 2018, or by 5.6 percent. 189,992 197,750 4% . Households 74,628 74,460 -0% edian Inco a $80,000.00 $83,252.00 4% Table 5-Housing Needs Assessment Demographics Data Source: 2005-2009 ACS(Base Year),2011-2015 ACS(Most Recent Year) Population Estimates Population by race and ethnicity through 2017 in shown Table i in Table NA-10.2. The white households represented Population 74.6 percent of the population in 2017, compared with Huntington Census Population Estimates black households accounting for 1.4 percent of the Percent Yearly Year Population population in 2017. Hispanic households represented __ change 19.3 percent of the population in 2017. The Asian 2000 189,591 households accounted for 11.9 percent. 2001 190,902 0.7% 2002 191,341 0.2% The change in race and ethnicity between 2010 and 2017 2003 191,665 0.2% is shown in Table NA-10.3. During this time, the total 2004 191,433 -0.1% non-Hispanic population was 161,642 persons,while the 2005 190,281 -0.6% Hispanic population was 38,773 persons. 2006 188,754 -0.8% 2007 187,700 -0.6% Table NA-10.2,on the following page,shows population 2008 188,370 0.4% by Race and Ethnicity, and Table NA-10.3 shows a more 2009 189,268 0.5% detailed breakdown of ethnicity by race, which is used 2010 189,992 0.4% in the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy 2011 193,010 1.6% (CHAS) date set. As can be seen the percentage of 2012 194,237 0.6% white population fell slightly from 76.7 percent in the 2013 197,212 1.5% 2010 Census to 74.6 percent in the 2017 ACS data. The 2014 199,757 1.3% percentage of Hispanic population rose from 17.3 2015 200,855 0.5% 2016 200,541 -0.2% percent in 2010 to 19.3 percent in the 2017 5-year ACS. 2017 201,191 0.3% Of the Hispanic population, 59.5 P identify identi as 2018 200,641 -0.3°io white,with 31.3 percent identifying as"Other"race. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 19 Draft Report for Public Review:03/1112020 202 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan Table1 Population by • Ethnicity Huntington 2010 Census&2017 Race 2010 Census 2017 Five-Year ACS Population %of Total Population %of Total White 145,661 76.7% 149,523 74 6% Black 1,813 1.0% 2,734 1.4% American Indian 992 0.5% 943 0.5% Asian 21.070 11.1% 23,884 11.9% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 635 0.3% 770 0.4% Other 11,193 5.9% 12,810 6.4% Two or More Races 8,628 4.5% 9,751 4.9% Total 189,992 100.0% 200,415 100.0% Non-Hispanic 157,581 82.9% 161,642 80.7% Hispanic 32,411 17.1% 38,773 19.3% . • 1 Population by • Ethnicity HuntingtonBeach1 1 Census&2017 2010 Census 2017 Five-Year ACS Race Population %of Total Population %of Total Non-Hispanic White 127,640 81.0% 126,453 78.2% Black 1,635 1.0% 2,510 1.6% American Indian 532 0.3% 721 0.4% Asian 20,792 13.2% 23,434 14.5% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 595 0.4% 635 0.4% Other 395 0.3% 676 0.4% Two or More Races 5,992 3.8% 7,213 4.5% Total Non-Hispanic 157,581 100.0% 161,642 100.0% Hispanic White 18,021 55.6% 23,070 59.5% Black 178 0.5% 224 0.6% American Indian 460 1.4% 222 0.6% Asian 278 0.9% 450 1.2% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 40 0.1% 135 0.3% Other 10,798 33.3% 12,134 31.3% Two or More Races 2,636 8.1% 2,538 6.5% Total Hispanic 32,411 100.0 38,773 100.0% Total Population 189,992 100.0% 200,415 100.0% City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 20 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 203 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan Households by type and tenure are shown in Table NA-10.5. Family households represented 65.7 percent of households, while non-family households accounted for 34.3 percent in 2017. These changed from 64.9 percent and 35.1 percent,respectively, in 2010. Table I Household Type by Tenure HuntingtonBeach2010 Census SF1 &2017 - Data Household Type 2010 Census 2017 Five-Year ACS Households Households Households /°of Total Family Households 48,218 64.9% 50,431 65.7% Married-Couple Family 36,729 76.2% 37,915 75.2% Owner-Occupied 27,416 74.6% 27,440 72.4% Renter-Occupied 9,313 25.4% 10,475 27.6% Other Family 11,489 23.8% 12,516 22.8% Male Householder, No Spouse 3,804 33.1% 4,073 30.4% Present Owner-Occupied 1,660 43.6% 1,768 43.4% Renter-Occupied 2,144 56.4% 2,305 56.6% Female Householder, No Spouse 7,685 66.9% 8,443 61.4% Present Owner-Occupied 3,564 46.4% 3,671 43.5% Renter-Occupied 4,121 53.6% 4,772 56.5% Non-Family Households 26,067 35.1% 26,278 34.3% Owner-Occupied 12,274 47.1% 11,845 45.1% Renter-Occupied 13,793 52.9% 14,433 54.9% Total 74,285 100.0% 76,709 100.0% Household Income and Poverty Households by income for the 2010 and 2017 5-year ACS are shown in Table NA-1o.6. Households earning more than $1oo,000 dollars per year represented 43.4 percent of households in 2017, compared to 39.4 percent in 2010.Meanwhile,households earning less than $15,000 dollars accounted for 6.3 percent of households in 2017,compared to 6.1 percent in 2000. Table t . Households Huntington 0 : .. . 2010 Five-Year ACS 2017 Five-Year ACS Income Households %°of Total Households %of Total Less than$15,000 4,616 6.1% 4,828 6.3% $15,000 to$19,999 2,085 2.8% 2,250 2.9% $20,000 to$24,999 2,612 3.5% 2,350 3.1% i $25,000 to$34,999 4,966 6.6% 4,470 5.8% $35,000 to$49,999 7,893 10.5% 7,118 9.3% $50,000 to$74,999 13,001 17.3% 11,226 14.6% $75,000 to$99,999 10,407 13.8% 11,195 14.6% $100,000 or More 29,640 39.4% 33,272 43.4% Total 75,220 100.0% 76,709 100.0% City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 21 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 204 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan The rate of poverty for Huntington Beach is shown in Table NA-10.7. In 2017,there were an estimated 17,839 persons living in poverty. This represented an 8.9 percent poverty rate, compared to 6.6 percent poverty in 2000. Most notable in this table is the growing number of seniors living in poverty since 2000,which could indicate a need for additional public services and housing to support them. In 2000, 6.8 percent of seniors were living in poverty compared to 11.7 percent in 2017. Working age persons(18-64)living in poverty remained relatively stable since 2000. HuntingtonTable NA-10.7 Poverty by Age Beach000 D. . Age 2000 Census 2017 Five-Year ACS Persons in Poverty %of Total Persons in Poverty %of Total Under 6 1,232 9.9% 1,178 6.6% 6 to 17 2,348 18.9% 3,225 18.1% 18 to 64 8,017 64.4% 11,357 63.7% 65 or Older 845 6.8% 2,079 11.7% Total 12,442 100.0% 17,839 100.0% Poverty Rate 6.6% 8.95k Number of Households Table Total EHouseholds 9,025 7,810 12,445 7,675 37,505 Small Family Households 2,905 2,550 4,750 3,300 18,990 Large Family Households 585 660 840 595 2,745 Household contains at least one person 62-74 1,700 1,685 2,805 1,755 8,225 years of age Household contains at least one person age 2,075 1,675 1,830 945 2,525 75 or older Households with one or more children 6 1,265 1,045 1,240 939 2,465 years old or yo�&er Table 6-Total Households Table Data 2011-2015 CHAS Source: City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 22 Draft Report for Public Review:0 3/1112 0 2 0 205 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan Housing Needs Summary Tables • Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS bstandard Housing- eking complete 120 90 160 65 435 0 10 15 0 25 iumbing or kitchen ilities Severely Overcrowded - With>1.51 people per 350 90 125 55 620 0 0 30 0 30 Ivercrowded om (and complete chen and plumbing) -With 1.01- 1.5 people per room(and 350 440 390 50 1,230 15 15 10 30 70 Me of the above roblems) using cost burden ater than 50%of come(and none of the 3,655 2,375 770 65 6,865 2,020 1,135 1,355 620 5,130 x Bove problems) Housing cost burden ater than 30%of ome(and none of the 215 1,315 3,240 935 5,705 345 700 1,285 1,080 3,410 ' ve problems) pro/negative Income d none of the above 405 0 0 0 405 370 0 0 0 370 blems) ' Table 7—Housing Problems Table Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 23 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 206 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan 2. Housing Problems 2(Households with one or more Severe Housing Problems: Lacks kitchen or complete plumbing,severe overcrowding,severe cost burden) NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Having 1 or more of 1 four housing 4,475 2,995 1,445 235 9,150 2,035 56 1,415 650 5,265 problems Having none of four ' 2,09 850 1,555 4,905 3,170 10,480 890 4,680 3,620 11,285 housing problems 5 I Household has negative income, but none of the 405 0 0 0 405 370 0 0 0 370 other housing problems Table 8-Housing Problems 2 Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS 3. Cost Burden >30% NtiIIVIBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small Related 1,885 1,710 1,995 5,590 665 500 1,095 2,260 Large Related 505 490 205 1,200 45 105 230 380 i Elderly 'AOL, j e 1,145 720 500 2,365 1,290 1,040 950 3,280 Other 1,125 1,320 1,550 3,995 365 205 425 995 Total need�,�by inco 4,660 4,240 4,250 13,150 2,365 1,850 2,700 6,915 Table 9-Cost Burden >30% Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 24 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 207 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan 4. Cost Burden > 50% UMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS mall Related 1,805 1,000 390 3,195 595 365 620 1,580 _Large Related 360 140 20 520 45 75 85 205 Elderly 975 520 145 1,640 1,030 555 395 1,980 Other 1,125 870 215 2,210 350 160 275 785 Total need by 4,265 2,530 770 7,565 2,020 1,155 1,375 4,550 income Table 10-Cost Burden>50% Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 25 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 208 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan 5. Crowding(More than one person per room) ngle family 445 315 405 105 1,270 15 15 40 20 90 useholds ultiple, 195 215 110 0 520 0 0 0 10 10 related mily useholds Cher, non- 75 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 Emily useholds tal need by '1 715 530 515 105 1,865 15 15 40 30 100 i Table 11—Crowding Information-1/2 Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS Housing Problems The Census identified the following four housing problems in the 2011-2015 CHAS data. Households are considered to have housing problems if they have one of more of the four problems. 1. Housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. Household is overcrowded; and 4. Household is cost burdened. Overcrowding is defined as having from 1.1 to 1.5 people per room per residence, with severe overcrowding defined as having more than 1.5 people per room. Households with overcrowding are shown in Table NA-1o.8. In 2017, an estimated 2.6 percent of households were overcrowded, and an additional 1.1 percent were severely overcrowded. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 26 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 209 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan Table1 HuntingtonOvercrowding and Severe Overcrowding 1 &2017 Five-YearD. . No Overcrowding Overcrowding Severe Overcrowding Data Source Total Households %of Total Households %of Total Households %of Total Owner 2010 Five-Year ACS 45,948 99.0% 376 0.8% 69 0.1% 46,393 2017 Five-Year ACS 44,268 99.0% 358 0.8% 98 0.2% 44,724 Renter 2010 Five-Year ACS 27,233 94.5% 999 3.5% 595 2.1% 28,827 i 2017 Five-Year ACS 29,633 92.6% 1,609 5.0% 743 2.3% 31,985 Total 1 2010 Five-Year ACS 73,181 97.3% 1,375 1.8% 664 0.9% 75,220 2017 Five-Year ACS 73.901 96.3% 1,967 2.6% 841 1.1% 76,709 Incomplete plumbing and kitchen facilities are another indicator of potential housing problems. According to the Census Bureau, a housing unit is classified as lacking complete plumbing facilities when any of the following are not present: piped hot and cold water, a flush toilet, and a bathtub or shower. Likewise, a unit is categorized as deficient when any of the following are missing from the kitchen:a sink with piped hot and cold water,a range or cook top and oven,and a refrigerator. There were a total of 13o households with incomplete plumbing facilities in 2017, representing 0.2 percent of households in Huntington Beach. This is compared to 0.1 percent of households lacking complete plumbing facilities in 2010. Table1 Households HuntingtonBeach2010 . D. . Households 2010 Five-Year ACS 2017 Five-Year ACS --- ---- With Complete Plumbing Facilities 75,118 76,579 Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 102 130 Total Households 75,220 76,709 Percent Lacking 0.1% 0.2% There were 631 households lacking complete kitchen facilities in 2017,compared to 53o households in 2010. This was a change from 0.7 percent of households in 2010 to 0.8 percent in 2017. Table 1 1 Households Huntington 0.and Data Households 2010 Five-Year ACS 2017 Five-Year _ ACS With Complete Kitchen Facilities 74,690 76,078 Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities 530 631 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 27 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 210 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan Total Households 75,220 76,709 Percent Lacking 0.7%. 0.8% j Cost burden is defined as gross housing costs that range from 30 to 50 percent of gross household income; severe cost burden is defined as gross housing costs that exceed 50 percent of gross household income. For homeowners, gross housing costs include property taxes, insurance, energy payments, water and sewer service, and refuse collection. If the homeowner has a mortgage, the determination also includes principal and interest payments on the mortgage loan. For renters, this figure represents monthly rent and selected electricity and natural gas energy charges. In Huntington Beach 19.7 percent of households had a cost burden and 18.4 percent had a severe cost burden. Some 23.0 percent of renters were cost burdened, and 26.3 percent were severely cost burdened. Owner-occupied households without a mortgage had a cost burden rate of 7.2 percent and a severe cost burden rate of 5.2 percent. Owner occupied households with a mortgage had a cost burden rate of 22.3 percent,and severe cost burden at 16.4 percent. HuntingtonTable NA-1 0.11 Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden by Tenure 0 : Less Than 30% 31%-50% Above 50% Not Computed Data Source Households %of Total Households %of Total Households %of Total Households %of Total Total Owner With a Mortgage 2010 Five-Year ACS 17,336 50.8% 9,817 28.8% 6,846 20.1% 143 0.4% 34,142 2017 Five-Year ACS 18,344 60.7% 6,731 22.3% 4,954 16.4% 188 0.6% 30,217 Owner Without a Mortgage 2010 Five-Year ACS 10,107 82.5% 1,124 9.2% 867 7.1% 153 1.2% 12,251 2017 Five-Year ACS 12,536 86.4% 1,044 7.2% 759 5.2% 168 1.2% 14,507 Renter 2010 Five-Year ACS 14,548 50.5% 7,112 24.7% 6,377 22.1% 790 2.7% 28,827 2017 Five-Year ACS 14,966 46.8% 7,351 23.0% 8,425 26.3% 1,243 3.9% 31,985 Total 2010 Five-Year ACS 41,991 55.8% 18,053 24.0% 14,090 18.7% 1,086 1.4% 75,220 2017 Five-Year ACS 45,846 59.8% 15,126 19.7% 14,138 18.4% 1,599 2.1% 76,709 Describe the number and type of single person households in need of housing assistance. There were an estimated 19,419 one-person households in the City of Huntington Beach in 2017. These one-person households that earn below 30 percent HUD Area Median Family Income(HAMFI)are the most likely to need housing assistance in the area. One-person households below 30 percent HAMFI would also benefit from the availability of more Single Room Occupancy (SRO) affordable housing options. The 2012 - 2o16 CHAS data indicates there are 370 Other Non-family households at 0-30% of HAMFI experiencing either a cost burden or severe cost burden. Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance who are disabled or victims of domestic violence,dating violence,sexual assault and stalking. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 28 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 211 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan Disability by age, as estimated by the 2017 ACS, is shown in Table NA-10.12. The disability rate for females was 9.6 percent, compared to 9.3 percent for males. The disability rate grew precipitously higher with age,with 43.4 percent of those over 75 experiencing a disability. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 29 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 212 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan Table1 .12 Disability by Age Huntington Five-Year2017 Data Male Female Total Age Disabled Disability Disabled Disability Disabled Disability Population Rate Population Rate Population Rate Under 5 8 0.2% 0 0% 8 0.1% 5 to 17 937 6.1% 476 3.4% 1,413 4.8% 18 to 34 1,120 4.9% 583 2.8% 1,703 3.9% 35 to 64 3,200 7.6% 2,932 7.0% 6,132 7.3% 65to74 1,719 18.7% 1,802 17.6% 3,521 18.1% 75 or Older 2,287 39.4% 3,799 46.2% 6,086 43.4% Total 9,271 9.3% 9,592 9.6% 18,863 The number of disabilities by type,as estimated by the 2017 ACS, is shown in Table NA-10.13. Some 4.8 percent have an ambulatory disability, 4.2 percent have an independent living disability, and 2.1 percent have a self-care disability. Persons with disabilities could benefit from ADA improvements to their homes as well as from the City's Meals on Wheels Program. The City has historically invested much of their CDBG entitlement on other ADA improvements throughout the City. For example, the City has improved hundreds of ADA curb cuts throughout Huntington Beach, and has made ADA improvements to restrooms in public facilities. In FY 2020/21,the City is proposing to use CDBG to make ADA improvements to the Central Library lower level restrooms, consistent with their goal to assist persons with disabilities. Table 1 .13 Total Disabilities Tallied: Aged 5 and Older Huntingto 2017 Five-Year ACS Disability Type Population with Percent with Disability Disability Hearing disability 5,818 2.9% Vision disability 3,392 1.7% Cognitive disability 7,239 3.8% Ambulatory disability 9,226 4.8% Self-Care disability 3,952 2.1% Independent living disability 6,816 4.2% Map NA-1o.1 shows the distribution of persons with disabilities in 2017. The elderly population with disabilities is shown in Map NA-10.2. Those aged 65 and older are the most likely to have a disability and are also the most likely to be in need of supportive services. Pinpointing specific numbers of domestic violence victims is difficult due to the lack of reporting and other mitigating factors. However, the California Health Interview Survey found that 23 percent of adult females in Orange County have been victims of domestic violence.' 'http-Jlww...w,och-ealth�rtogether argllnicatorslin.derv.iew indisatorld=S9.B3caIQl.d=_z_6.7 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 30 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 213 C O V N a O N N p m o 0 3 c v o v G N m t CL N cr 3 _ if fr rt `� F ID g"o d > .a n 3 ! O U L r m Q 0)< f d ------------ r N i i 1 �r � c c N v O N � d d O CV °' �s V ,,,,•. ... - N Q o cn m c - c v o E no � C � C � 7 Q 2 N 0 Q v T a) Z V c 0 m CL C'j "0 _Qt ra 0 cc> T) 41) cu cc ra Vvu fi —Is .A LO CD aR 0 (n L) (1) m T— CL -5 0 c A < m - Lo \� � } cu �! 7 f } le CD IV bO 16 Z;1 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan What are the most common housing problems? As seen in Table NA-1o.11,the most common housing problem, by far,are housing cost burdens. There are 29,264 households in Huntington Beach with a cost burden or severe cost burden. This accounts for 38.1 percent of all households in Huntington Beach. Are any populations/household types more affected than others by these problems? For homeowners, an estimated 30.1 percent face cost burdens or severe cost burdens. Elderly non- family households experience cost burdens at a higher rate, at 37.7 percent. At lower income levels, large and small families experience cost burdens at a higher rate. Large families between 3o and 50 percent HMAFI face housing problems at a rate of 97.4 percent. Below 30 percent HAMFI, small families face housing problems at a rate of 79.4 percent. These data are shown in Table NA-10.14. Table Owner-Occupied Households HuntingtonBeach Data Income Elderly Small Large Elderly Other Total Family Family Family Non-Family Household Cost Burden $0 to$29,370 120 50 0 205 60 435 $29,371 to$48,950 190 135 55 300 60 740 $48,951 to$78,320 320 525 125 250 150 1,370 $78,321 to$97,900 415 515 80 220 105 1,335 Above$97,900 560 2,130 295 225 615 3,825 Total 1,605 3.355 555 1,200 990 7,705 Severe Cost Burden $0 to$29,370 265 570 25 765 310 1,935 $29,371 to$48,950 270 385 95 345 230 1,325 $48.951 to$78,320 170 655 90 210 195 1,320 $78,321 to$97,900 105 240 4 35 60 444 Above$97,900 165 145 45 65 85 505 Total 975 1,995 259 1,420 880 5,529 Total $0 to$29,370 500 780 40 1,345 590 3,255 $29,371 to$48,950 1,115 895 154 1,250 355 3,769 $48,951 to$78,320 1,690 1,910 395 1,485 640 6,120 $78,321 to$97,900 1,290 1,770 354 850 430 4,694 Above$97,900 5,770 13,590 2,125 1,725 2,945 26,155 Total 10,365 18,945 3,068 6,655 4,960 43,993 Renters are more likely to experience cost burdens than owner households, at a rate of 48.0 percent for all renter households in Huntington Beach. Elderly non-family households experience the highest City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 33 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 216 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan rate of cost burdens overall,for renter households,at 68.5 percent. As seen with owner households, lower income large family and small family renter households experience cost burdens at the highest rate. Small families between 3o and 50 percent HAMFI experience cost burdens at a rate of 92.4 percent. Large families with incomes below 30 percent HAMFI experience cost burdens at a rate of 94.6 percent. These data are shown in Table NA-10.15. Renter-OccupiedTable NA-10.15 . . Huntington . . HUD CHAS Data Income Elderly Small Large Elderly Other Total Family Family Family Non-Family Household Cost Burden $0to$29,370 20 85 50 180 35 370 $29,371 to$48,950 70 770 310 180 415 1,745 $48,951 to$78,320 125 1,680 215 190 1,325 3,535 $78,321 to$97,900 20 425 35 60 185 725 Above$97,900 65 325 4 10 270 674 Total 300 3,285 614 620 2,230 7,049 Severe Cost Burden $0 to$29,370 175 1,765 475 980 1,225 4,620 $29,371 to$48,950 160 995 100 275 845 2,375 $48,951 to$78,320 55 420 55 115 225 870 $78,321 to$97,900 20 20 10 30 35 115 Above$97,900 0 0 0 0 35 35 { Total 410 3,200 640 1,400 2,365 8,015 Total --� $0to$29,370 340 2,105 555 1,525 1,630 6,155 $29,371 to$48,950 255 1,910 460 495 1,305 4,425 $48,951 to$78,320 270 3,130 585 455 2,260 6,700 $78,321 to$97,900 95 1,465 250 200 1,085 3,095 Above$97,900 485 5,220 419 275 4,635 11,034 1 Total 1,445 13,830 2,269 2,950 10,915 31,409 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 34 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 217 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan Describe the characteristics and needs of Low-income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low-income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered 91.205(c)/91-305(c)). Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance Households most likely to be at risk of becoming unsheltered are those with extremely low incomes that are severely cost-burdened. There are 5,83o households in Huntington Beach that are below 30 percent HAMFI with severe cost burdens. These 1,94o homeowner households and 3,890 renter households are the most at-risk of becoming homeless. If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also include a description of the operational definition of the at-risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates: Not applicable. Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and an increased risk of homelessness According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness,there are various factors that contribute to an increased risk of homelessness.These housing characteristics include households that are doubled up, or living with friends or family, persons recently released from prison, and young adults out of foster care. Economic factors include households with severe cost burden and households facing unemployment. As described here and in the following sections, there are a large number of households facing cost burdens and other housing problems that create instability and increase their risk of homelessness. Discussion The population in Huntington Beach grew by 5.6 percent between 2010 and 2017. This growth, however, has not resulted in significant changes in the racial and ethnic makeup of the area. Income disparity is growing,with households earning more than $1oo,000 a year growing to account for 43.4 percent of the population in 2017. Meanwhile, persons in poverty grew from 6.6 percent of the population in 2000 to 8.9 percent of the population in 2017. A significant proportion of households have housing problems, particularly cost burdens, with 30.1 percent of households experiencing cost burdens. Renter households are particularly impacted by cost burdens, at a rate of 48.o percent. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 35 Draft Report for Public Review:0311112020 218 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems - 91.205 (b)(z) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction The following tables show the rate of housing problems by race and ethnicity. If any one racial or ethnic group faces housing problems at a rate at least ten percentage points higher than the jurisdiction average, that racial or ethnic group is considered to have a disproportionate rate of housing problems. 0%-30%of Area Median Income 7,065 1,180 775 hite 4,155 785 610 ck/African American 50 14 0 `ian 910 195 60 erican Indian,Alaska Native 0 0 0 cific Islander 15 0 0 isp 1,840 170 80 Table 13-Disproportion ally Greater Need 0-30%AMI Data 2011-2015 CHAS Source: *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities,3. More than one person per room,4. Cost Burden greater than 30% 30%-50%of Area Median Income isdicti0n as a wbo e-71 6,175 1,635 0 ite 3,905 1,260 0 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 36 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 219 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan 44 10 0 Asian 560 115 0 American Indian,Alaska Native ) 35 25 0 Pacific Islander 40 0 0 Hispanic 1,495 205 0 Table 14-Disproportionally Greater Need 30-50%AMI Data 2011-2015 CHAS Source: *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities,2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities,3.More than one person per room,4. Cost Burden greater than 30% 5o%-8o%of Area Median Income Jurisdiction as a whole 7,385 5,060 0 White 5,250 3,575 0 Black/African American 69 40 0 Asian 540 520 0 American Indian,Alaska Native 45 55 0 Pacific Islander 30 30 0 Hispa 1,285 730 0 Table 15-Disproportion ally Greater Need 50-80%AM[ Data 2011-2015 CHAS Source: *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities,2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities,3.More than one person per room,4. Cost Burden greater than 30% City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 37 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 220 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan 8o%-i00%of Area Median Income �risdiction as a whole 2,895 4,775 0 hite 2,060 3,435 0 ck/African American 90 65 0 ian 260 280 0 erican Indian,Alaska Native 4 20 0 cific Islander 20 4 0 385 785 0 Table 16-Disproportionally Greater Need 80-100%AMI Data 2011-2015 CHAS Source: *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities,2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities,3. More than one person per room,4. Cost Burden greater than 30% Discussion There were 1,18o households at 0-30%M FI or roughly 15.1 percent experiencing one of the four housing problems. There were 14 African American households or 28.o percent, who experienced a housing problem City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 38 Draft Report for Public Review:03/1112020 221 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan NA-2o Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems - 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction The following tables show the rate of severe housing problems by race and ethnicity. If any one racial or ethnic group faces severe housing problems at a rate at least ten percentage points higher than the jurisdiction average,that racial or ethnic group is considered to have a disproportionate rate of severe housing problems. 0%-30%of Area Median Income 'Jsdiction as a 6,510 1,740 775 e kiolte 3,790 1,155 610 Black/African 40 25 0 erican Jan 775 330 60 erican Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 15 0 0 panic 1,795 210 80 Table 17—Severe Housing Problems 0-30%AMI Data 2011-2015 CHAS Source: *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities,2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities,3. More than 1.5 persons per room,4. Cost Burden over 5o% City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 39 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 222 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan 30%-50% of Area Median Income 4,160 3,650 0 hite 2,665 2,495 0 ck/African American 20 35 0 ian 380 290 0 erican Indian, Alaska Native 35 25 0 Pacific Islander 10 30 0 Hispanic 970 730 0 Table 18—Severe Housing Problems 30-50%AMI Data 2011-2015 CHAS Source: *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 5o% 5o%-8o%of Area Median Income Jurisdiction as a whole 2,860 9,585 0 White 1,970 6,850 0 ck/African American 30 79 0 155 910 0 erican Indian,Alaska Native ! 25 80 0 cific Islander 4 55 0 anic 595 1,420 0 Table 19—Severe Housing Problems 50-80%AM Data 2011-2015 CHAS Source: *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities,3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 5o% City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 40 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 223 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan 8o%-i00%of Area Median Income isdiction as a whop 885 6,790 0 hite 555 4,940 0 ck/African American 50 110 0 is n 130 410 0 erican Indian,Alaska Native 0 25 0 'cific Islander 0 30 0 spanic 155 1,020 0 Table 20—Severe Housing Problems 80-100%AMI Data 2011-2015 CHAS Source: *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities,2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities,3. More than 1.5 persons per room,4. Cost Burden over 50% Discussion As shown in the tables above, the only racial or ethnic group that faces a disproportionate share of severe housing problems, is Hispanic households at 30 percent HAMFI or below. These households face severe housing problems at a rate of 86.1 percent versus 72.1 percent for the City as a whole. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 41 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 224 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens - 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction Households experiencing cost burdens spend above 30 percent of their income on housing cost.Cost Burdened households may experience finical strain due to the high proportion on income spent on housing cost. Of the four HUD defined housing problems, cost burden is the most prevalent and the most detrimental to the long term stability of a households. Households spending above 50 percent of their income on housing cost are severely cost burdened and may be a few missed paychecks away from experiencing homelessness. It is an important metric to define the immediate need for affordable housing goals. Housing Cost Burden 45,205 15,035 13,425 790 White 33,135 10,540 9,060 610 Black/African American ; 390 145 120 0 Asian 4,825 1,355 1,440 70 American Indian,Alaska 210 70 35 0 Native Pacific Islander 50 104 30 0 Hispanic AL 5,470 2,470 2,535 90 Table 21—Greater Need:Housing Cost Burdens AMI Data 2011-2015 CHAS Source: Discussion The City of Huntington Beach had 15,035, or 20.2 percent of households experiencing a cost burden. There were an additional 13,425 households who experienced a severe cost burden,which represented 18.o percent of all households in the city.When evaluated by race/ethnicity Hispanic households had a cost burden rate of 23.4 percent and a 24.0 percent rate of severe cost burden. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 42 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 225 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan NA-3o Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion - 91.205(b)(2) Are there any Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole? The overall rate of housing problems is 39.1 percent in the City of Huntington Beach. A disproportionate share of housing problems exists if any one racial or ethnic group experiences housing problems at a rate at least ten (1o) percentage points higher than the average. In this case, at a rate of at least 49.1 percent. Pacific Islander and Hispanic households face housing problems at a disproportionate rate. Pacific Islander households face housing problems at a rate of 69.3 percent, however only accounted for 0.4 percent of the population in 2017. Hispanic households face housing problems at a rate of 50.7 percent. If they have needs not identified above,what are those needs? This data may indicate a need for rental assistance to help reduce cost burdens. Are any of those racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your community? There are several areas in the City where Hispanic households are concentrated. Hispanic households had several areas with a disproportionate share of Hispanic households. These areas tended to be in eastern parts of Huntington Beach and saw Hispanic population that exceeded 30.2 percent, compared to the 19.3 percent for the citywide average. Additional discussion and maps area shown in MA-5o Needs and Market Analysis Discussion. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 43 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 226 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan TableI Total • • •s with Housing Problems by • and Race Huntington1 1 . HUD CHAS Data Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic Income American Pacific Other (Any Total White Black Asian � C Indian Islander Race Race -11 With Housing Problems $0 to$29,370 4,400 100 900 15 15 165 1,820 7,415 $29,371 to$48,950 3,935 64 605 40 45 100 1,475 6,264 $48,951to$78,320 5,310 95 515 0 15 145 1,475 7,555 $78,321to$97,900 2,045 55 230 4 20 70 355 2.779 Above$97,900 4,175 30 715 15 29 150 375 5,489 Total 19,865 344 2,965 74 124 630 5,500 29,502 _.._' Total $0 to$29,370 5.730 115 1,205 15 15 190 2,140 9,410 $29,371 to$48,950 5.305 68 840 60 45 120 1,765 8,203 $48,951 to$78,320 9,020 140 1,065 75 35 280 2,205 12,820 $78,321 to$97,900 5,695 125 580 24 30 190 1,155 7,799 Above$97,900 27,900 305 4.245 100 54 985 3,590 37,179 Total 53,650 753 7,935 274 179 1,765 10,855 75,411 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 44 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 227 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan NA-35 Public Housing - 91.205(b) Introduction The Housing Choice Voucher(HCV) program,formerly called the Section 8 program, is HUD's largest program that helps low-income families,the elderly,and the disabled find affordable decent,safe,and sanitary housing in the private market.Participants receive federally subsidized vouchers that they can use to rent the home or apartment of their choosing, provided that it meets the requirements of the program and agreement of the landlord.The funding assistance is provided to the family or individual, the voucher holder, and can move with the family or individual rather than being tied to the property or unit. There are no public housing units in Huntington Beach. Totals in Use 0 0 0 10,825 0 10,418 187 207 10 Table 22-Public Housing by Program Type *includes Non-Elderly Disabled,Mainstream One-Year,Mainstream Five-year,and Nursing Home Transition Data PIC(PIH Information Center) Source: City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 45 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 228 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan Characteristics of Residents sion 0 0 0 16,476 0 16,470 17,239 15,594 dmis :,� f Elderly c�gram 0 0 0 8 0 rticipants 8 0 4 -62) of Disabled �mi 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 3 lies of Families requesting 0 0 0 87 0 5 72 10 accessibility to atures �` f HIV/AIDS gram 0 0 0 4,926 0 4,884 38 3 rticipants of DV victims 0 0 0 2,163 0 2,075 64 14 Table 23—Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Data Source: PIC(PIH Information Center) City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 46 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 229 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan Race of Residents 0 0 0 5,857 0 5,528 139 182 6 Black/African 0 0 0 745 0 693 39 10 2 American Asian 0 0 0 4,128 0 4,107 4 15 2 American 0 0 0 64 0 60 4 0 0 Indian/Alaska Native Pacific 0 0 0 31 0 30 1 0 0 Islander Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *includes Non-Elderly Disabled,Mainstream One-Year,Mainstream Five-year,and Nursing Home Transition Table 24—Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Data PIC(PIH Information Center) Source: City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 47 Draft Report for Public Review:03111/2020 230 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan Ethnicity of Residents 0 0 0 1,941 0 1,814 34 87 4 0 0 0 8,884 0 8,604 153 120 6 *includes Non-Elderly Disabled,Mainstream One-Year,Mainstream Five-year,and Nursing Home Transition Table 25—Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Data Source: PIC(PIH Information Center) Section 504 Needs Assessment: Describe the needs of public housing tenants and applicants on the waiting list for accessible units: Not Applicable, as there is no public housing in Huntington Beach and OCHA does not have a public housing program. Most immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice voucher holders The most immediate needs of public housing and housing choice voucher holders is accessing affordable housing and, in some cases,preventing homelessness.These needs are complicated by the availability of accessing units that will accept vouchers, and the amount of need in the area. How do these needs compare to the housing needs of the population at large These needs are seen in a much higher rate and are more urgent than the population at large.The low- income levels of households utilizing publicly supported housing dramatically increases the likelihood of housing problems and risk of homelessness. While supportive housing services are important to most affordable housing and special needs clients, those at the lowest income in assisted housing require the most intensive aid. Discussion The rising cost of housing in the City results in a higher number of persons eligible for Housing Choice Vouchers. The availability of resources, however, is finite, leaving many eligible households unable to access much needed housing assistance. This has resulted in lengthy waiting lists and long wait times to access affordable housing options. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 48 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 231 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan NA-4o Homeless Needs Assessment — 91.205(c) Introduction: The Orange County Continuum of Care (CoC) operates in Orange County. This CoC is a collaborative of service providers. The Point-In-Time (PIT) count for the Orange County CoC has increased from 3,833 in 2014 to 6,840 in 2019. However, there are limitations to the PIT, especially when capturing unsheltered populations. These limitations include not capturing the whole unsheltered population, however, methodologies in recent years have tried to rectify these limitations when at all possible. Service providers have indicated that they are noticing a growth in the homeless population citywide. During the 2019 count, there were 349 total persons counted in Huntington Beach, with 289 unsheltered,and 6o sheltered. Orange County's 2019 Point-in-Time Summary also provides a deeper look into who exactly is homeless in Orange County.The results include findings that: • 37%of homeless people(sheltered and unsheltered) live in a household that includes a minor child,although the vast majority of homeless children are sheltered. • 36%of homeless individuals are chronically homeless. • 26%of homeless individuals have substance abuse issues. • 24%of homeless individuals are living with mental illness. 0 21%of homeless individuals have a physical disability. • 5%of homeless individuals are veterans. • 2%of homeless individuals have HIV/AIDS. • 9%of homeless individuals are seniors. Table -0 OrangeHomeless Persons Point-in-Time Counts 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Homeless count 3,833 4,452 4,319 4,792 4,955 6,860 The tables below are gathered from the 2019 Point-In-Time Count for Orange County. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 49 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 232 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan Estimate the#of persons Estimate the Estimate Estimate the experiencing # the# Estimate the #of days homelessness on a given experiencing becoming #exiting persons night homelessness homeless homelessness experience Population Sheltered Unsheltered each year each year each year homelessness Persons in Households with 1,154 396 0 0 0 0 Adult(s) and Child(ren) Persons in Households with 11 3 0 0 0 0 Only Children Persons in Households with 1,734 3,562 0 0 0 0 Only Adults Chronically 559 1,932 0 0 0 0 Homeless Veterans 99 212 0 0 0 Unaccompanied 11 3 0 0 0 0 Youth Persons with HIV 39 67 0 0 0 0 Substance Abuse 578 1,223 0 0 0 0 Issues Physical Disability 326 1,145 0 0 0 0 Mental Health 670 984 0 0 0 0 Issues Seniors 357 255 1 0 j 0 0 0 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 50 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 233 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan Nature and Extent of Homelessness: (Optional) Race: Sheltered: Unsheltered (optional) White 2,103 2,880 Black or African American 435 333 Asian 95 123 American Indian or Alaska 112 74 Native Pacific Islander 35 66 Other 119 485 Ethnicity: Sheltered: Unsheltered (optional) Hispanic 1,126 1,354 Not Hispanic 1,773 2,607 The most current 2019 PIT count for the City of Huntington Beach is displayed below. Category Unsheltered Sheltered Total Individuals 271 5 276 Families 18 50 68 Transitional Youth (Age 18-24) 12 2 14 Seniors 23 1 24 Veterans 16 1 17 ........................................ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Total 289 60 349 Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with children and the families of veterans. In the 2019 Count, there were 18 unsheltered families in the City, which included 289 persons, 12 of which were children. There were 50 families that were sheltered,which included 6o persons, some 2 of which were children. There were 17 homeless veterans counted in 2019 some 1 of which were sheltered. Describe the Nature and Extent of Homelessness by Racial and Ethnic Group. According to the 2019 PIT for Orange County, some 72.7 percent of the unsheltered population was white, 8.4 percent were black, and 3.1 percent were Asian. As for the sheltered population, the City saw a similar racial distribution, with 72.5 percent white, 15.0 percent were black, 3.9 percent were American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 3.3 percent were Asian. In terms of ethnicity, some 34.2 percent of the unsheltered population and 38.8 percent of the sheltered population was Hispanic or Latino. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 51 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 234 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan Describe the Nature and Extent of Unsheltered and Sheltered Homelessness. In 2019,some 2,899 persons counted were sheltered,accounting for 42.3 percent. In the unsheltered population, some 52.0 percent were chronically homeless, 32.9 percent had substance abuse issues, 30.8 percent had a physical disability, and 26.5 percent had mental health issues. In the sheltered population, some 25.8 percent were chronically homeless, 26.7 percent had substance abuse issues, 15.1 percent had a physical disability,and 30.9 percent had mental health issues. Discussion: The homeless population in Orange County is increasing. As the population increases, the need for housing and service options also increases, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing. In addition, the number of households in the area who are at risk of homelessness continue to be a high priority to keep the number of homeless households from increasing in the City. There is also a high level of need for services for homeless households including the case management,job training,transportation, substance abuse treatment, and other supportive services. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 52 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 235 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b,d) Introduction: The following section describes the non-homeless special needs populations in Huntington Beach. These non-homeless special needs population include the elderly, persons with disabilities, people with drug and alcohol addictions,victims of domestic violence,and persons with HIV/AIDS. Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community: ELDERLY AND FRAIL ELDERLY The population aged 65 and older accounted for 17.0 percent of the population. In 2010, this age cohort accounted for only 13.6 percent of the population. The elderly population is growing at a faster rate than the population as a whole. Between 2010 and 2017,the population in Huntington Beach had grown by 5.5 percent. Meanwhile,the population of persons aged 65 and older grew by 31.9 percent. PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES Disability by age, as estimated by the 2017 ACS, is shown in Table NA-45.1. The disability rate for females was 9.6 percent, compared to 9.3 percent for males. The disability rate grew precipitously higher with age,with 43.4 percent of those over 75 experiencing a disability. Table Disability Huntington Five-Year2017 Data Male Female Total Age Disabled Disability Disabled Disability Disabled Disability Population Rate Population Rate Population Rate Under5 8 0.2% 0 0% 8 0.1% 5to17 937 6.1% 476 3.4% 1,413 4.8% 18 to 34 1,120 4.9% 583 2.8% 1,703 3.9% 35 to 64 3,200 7.6% 2,932 7.0% 6,132 7.3% 65 to 74 1,719 18.7% 1,802 17.6% 3,521 18.1% 75 or Older 2,287 39A% 3,799 46.2% 6,086 43.4% Total 9,271 9.3% 9,592 9.6% 18,863 9.4% The number of disabilities by type,as estimated by the 2017 ACS, is shown in Table NA-45.2. Some 4.8 percent have an ambulatory disability, 4.2 percent have an independent living disability, and 2.1 percent have a self-care disability. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 53 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 236 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan Table HuntingtonTotal Disabilities Tallied: Aged 5 and Older • Disability Type Population with Percent with Disability Disability Hearing disability 5,818 2.9% Vision disability 3,392 1.7% Cognitive disability 7,239 3.8% Ambulatory disability 9,226 4.8% Self-Care disability 3,952 2.1% Independent living disability 6,816 4.2% City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 54 Draft Report for Public Review:03111/2020 237 C O 00 ry M d O N N io m -o 0 0 3 c O > cii _V 7 a _o 0 C a v w 0 C L O coa m m Z (L C r = Q (tf L h G1 0 W U C a v �a .o c 0 L V n) N m C C N O E N v�i C Q 2 "O O v z 0 a) C') C'4 UJ cc: 17, IN ow- w CN C,4 -T� CL 0 o UJ (- oc M m aj C4 co O U) aci 0 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan PEOPLE WITH ALCOHOL AND DRUG ADDICTIONS Addressing the Opioid Crisis in Orange County, CA Report was put out by the Orange County Alcohol and Drug Advisory Board & OC Health Care Agency.' Nearly 1.5 million opioid prescriptions were dispensed to Orange County residents in 2o18, down from an average of 1.7 million in the three previous years. The opioid overdose death rate for Orange County is higher than the statewide rate. Seven out of every ten drug related deaths in the City involve opioids. The Orange County Health Care Agency's 2o18-2023 Alcohol & Other Drug Prevention Strategic Plan provides additional information about drug and alcohol use in Orange County 3 According to the findings from the 2o16 Orange County CHKS, past 3o day lath grade youth AOD use rates have decreased since 20o8 and are consistently lower than California rates. Data findings from the DOJ in 2o16 revealed that AOD offenses(drug, drunk, and DUI) account for 17.7%of all juvenile (those under 18 years of age) arrests. In comparison, AOD (drug, drunk, and DUI)accounted for 48.2%of all adult arrests in Orange County in 2o16 VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Pinpointing specific numbers of domestic violence victims is difficult due to the lack of reporting and other mitigating factors. However, the California Health Interview Survey found that 23 percent of adult females in Orange County have been victims of domestic violence.4 What are the housing and supportive service needs of these populations and how are these needs determined? The 2019 Housing and Community Development Survey found that veterans, homeless persons, and persons with severe mental illness had the highest rated needs, followed by and persons with substance abuse addictions and seniors. The service needs for these populations are varied, ranging from rapid rehousing to rental assistance to stay housed or substance abuse assistance programs. These results are shown in Table NA-45.3• 2http://www ochealthiertog h r org/content/ iset ss/ochhca/Local Reports/Addressing the Ooioid Cries in Orange City.pd 3http:/Jwww ochealthiertogether org/ ont n( i5 tes/ochca/ ocal Reps/OC Alcohol and Other Drug_Prevention Stratetic Plan zoi8- 2o23.pdf a httpll www.ochealthiertoge— ther.og(.r jndicatorslndexlvew'indi.at4f.ld-5.g..q.3&I4cdleld=261 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 57 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 240 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Table Needsof • Populations Huntington Housing and Community Development Survey Question No Need Low Need Medium Need High Need Don't Know Missing Total Please rate the need for SERVICES AND FACILITIES for each of the following special needs groups in the City. Veterans 13 28 89 192 35 55 412 Homeless persons 49 61 51 188 8 55 412 Persons with severe mental illness 29 40 78 183 27 55 412 Persons with substance abuse 58 57 74 146 25 52 412 addictions Seniors(65+) 29 62 100 141 24 56 412 Victims of domestic violence 21 56 108 127 46 54 412 Persons with developmental 24 65 106 111 47 59 412 disabilities Persons with physical disabilities 23 63 126 103 41 56 412 Persons recently released from 85 65 64 65 54 79 412 jail/prison `Persons with HIV/AIDS 70 82 72 38 89 61 412 Discuss the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families within the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area: According to the Orange County HIV SURVEILLANCE STATISTICS 2018, 6,369 people are living with HIV (PLWH) in Orange County as of December 31, 2018;this does not include individuals estimated to be living with HIV who have not been diagnosed.5 In 2018,there were 28o HIV(209 HIV non-AIDS and 71 AIDS)cases diagnosed in Orange County residents,for a rate of 8.7 cases per 100,00o Orange County population. 5,520 PLWH are male (86.7%), 751 female (11.8%), and 98 (1.5%) are transgender male to female. 3,075 PLWH are Hispanic(48.3%), 2,318 PLWH are white(36.4%), 498(7.8%)are Asian, 353 are black (5.5%), 95 are more than one race (1.5%), 21 are Pacific Islander (0.3%), and fewer than 10 are American Indian/Alaskan Native. In 2018, 153 (54.6%) of cases diagnosed were Hispanic, 84 (30.0%) were white,and 30(10.7%)were Asian. Discussion: The special needs populations in Huntington Beach include the elderly and frail elderly, which are growing at the fastest rate of any age group in the area. It also includes persons with disabilities,which account for 9.4 percent of the population and 43.4 percent of those aged 75 and older. In addition, there are other special needs population, such as veterans, persons with alcohol and drug abuse disorders, victims of domestic violence, and persons with HIV/AIDS that are in need of services in the City. Shttp:llwww.....gphealthnfo.comlc.i.vipaxlf.il.ebank/bl_gbdlpada_5px'6.19.121_D=ip$z34 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 58 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 241 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan NA-5o Non-Housing Community Development Needs - 91.215 M Describe the jurisdiction's need for Public Facilities: The 2019 Housing and Community Development Needs survey found that the highest rated needs were for homeless shelters, facilities for abused and neglected children, and youth centers. This was followed by parks and recreation centers and childcare facilities. Table SuitableProviding a Huntington Housing • Community Development - Question No Need Low Need Medium Need High Need Don't Know Missing Total Please rate the need for the following COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES in the City: Homeless shelters 85 47 60 173 10 37 412 Facilities for abused/neglected 29 56 103 124 55 45 412 children Youth centers 27 52 148 123 24 38 412 Parks and recreational centers 18 65 148 122 16 43 412 Childcare facilities 39 75 110 100 48 40 412 Community centers 28 82 142 99 20 41 412 Healthcare facilities 54 78 115 93 23 49 412 Senior centers 67 86 119 85 13 42 412 Fire Stations/equipment 43 71 101 67 88 42 412 Residential treatment centers 127 70 67 59 46 43 412 Public buildings with improved 72 109 84 39 61 47 412 accessibility ........... Facilities for persons living with AIDS 114 79 46 28 102 43 412 How were these needs determined? These needs were determined using the 2019 Housing and Community Development needs survey. Describe the jurisdiction's need for Public Improvements: The most likely rated needs, according to the HCD survey, were street and road improvements, sidewalk improvements, and flood drainage improvements. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 59 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 242 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Table Providing • • Environment Huntington - Housing and Community Development Survey Question No Need Low Need Medium Need High Need Don't Know Missing Total Please rate the need for the following INFRASTRUCTURE activities: Street and road improvements 5 31 128 202 7 39 412 Sidewalk improvements 6 50 148 154 16 38 412 Flood drainage improvements 13 61 112 130 53 43 412 Tree Planting 28 89 112 122 24 37 412 Bicycle and walking paths 29 98 112 121 15 37 412 Storm sewer system improvements 14 59 122 114 61 42 412 Water quality improvements 51 78 102 79 64 38 412 Sewer system improvements 20 83 104 76 88 41 412 Solid waste facility improvements 29 82 85 74 101 41 412 Water system capacity improvements 33 75 106 67 85 46 412 Bridge improvements 38 91 98 54 89 42 412 Other 18 3 6 28 47 310 412 How were these needs determined? These needs were determined using the 2019 Housing and Community Development needs survey. Describe the jurisdiction's need for Public Services: The top three public service needs, as determined by the 2019 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey, included homelessness services, mental health services, and substance abuse services. However, the growing number of the elderly population, as evidenced in the 2017 American Community Survey, supports additional support services for this segment of the population. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 6o Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 243 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Table Providing • • Environment Huntington Housing and Community Development Survey Question No Need Low Need Medium Need High Need Don't Know Missing Total Please rate the need for the following HUMAN And PUBLIC SERVICES in the City. Homelessness services 42 43 63 217 8 39 412 Mental health services 26 25 90 216 14 41 412 Substance abuse services 38 42 101 174 16 41 412 Youth services 26 48 126 149 21 42 412 Services for victims of domestic 22 52 122 140 33 43 412 violence Senior services 32 62 131 122 16 49 412 Food banks 46 73 112 117 21 43 412 Fair housing activities 84 66 67 108 43 44 412 Crime awareness education 34 74 126 101 32 45 412 Transportation services 38 76 129 100 24 45 412 Employment services 63 69 109 96 26 49 412 Healthcare services 47 81 110 94 29 51 412 Childcare services 44 82 108 81 51 46 412 Tenant/Landlord counseling 84 74 77 78 59 40 412 Home-buyer education 85 66 99 73 42 47 412 Mitigation of asbestos hazards 74 84 69 63 74 48 412 Mitigation of radon hazards 82 93 53 49 89 46 412 Mitigation of lead-based paint hazards 82 101 56 48 77 48 412 Other 18 4 1 19 46 324 412 How were these needs determined? These needs were determined using the 2019 Housing and Community Development needs survey, as well as data retrieved from the 2017 ACS. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 61 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 244 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Housing Market Analysis MA-05 Overview Housing Market Analysis Overview: Between 2010 and 2017, the number of housing units in Huntington Beach increased by 2.4 percent. The housing market has seen an increase in housing production in recent years, particularly in multifamily units. Meanwhile, housing costs have continued to rise. The proportion of vacant units has remained relatively steady since 2010 but has seen an increase in the proportion of these units for seasonal, recreational,or occasional use. MA-io Number of Housing Units - 91.2lo(a)&(b)(2) Introduction Table MA-1o.1 shows housing units by type in 2010 and 2017. In 2010,there were 79,166 housing units, compared with 81,128 in 2017. Single-family units continues to account for over 6o percent of the Huntington Beach housing stock,compared to roughly 36 percent of multi-family units. All residential properties by number of units _ 38,795 50% 1-unit, attached structure 9,185 12% 2-4 units 10,325 13% 5-19 units 8,250 11% 20 or more units 1 8,700 11% Mobile Home, boat, RV,van,etc. 2,995 4% Total 78,250 100% Table 26—Residential Properties by Unit Number Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 62 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 245 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Table 1 Housing Units by • Huntington 2010&2017Data 2010 Five-Year ACS 2017 Five-Year ACS Unit Type ._._. _ Units %of Total Units %of Total Single-Family 48,341 61.1% 49,795 61.41X. Duplex 826 1.0% 1,454 1.8% Tri-or Four-Plex 8,561 10.8% 9,086 11.2% Apartment 18,305 23.1% 17,754 21.9% i Mobile Home 3,048 3.9% 2,992 3.7% Boat,RV,Van, Etc. 85 0.1% 47 0.1% Total 79,166 100.0% 81,128 100.0% Table MA-10.2 shows housing units by tenure from 2010 to 2017. By 2017, there were 81,128 housing units. An estimated 58.3 percent were owner-occupied, and 5.4 percent were vacant. Renter- occupied units accounted for 41.7 percent of all units in 2017. Table 1 HuntingtonHousing Units by Tenure 2010 Census&2017D-ta Tenure 2010 Census 2017 Five-Year ACS Units %of Total Units %of Total Occupied Housing Units 74,285 95.2%° 76,709 94.6% Owner-Occupied 44,914 60.5% 44,724 58.3% Renter-Occupied 29,371 39.5% 31,985 41.7% Vacant Housing Units 3,718 4.8% 4,419 5.4% Total Housing Units 78,003 100.0% 81,128 100.0% The distribution of unit types by race are shown in Table MA-10.3.An estimated 63.3 percent of white households occupy single-family homes, while 37.6 percent of black households do. Some 20.5 percent of white households occupied apartments, while 48.3 percent of black households do. An estimated 68.4 percent of Asian households,and 44.4 percent of American Indian households occupy single-family homes. Table 1 StructureDistribution of Units in . Huntingtony Race 117 Five-Year ACS Data American Native Two or Unit Type White Black Indian Asian Hawaiian/Pacific Other More Races _ Islanders Single-Family 63.3% 37.6% 44.4% 68.4% 62.0% 29.7% 57.3% Duplex 1.4% 7.6% 0% 2.3% 0% 8.1% 2.1% Tri-or Four-Plex 10.8% 5.0% 8.1% 9.1% 3.3% 28.0% 15.1% Apartment 20.5% 48.3% 42.4% 18.3% 27.7% 29.1% 24.6% Mobile Home 3.9% 1.6% 5.1% 1.9% 7.0% 5.1% 0.8% Boat,RV,Van,Etc. 0.1% 0% 0% 0.1% 0% 0% 0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 63 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 246 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Table MA-io.4 shows households by year home built for the 2010 and 2017 5-year ACS data. Housing units built between 2000 and 2009, account for 4.6 percent of households in 2010 and 4.6 percent of households in 2017. Housing units built in 1939 or earlier represented 1.7 percent of households in 2017 and 1.2 percent of households in 2010. The age of the housing stock, with 74.1 percent built prior to 198o, may suggest a higher level of need for renovation and rehabilitation. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 64 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 247 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Year Built 2010 Frye YearACS � , 2017 Frye Year ACS �r :. `` Households %of-Total Households %of-Tot61' 1939 or Earlier`; "'yt 935'` 1.20/(1� ; i 1,323 1:70/c �?- 1940 to 1949 802 = 1 1% 564 1950to1959 3643�'�� 4.8%%� 1960 to 9969k� �:_26 910i 27 699 36 1% {r 1 to,1989 �� 1 OF- 23di"432 970to 1 3 316% �5% `97520696a 142%1980 t 127%k 1990 to 1999 °' 4`961 = 6 6% 2000 to�2009�J,� '3 483 a ��' 4 6%air, 3,528 yGw MR ��4.6% ,2010 or Later 1 ,116 Total; , 't �u75 09,220 5�" i 100.0% 767 ° r4� �1000% Unit Size by Tenure jell �'i 1�'� „.. In���L O�ri 1 t {* " 4 � 'fix'. _..r135 _ � . 0./0'� 1,360 � ��1 200 dr s 8b1 i � a a '�"� A Alp, 5 � 4"C� 4� � 7 M % i °6730 � t 42� %NK 81% iu ii 9 270 � - O ��- 050 3, �r Table 27—Unit Size by Tenure Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Describe the number and targeting (income level/type of family served) of units assisted with federal, state, and local programs. Programs will target households that have housing problems in the City of Huntington Beach. This includes over 29,494 households in the Area,some 13,489 of which are owner households, and 16,005 of which are renter households. Huntington Beach's Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program (TBRA) provides a homeless person or family with temporary assistance in paying rent and related assistance,with the goal of self-sufficiency within six months. The City funds the program with HUD/HOME and other housing funds that are carefully budgeted. Renewal grants are not guaranteed,nor are they unlimited,so great care must be taken with program administration. TBRA currently targets homeless(extremely low)populations,as well as veterans,victims of domestic violence, and low income families.The Affordable Housing Program funded with HOME aims to assist low-and moderate-income households. In CDBG, HB funds two housing rehabilitation programs. One is a grant program and one is a loan program for eligible LMI households. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 65 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 248 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Provide an assessment of units expected to be lost from the affordable housing inventory for any reason,such as expiration of Section 8 contracts. Map MA-1o.1 shows the number of Section 8 contracts that are set to expire. In the range of this Consolidated Plan, there is one contract set to expire in 202o and one set to expire in 2034• Additionally,the City has a portfolio of 1,455 affordable rental units that it has developed, of which 56 are at risk of converting to market rate during this Consolidated Plan timeframe. Below is the most recent affordable housing inventory supplied from the City of Huntington Beach.As can be seen there are 4,261 total units in projects, with 1,455 affordable units and 541 units restricted to very low-income levels. #of Affordable Number of Very Low- Number of Low-Income Number of Moderate- Total Units in Project Units in Project Income Units Units Restricted by Income Units Restricted by Covenants Restricted by Covenants Covenants 4,261 1,455 541 474 353 Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population? As seen in the Needs Assessment section, as well as information gathered from public input, current housing does not meet the needs of the population. This is seen most markedly in the rate of cost burdens in the City. In 2017, an estimated 38.1 percent of the population was cost burdened. Renter households are more likely to be impacted by cost burdens, at 49.3 percent, and therefore cannot afford housing units that meet their needs. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 66 Draft Report for Public Review:0 3/1112 0 2 0 249 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Table1 Housing Problems by • and Tenure Huntington 1 1 . HUD CHAS Data $0 to $29,371 to $48,951 to $78,321 to Above Housing Problem Total $29,370 $48,950 $78,320 $97,900 $97,900 Owner-Occupied Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities 0 10 25 0 10 45 l Severely Overcrowded with> 1.51 people per 4 0 30 0 25 59 room(and complete kitchen and plumbing) Overcrowded-With 1.01-1.5 people per room 15 15 40 50 130 250 (and none of the above problems) Housing cost burden greater that 50%of income 1,940 1,320 1,300 445 505 5,510 (and none of the above problems) Housing cost burden greater than 30%of income 430 730 1,320 1,320 3,825 7,625 (and none of the above problems) Zero/negative income(and none of the above 330 0 0 0 0 330 problems) Has none of the 4 housing problems 540 1,695 3,405 2,870 21,665 30,175 Total 3,259 3,770 6,120 4,685 26,160 43,994 Renter-Occupied Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities 205 155 150 40 30 580 Severely Overcrowded with>1.51 people per 330 95 130 25 60 640 room(and complete kitchen and plumbing) Overcrowded-With 1.01-1.5 people per room 325 430 425 85 205 1,470 (and none of the above problems) Housing cost burden greater that 50%of income 3,890 2,145 860 85 35 7,015 (and none of the above problems) Housing cost burden greater than 30%of income 275 1,360 3,275 725 665 6,300 (and none of the above problems) Zero/negative income(and none of the above 425 0 0 0 0 425 problems) Has none of the 4 housing problems 705 240 1,860 2,140 10,030 14,975 Total 6,155 4,425 6,700 3,100 11,025 31,405 Total Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities 205 165 175 40 40 625 Severely Overcrowded with> 1.51 people per 334 95 160 25 85 699 room(and complete kitchen and plumbing) Overcrowded-With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none of the above problems) 340 445 465 135 335 1,720 Housing cost burden greater that 50%of income 5,830 3,465 2,160 530 540 12,525 (and none of the above problems) Housing cost burden greater than 30%of income 705 2,090 4,595 2,045 4,490 13,925 (and none of the above problems) Zero/negative income(and none of the above 755 0 0 0 0 755 problems) Has none of the 4 housing problems 1,245 1,935 5,265 5,010 31,695 45,150 Total 9,414 8195 12,820 7,785 37,185 75,399 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 67 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 250 C O N U.) d O N ,D N ro m v o o c °1 o > V v �O ( d c a � i � o N y 4 CmT � .arm ipet$ �^ice? rgya mYNt� _ N V - O U r 00 G 0I N N W _ 0• (�Z N ; C �L W I N l++Q 0 „ G O c �. ry ` a v W o C: N S m ¢ c 0 v m c ro - � c c = w 0 o O Y = V Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Describe the need for specific types of housing: Table MA-10.7 shows the results of the Housing and Community Development Survey as it rated various housing needs. The top-rated needs for housing include supportive housing for people who are homeless or disabled, first time homebuyer assistance, and rental housing for very low-income households. This was followed by rental assistance and construction of new affordable rental housing. The data for housing cost burdens by family types suggests that there is a need for housing units in a range of sizes for both large and small families. Discussion The current housing stock may not be meeting the needs of the population in Huntington Beach, especially those in lower income levels. While the rate and type of market housing production, as described in the following section, may be providing additional housing options, they may not be meeting the needs of a large proportion of households in the City. Table MA-10.7 Providin. Decent and Affordable Huntington Housing and Community Development - Question No Need Low Need Medium Need High Need Don't Know Missing Total Please rate the need for the following HOUSING activities in the City: Supportive housing for people who are homeless or disabled 70 58 77 - 188.........._ 11 8 412 First-time home-buyer assistance 68 53 82 173 27 9 412 Rental housing for very low-income households 99 80 51 164 9 9 412 Rental assistance 101 54 70 160 17 10 412 Construction of new affordable rental housing 116 62 53 150 11 20 412 Senior-friendly housing 45 50 140 132 24 21 412 Energy efficiency improvements 52 65 120 131 27 17 412 Preservation of federal subsidized housing 93 55 77 129 47 11 412 Construction of new affordable for-sale housing 112 79 73 120 15 13 412 Retrofitting existing housing to meet seniors'needs 52 73 113 119 43 12 412 Homeownership for racial and ethnic minority 137 68 55 98 39 15 412 populations Transit-oriented housing 130 66 47 96 56 17 412 Rental housing rehabilitation 86 71 95 91 54 15 412 ADA(Americans with Disabilities Act)improvements 41 82 122 85 72 10 412 Heating/cooling HVAC replacement or repairs 69 82 105 76 69 11 412 Mixed income housing 127 66 76 76 51 16 412 Homeowner housing rehabilitation 82 75 103 73 63 16 412 Mixed use housing 156 65 66 43 65 17 412 Housing demolition 134 107 43 14 100 14 412 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 69 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 252 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) Cost of Housing M 117709,700 642,900 (9%) Median Contract °" ,379 1,535 11% Table 28—Cost of Housing Data Source: 2005-2009 ACS(Base Year),2011-2015 ACS(Most Recent Year) HOUSING PRODUCTION The Census Bureau reports building permit authorizations and"per unit"valuation of building permits by City annually. Single-family construction usually represents most residential development in the City. Single-family building permit authorizations in Huntington Beach remained unchanged from 53 authorizations in 2017 and 53 authorizations in 2o18. The real value of single-family building permits decreased from 481,359 dollars in 2017 to 402,998 dollars in 2018. This compares to an increase in permit value statewide, with values decreasing from 3o8,35o dollars in 2017 to 303,302 dollars in 2018.Additional details are given in Table MA-15.1. The concentration of homeowner households are shown in Map MA-15.1. The highest rates of homeownership were seen in the coastal areas of the City, with some areas exceeding 88.8 percent homeownership rates. In the eastern areas of the City, homeownership rates were lower than 60.5 percent. Renter concentrations were, conversely, higher in the eastern areas of the City, primarily in areas adjacent to 1-405. This is shown in Map MA-15.2 Median home values and median contract rents were both highest in the coastal areas of Huntington Beach. The median home value exceeded $786,700 in many of the areas along the coast. They were lowest, below $557,600, in the central and eastern parts of the City. A similar pattern was true for median contract rents.The highest rents exceeded $23o6. The lowest rents were below$1,558. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 70 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 253 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Table Building Permits and Valuation HuntingtonBeach Census Bureau Data, 1980-2018 Authorized Construction in Permit Issuing Areas Per Unit Valuation, (Real 2017$) Year Single- Duplex Td-and Multi-Family Total Single-Family Multifamily Family Units Four-Plex Units Units Units Units 1980 613 12 83 127 835 113,726 74,705 1981 164 12 107 467 750 155,973 92,505 1982 73 4 23 109 209 231,303 71,383 1983 984 4 4 92 1,084 104,704 72,280 1 1984 684 10 43 739 1,476 134,165 57,984 j 1985 281 6 59 532 878 211,160 70,715 1986 383 18 72 505 978 226,854 104,692 1987 402 28 60 476 966 245,737 107,191 1988 865 16 69 459 1,409 306,285 140,069 1989 226 2 11 254 493 298,509 156,183 1990 90 28 18 68 204 298,234 167,502 1991 74 0 4 75 153 344,750 196,109 1992 134 14 0 5 153 265,126 160,240 1993 202 2 7 7 218 320,992 57,868 1994 185 4 0 13 202 333,584 160,302 1995 181 6 0 0 187 316,947 0 1996 219 0 3 0 222 336,319 0 1997 797 0 7 16 820 343,834 163,218 1998 446 0 0 54 500 297,352 183,966 1999 432 0 0 42 474 368,958 212,449 2000 427 0 0 6 433 352,360 202,241 2001 394 8 20 22 444 331,510 140,426 2002 244 10 4 286 544 410,800 42,526 2003 124 18 56 107 305 409,977 36.227 2004 223 0 12 53 288 356,776 262,117 2005 104 0 0 24 128 348,809 253,654 2006 106 0 0 0 106 332,376 0 2007 53 2 0 0 55 413,737 0 2008 28 2 0 0 30 248,372 0 2009 9 0 0 0 9 461,110 0 2010 4 0 16 0 20 524,758 0 2011 24 6 39 0 69 420,642 0 2012 17 0 55 859 931 419,131 106,139 2013 24 2 91 1,055 1,172 476,768 133,132 2014 52 2 0 449 503 368,884 95,999 2015 131 0 19 29 179 337,426 188,905 2016 32 2 15 810 859 419,940 161.711 2017 53 8 0 216 277 481,359 214,690 2018 53 0 0 68 121 402,998 123,529 Less than' ��° _�� 1,650 5.3% $500-999 V Ej - 2,125 6.8% $1,000-1,499 11,425 36.8% $1,500-1,999 _ 8,910 28.7% $2,000 or more 6,930 22.3% Total 31,040 100.0 Table 29-Rent Paid Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 71 Draft Report for Public Review:0 3/1112 0 2 0 254 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Diagram MA-15.1 Single-Family Permits Huntington Beach Census Bureau Data, 1980-2017 1,000 500,000 va E 800 a E n 400,000 d a LL � E 300,000 400 o E 200,000 cu Z 200 0 OF, OF 100,000 O .ti N M V eft lD f` W Q1 O rl N M Ct In to r` W (n O .-1 N M [t 1n ID n W O O ' N M IT Ln lD r W O� 01 at 01 Of H H H O r O W Oi O W O O� 0� Of Of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r1 rl r1 r-1 ,-i i ­IH.--� Hr1 H .--4 Hri .-i ei '-I r-1 '-I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (N N N Year U.S.Census Permit Data Value of Single Family Permits 1 Number of Single Family Permits Diagram MA-15.2 Total Permits by Unit Type Huntington Beach Census Bureau Data, 1980-2017 1,400 --- 1,200 v 1,000 E 800 a: 600 � I Z 400 r 200 0 O N M Ln l0 r W 0) O (N M in lD n W 0) O H N M 't to tD r` W M O H N M [t In W r` W 0000aocowmmooao W rnrna, rnrnrnrnrnrnrno000000000 � � .-� r+ � r. r. r~ r~ o+ 01 O7 01 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn 1 rn rn rn rn 4 04 rn rn o N 0 N N 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 N N N 0 0 N r-1 r-1 .� ,--� r-1 r-I r-1 r-1 r-1 ,-i .-1 ri r-1 r-i .-4 e-1 e-a ri '-1 r-I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Year U.S.Census Permit Data Single Family Units Duplex Units Triplex Units Apartment Units City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 72 Draft Report for Public Review:03111/2020 255 o(o N U) CL 0 C'4 zt ra 0 a) CL 0 Qj | \ , ® . - !�� LO 7 C7 sc rn CM L) CL \\ --- ` ° / ■ 0 < E E Ew 2 ° \ w 32 N IL JE c 0 u .LA -C 1.) 2.1 ro C 0 n N � a oN N v _ fp N �p O �0 3 c °1 o > v z v d CL a 0 0 t 0 a v w 0 N O N d v c N ems- 3 0 rn O m H Q = c L 2 c n Q CQ r N ti r O N C a v 0 c 0 v r .N V T � fD � C m O v � Y C C0 y C � � T O = V c O 00 0 N Lr) d 0 N v � O O � � v C •) O N V K r V V r N N � ry k_ t x o cl)L �. x � Lim n 1 � = m} �= C a *' r,- m !m m o 41 O O d ra d M o �y m ,= v •� z .. � ro �. O y � N ro T co Q N Q 05 o U) 3 C y O Q Y C C 7 2 C w �v� O O T O 2 V 0)0 N Lf) Cl. 0 N -0 zt a� - m > cc \ } . . §f � - - ` } cc w Ji Qj 2' ll ^ : . � \ f� \� /�/ ` \ jRk cc LO o co .2) w r c6 CL C14 CL . � � � � \ 2 ra cm C: c 00 N(p d 0 N N Y fH O O � N C > O v V � V_ 7 d L O t O cr v 0 r.+ C G1 �-. Er c ` U r = m O) C mU Q ,m 5 Q (o c � N ti r O N c a v Y O VI C O V N u ra ru 41 r m Q C i C C� Y C C: 0 �n p 7 A O Y = V ON C-4 Zi 0 0 Q) DIU M o H H H U-0 co ............. (D L) 6r, W CV0 M, C 2 m ro ro 1 -0 co En Q) .2 bO 0 O Z, Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Housing Affordability 1,115 No Data 2,155 1105 12,870 2,195 No Data 3,405 16,140 6,705 Table 30—Housing Affordability Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS Monthly Rent This data is based on the 2019 HUD HOME Rent Limits for Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine area. 1,415 1,632 2,037 2,862 3,304 1,331 1,428 1,714 1972 2,180 MENEM 1,038 1,113 1,336 1,543 1,721 Table 31—Monthly Rent Data Source: HUD FMR and HOME Rents Is there sufficient housing for households at all income levels? As demonstrated by the housing needs and cost burden sections in the Needs Assessment,there is a significant amount of the population that faces housing challenges. Low income households are particularly prone to facing cost burdens. This points to the fact that there is not sufficient housing options for all households, especially those at lower income levels. Additionally, public input comments indicated there is a significant need for affordable housing options for lower income households. How is affordability of housing likely to change considering changes to home values and/or rents? The City of Huntington Beach saw a significant increase in housing prices in recent years. If trends continue,the area will see increasing rent and home values.This would lead to additional households facing cost burdens. This indicates a need for additional affordable housing options in the City to help alleviate the number of households experiencing cost burdens. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 79 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 262 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan How do HOME rents J Fair Market Rent compare to Area Median Rent? How might this impact your strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing? The Fair Market Rent (FMR) and HOME rents may not be sufficient to meet the housing needs of households in the City of Huntington Beach.This may be especially true for larger families that require larger units. Discussion The cost of housing in Huntington Beach continues to be out of reach for many low to moderate income households. This is reflected in the proportion of lower income households facing cost burdens and other housing problems. It is anticipated that housing cost burdens will continue to be a major factor for many households in the area and demonstrates the need for additional affordable housing options in the area. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 8o Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 263 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan MA-2o Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing - 91.21o(a) Introduction The following section will describe the condition of housing in the City of Huntington Beach. Definitions The term Standard housing condition is defined as a dwelling unit being in conformance with California State Health and Safety codes. Under that definition, substandard conditions pursuant to the State Health and Safety Code 17920.3, would involve a dwelling with any of the following conditions that would pose a danger to health or safety: (a) inadequate sanitation, (b) structural hazards, (c) nuisances, (d)wiring, (e)plumbing, (f) mechanical equipment, (g)faulty weather protection, (h) risk of fire or explosion, and other unsafe conditions. A substandard unit is generally considered suitable for rehabilitation if the cost of rehabilitation does not exceed 75%of the unit's replacement value. Condition of Units on 13,680 32% 14,185 46% With two selected Conditions 85 0% 1,695 5% With three selected Conditions 0 0% 15 0% With four selected Conditions 0 0% 0 0% No selected Conditions 29,655 68% 15,155 49% Total 43,420 100% 31,050 100% Table 32-Condition of Units Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Year Unit Built _. 000 or later 2,635 6% 1,145 4% 1980-1999 8,940 21% 5,880 19% 1950-1979 31,165 72% 22,990 74% Before 1950 675 2% 1,030 3% Total 43,415 101% 31,045 100% Table 33—Year Unit Built Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS Table MA-20.1 shows households by year home built for the 2010 and 2017 5-year ACS data. Housing units built between 2000 and 20o9, account for 4.6 percent of households in 2010 and 4.6 percent of households in 2017. Housing units built in 1939 or earlier represented 1.7 percent of households in 2017 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 81 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 264 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan and 1.2 percent of households in 2010. The largest percent of housing units were built between 1960 and 1979. The age of these units may indicate a need for rehabilitation and renovation in the City. HouseholdsTable MA-20.1 Huntington - D. . 2010 Five-Year ACS 2017 Five-Year ACS Year Built Households %of Total Households %of Total 1439 or Earlier 935 1.2% 1,323 1.7% 1940 to 1949 802 1.1% 554 0.7% 1950to1959 3,643 4.8% 3,934 5.1% 1960 to 1969 26,910 35.8% 27,699 36.1% 1970 to 1979 23,790 31.6% 23,432 30.5% 1980 to 1989 10,696 14.2% 9,752 12.7% 1990 to 1999 4,961 6.6% 5,371 7.0% 2000 to 2009 3,483 4.6% 3,528 4.6% 2010 or Later 1,116 1.5% Total 75,220 100.0% 76,709 100.0% Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Total umberf Units Built Before 1980 �, 31,840 73% 24,020 77% Housin8 Units build before 1980 with chiidret1dset 2,185 5% 1,265 4% Table 34—Risk of Lead-Based Paint Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS(Total Units)2011-2015 CHAS(Units with Children present) Vacant Units The disposition of vacant units between 2010 and 2017 are shown in Table MA-20.2. By 2017, for rent units accounted for 18.1 percent of vacant units,while for sale units accounted for 7.5 percent. "Other" vacant units accounted for 18.9 percent of vacant units, representing a total of 835 "other" vacant units. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 82 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 265 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Table1 Disposition of • • Units CensusHuntington Beach 2010 • Five-Year Data 2010 Census 2017 Five-Year ACS Disposition Units %of Total Units %of Total ' For Rent 1,694 45.6% 799 18.1% For Sale 522 14.0% 330 7.5% Rented Not Occupied 94 2.5% 174 3.9% Sold Not Occupied 142 3.8% 231 5.2% For Seasonal,Recreational,or Occasional Use 884 23.8% 2,050 46.4% For Migrant Workers 1 0% 0 0% Other Vacant 381 10.2% 835 18.9% Total 3,718 100.0% 4,419 100.0% The age of a structure influences its value.As shown in Table MA-20.3,structures built in 1939 or earlier had a median value of $796,600 while structures built between 195o and 1959 had a median value of $643,50o and those built between 1990 to 1999 had a median value of $883,9oo. The newest structures tended to have the highest values and those built between 2010 and 2013 and from 2014 or later had median values of$856,1oo and $979,20o respectively. The total median value in Huntington Beach was $688,700. Table1 Owner Occupied Median Value by HuntingtonStructure Built • Data Year Structure Built Median Value 1939 or earlier 796,600 1940 to 1949 687,500 1950 to 1959 643,500 1960 to 1969 665,900 1970 to 1979 715,800 1980to 1989 624,800 1990 to 1999 883,900 2000 to 2009 893,400 2010 to 2013 856,100 2014 or later 979,200 Median Value 688,700 Vacant for rent units tended to be highest in the central parts of the City,as seen in Map MA-20.1. This was similar to vacant for sale housing, as seen in Map MA-20.2. "Other"vacant housing is shown for 2017 in Map MA-20.3. "Other"vacant housing units are units that are not for rent or for sale, and are not otherwise available to the marketplace. This can be problematic when units are concentrated in one area as they may create a "blighting" effect. This can also offer an opportunity for the City to concentrate investments for redevelopment. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 83 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 266 0 r- N(D 0 C-4 ra 0 cr \ ^\ ~ - ` jf CL 0 t cc A cn 0O C., ! !!!! | . cc . i 7 c; L. c.) = C6.6 w 5 co C-4 (D 0, 7 7 V!W G co oo CL > < cc 0 0 IL o LLJ ) f m m —ru C4-) } » &! a2Qj C14 cc tz ro bc o 0 00 CO CL 0 C'j m 0 C: 0 cr> k.j W IL cr life 00 2 0 z CN C g a \ Cl) < co 0 LL \ \ ; aj ca C: to ro 0 Z;l 0 Q CL Ale O E 24 _{ § Is / z , � } ) � �)! &IV ou) C*l 0 C; 10 \ C14 > C 4) o C-N 0010 CL cc 0 0 04 CM J1. 0 ag cv 11 C; ƒ / \ � k } //k ) 10 14 (V tLo C Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Need for Owner and Rental Table Rehabilitation Vintage of Households by Income and Presence of Young Children As seen in Section MA-1o, Table Huntington Beach MA-1o.6, there is a moderate • • ' D CHAS Data One or more No children age need for owner rehabilitation. Income children age 6 Total or Rental rehabilitation is seen as a ( youn g 6 or younger er slightly higher need than owner � _ Built 1939 or Earlier rehabilitation. The age of the $0 to$29,370 0 200 200 housing stock does indicate a $29,371 to$48,950 45 125 170 higher level of need for $48.951 to$78,320 10 140 150 rehabilitation for units,as almost $78,321 to$97,900 15 50 65 three-quarters of units were Above$97,900 95 450 545 built prior to 1g80. Total 165 965 1,130 Built 1940 to 1979 Estimated Number of $0 to$29.370 865 5,750 6,615 Housing Units Occupied by $29,371 to$48,950 840 5,525 6,365 Low or Moderate Income $48,951 to$78,320 1,140 8,725 9,865 Families with LBP Hazards $78,321 to$97,900 645 5,090 5,735 Above$97,900 3,195 23,285 26,480 Table MA-zo.4 shows the risk of -- - --- Total 6,685 48,375 55,060 lead-based paint for households -- - - Built 1980 or Later with young children present. As - -- - - $0 to$29,370 260 2,335 2,595 seen therein, there are an $29,371 to$48,950 130 1,535 1,665 estimated 6,685 households $48,951 to$78,320 305 2,510 2,815 built between 194o and 1979 $78,321 to$97,900 195 1,785 1,980 with young children present,and LAbo"e$97,900 1,290 8,870 10,160 165 built prior to 1939• tal 2,180 17,035 19,215 Total $0 to$29,370 1,125 8,285 9,410 $29,371 to$48,950 1,015 7,185 8,200 $48,951 to$78,320 1,455 11,375 12,830 $78,321 to$97,900 855 6,925 7,780 Above$97,900 4,580 32,605 37,185 Total 9,030 66,375 75,405 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 87 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 270 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing - 91.2lo(b) Introduction The City of Huntington Beach does not have any public housing developments. However, Huntington Beach is one of a number of cities that benefits from the services of the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA), which is currently manages Housing Choice Vouchers for residential units within Huntington Beach. The OCHA waiting list is currently closed. #of units 9,925 879 1,669 0 vouchers , available I #of accessibl e units Table 36—Total Number of Units by Program Type Data Source: PIC(PIH Information Center) Describe the supply of public housing developments: Describe the number and physical condition of public housing units in the jurisdiction, including those that are participating in an approved Public Housing Agency Plan: Not applicable. Public Housing Condition Table 37-Public Housing Condition Describe the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing units in the jurisdiction: Not applicable. Describe the public housing agency's strategy for improving the living environment of low- and moderate-income families residing in public housing: Not applicable. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 88 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 271 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan MA-3o Homeless Facilities and Services - 91.210(c) Introduction The following section describes the facilities and services available in the Orange County Continuum of Care. Facilities Targeted to Homeless Persons Households with Adult(s) and Children) 574 816 1,149 Households with Only 14 0 1,976 Adults Chronically Homeless 545 Households I Veterans 26 11079 :Unaccompanied Youth 1 14 0 14 Table 38-Facilities Targeted to Homeless Persons Describe mainstream services, such as health, mental health, and employment services to the extent those services are to complement services targeted to homeless persons The network of care in Orange County is established to connect homeless persons with mainstream services, such as Medicaid and Social Security benefits, to maximize the amount of assistance households can access. Utilizing coordinated entry, service providers match clients with appropriate services to increase access to health and social service programs that they qualify for. These efforts are paired with services provided throughout the City to create a system of wrap-around services to help households in as many ways as possible. The goal of the Coordinated Entry System' is to effectively connect individuals and families experiencing homelessness or at-risk of homelessness to appropriate services and housing interventions to end homelessness in Orange County through: • dynamic prioritization • collaborative coordination • intentional resource utilization 6 http: \,,,v,w.occommunitvservices.org/hcd/homeless./coo.rdinated..entry System City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 89 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 272 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan • equitable resource distribution • regional service planning area prioritization The Coordinated Entry System lead agency, Orange County, is empowered by the Continuum of Care (CoC) to manage the process of determining and updating the prioritization for all CoC funded permanent supportive housing(PSH) and CoC and ESG funded rapid rehousing (RRH) as well as any other housing resources that voluntarily participate in the Coordinated Entry System. The Coordinated Entry System is for anyone experiencing homelessness in Orange County including young adults, single adults, couples, families, veterans and seniors. If you or someone you know are experiencing homelessness, talk to your service provider or call 2-1-1 to be connected to a service provider participating in the Coordinated Entry System. List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless persons,particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth. If the services and facilities are listed on screen SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure or screen MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services, describe how these facilities and services specifically address the needs of these populations. There are numerous homeless service providers in Orange County and as part of the Orange County CoC. These service providers, listed below, offer a range of services that extend beyond housing and shelter services. These include employment training,counseling,financial literacy,legal aid,childcare, and transportation services. Table i Homeless Service Providers Orange HUD HUC Name American Family Housing Mercy House Build Futers OC Step Ministry Casa Teresa Orange County Housing Authority Casa Youth Shelter Orange County Rescue Mission Colette's Children's Home Pathways of Hope Families Forward Precious Life Shelter Family Assistance Ministries Radiant Health Services Family Promise of Orange County Salvation Army Family Promise of Orange County Serving People in Need Friendship Shelter South City Outreach Grandma's House of Hope The Eli Home Inc. H.O.M.E.S. Inc. The Midnight Mission HIS House Thomas House Human Options Waymakers Illumination Foundation WISEPlace Interval House Women's Transitional Living Center Laura's House City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 90 Draft Report for Public Review:03111/2020 273 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services - 91.2lo(d) Introduction There are a variety of services available in the community for special needs populations, including at- risk youth, seniors, substance abuse, and persons with disabilities. Including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families,public housing residents and any other categories the jurisdiction may specify, and describe their supportive housing needs Table MA-35.1 shows that survey respondents reported a high need for housing types for special needs populations, including permanent supportive housing, such as rental assistance for homeless households with 159 responses, and subsidized housing that offers services for persons with mental disabilities with 144 respondents. This was followed by emergency shelters, shelters for youth, and transitional housing. Table HuntingtonNeeds of Special Populations Housing and Community Development Survj Question No Need Low Need Medium Need High Need Don't Know Missing Total Please rate the need for the following HOUSING types for special needs populations in the City: j Rental assistance for homeless 59 64 62� 159 14 54 412 households Permanent supportive housing,such as subsidized housing that offers services for persons with mental 50 53 80 144 31 54 412 disabilities Emergency shelters 41 72 82 135 24 58 412 Shelters for youth 34 55 103 129 32 59 412 Transitional housing 71 67 81 113 29 51 412 Senior housing,such as nursing 32 62 117 102 38 61 412 homes or assisted living facilities Housing designed for persons with 32 81 115 84 43 57 412 disabilities Describe programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing. CA Health and Safety Code Section 1262 prohibits a mental health patient to be discharged from facilities including psychiatric, skilled nursing, and hospitals without a written aftercare plan. The Orange County Health Care Agency determines when and where clients diagnosed with serious and persistent mental illnesses are discharged from either inpatient stays or outpatient services.The City contracts with a number of inpatient providers who provide a range of levels of care. Contracts state that state law mandates regarding "anti-dumping" policies are followed to ensure that patients are not discharged to the streets or other living arrangements that are considered unsuitable for human habitation. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 91 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 274 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City Health Care Agency determines when and to where clients diagnosed with serious and persistent mental illnesses are discharged from either inpatient stays or outpatient services.The City contracts with a number of inpatient providers and contracts with them to follow the mandates of state laws in regard to "anti-dumping" policies. Patients leaving inpatient settings are assessed for level and type of residential setting. They might be placed in Adult Residential Facilities or Residential Facilities for the Elderly if overage 6o for care and supervision.Some are placed in more enhanced licensed facilities such as contracted Residential Rehabilitation beds, or programs (STEPS) which include placement in either a"basic"ARF or a Res. Rehab.Others might be discharged back to a former residence or family home.Others are linked to clinics where they are placed in supported short-term housing programs or room and boards or other independent living arrangements,for those capable of living on their own and who are funded or working. Patients determined to be able to live independently, are assisted into S+C or MHSA units as they become available. A number of agencies work together in various roles to ensure housing for the mentally ill in Orange County. Each plays a different but coordinating role.The Continuum of Care, OC Community Services, Orange County Health Care Agency, Mercy House, Friendship Shelter, all of the inpatient programs serving City of Huntington Beach clients, Community Care Licensing, the California Hispanic Commission on Drugs and Alcohol, and the Illumination Foundation are among the most active. Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. 91•315(e) See below. For entitlement/consortia grantees: Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. (91.220(2)) During the 2020 Program year,the City will undertake efforts to provide supportive services to special needs populations. These include senior services and community services for children. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 92 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 275 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan MA-4o Barriers to Affordable Housing - 91.21o(e) Negative Effects of Public Policies on Affordable Housing and Residential Investment The 2019 Housing and Community Development Survey found that the most highly recognized barriers to the development of affordable housing include the cost of land or lot,lack of available land,the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) Mentality. This was followed by density or other zoning requirements and the permitting process. Additionally, as part of the City's Housing Element update, the City must assess and to the extent feasible, mitigate, its governmental constraints to housing for lower and moderate-income households and persons with disabilities. The Housing Element addresses the City's provisions for affordable housing, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing.The following programs in the City's 2013-2021 Housing Element specifically address the variety of regulatory and financial tools used by the City to remove barriers and facilitate the provision of affordable housing: Program 2. Multi-family Acquisition/Rehabilitation through Non-Profit Developers Program 7. Residential and Mixed-Use Sites Inventory Program 8. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Program 1o. Inclusionary Program and Housing Trust Fund Program 11. Affordable Housing Development Assistance Program 13. Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program 14. Development Fee Assistance Program 15. Residential Processing Procedures Table . i Providing DecentHuntington Beach Housing and Development Question Response Do any of the following act as barriers to the development or preservation of affordable housing in your community: Cost of land or lot 205 Lack of available land 183 Not In My Back Yard(NIMBY)mentality 155 Density or other zoning requirements 114 Permitting process 107 Lack of affordable housing development 102 policies Permitting fees 100 Cost of labor 91 Construction fees 83 Cost of materials 81 Lack of other infrastructure 79 Impact fees 61 Lot size 54 Building codes 46 Lack of water system 43 Lack of sewer system 40 ADA codes 36 Lack of qualified contractors or builders 18 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 93 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 276 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets - 91.215 (f) Introduction The following section describes the economic atmosphere in the City of Huntington Beach. This section utilizes, along with other sources, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and Bureau of Labor Statics (BLS) data. BLS data can be calculated down to the city level, and therefore, is shown in this section to represent the City of Huntington Beach. BEA data is only available at the County level and reflects the entirety of Orange County. Economic Development Market Analysis Business Activity Age 730 142 1 0 -1 wr i Extraction Arts, Entertainment, Accommodatio 10,860 11,487 14 17 3 Construction i 4,455 4,182 6 6 1 Education and Health Care Services ,9' 11,452 7,911 14 12 -3 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 6,280 3,260 8 5 -3 Information — 2,270 1,084 3 2 -1 Manufacturing — 8,447 13,424 11 20 9 Other Services 2,798 2,449 3 4 0 Professional,Scientifi 9,859 4,986 12 7 -5 Services Public Administration _ 0 0 0 0 0 Retail Trade _ 1 ,W � � 8,726 9,267 11 14 3 Transportation and Warehousing 2,580 884 3 1 -2 Wholesale Trade 5,704 4,135 7 6 -1 Total 74,161 63,211 -- -- -- Table 39-Business Activity Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS(Workers),2015 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics(Jobs) City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 94 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 277 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Labor Force Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 109,350 Civilian Employed Population 16 years and over 101,390 Unemployment Rate 7.28 Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 21.42 Un 5.27 Table 40-Labor Force Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 95 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 278 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Table MA-45.1 shows the labor force statistics for Huntington Beach from 1990 to the 2018. Over the entire series the lowest unemployment rate occurred in 1999 with a rate of 2.0 percent. The highest level of unemployment occurred during 2010 rising to a rate of 9.4 percent. This compared to a statewide low of 4.2 in 2018 and statewide high of 12.2 percent in 2010. Over the last year, the unemployment rate in Huntington Beach decreased from 3.5 percent in 2017 to 2.9 percent in 2018, which compared to a statewide decrease to 4.2 percent. HuntingtonTable MA-45.1 Labor Force Statistics Beach•0-2018 BLS Data Huntington Beach Year Unemployment Statewide Unemployment Employment Labor Force Rate Unemployment Rate 1990 2,958 109,537 112,495 2.6% 5.8% 1991 4,327 104,848 109,175 4.0% 7.7% 1992 5,535 104,267 109,802 5.0% 9.3% 1993 5,639 103,844 109,483 5.2% 9.5% 1994 4,765 105,459 110,224 4.3% 8.6% 1995 4,174 105,121 109,295 3.8% 7.9% 1996 3,481 107,346 110,827 3.1% 7.3% 1997 2,840 111,469 114,309 2.5% 6.4% 1998 2,581 116,127 118,708 2.2% 5.9% 1999 2,442 119,201 121,643 2.0% 5.2% 2000 3,241 110,487 113,728 2.8% 4.9% 2001 3,710 112,187 115,897 3.2% 5.4% 2002 4,674 111,987 116,661 4.0% 6.7% 2003 4,550 113,762 118,312 3.8% 6.8% 2004 4,123 116,097 120,220 3.4% 6.2% 2005 3,684 117,942 121,626 3.0% 5.4% 2006 3,373 119,246 122,619 2.8% 4.9% 2007 3,879 119,264 123,143 3.1% 5.4% 2008 5,329 118,179 123,508 4.3% 7.3% 2009 8,542 112,155 120,697 7.1% 11.2% 2010 9,767 94,007 103,774 9.4% 12.2% 2011 9,108 95,065 104,173 8.7% 11.7% 2012 7,968 96,966 104,934 7.6% 10.4% 2013 6,724 99,109 105,833 6.4% 8.9% 2014 5,650 101,144 106,794 5.3% 7.5% 2015 4,642 103,089 107,731 4.3% 6.2% 2016 4,310 103,661 107,971 4.0% 5.5% 2017 3,760 105,011 108,771 3.5% 4.8% 2018 3,143 106,668 109,811 2.9% 4.2% City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 96 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 279 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Diagram MA-45.1, shows the employment and labor force for Huntington Beach. The difference between the two lines represents the number of unemployed persons. In the most recent year, employment stood at 105,011 persons, with the labor force reaching 108,771, indicating there were a total of 3,76o unemployed persons. Diagram MA-45.1 Employment and Labor Force Huntington Beach 1990—2017 BLS Data 120,000 p 115,000 L 110,000 -__ __- _-__ _. __ _ _ _.____ L a) E 105,000 Z 95,000 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 Year BLS Data Employment Labor Force l Unemployment Diagram MA-45.2 shows the unemployment rate for both the State and Huntington Beach. During the 199o's the average rate for Huntington Beach was 3.4 percent, which compared to 7.3 percent statewide. Between 200o and 2010 the unemployment rate had an average of 3.8 percent, which compared to 6.4 percent statewide. Since 2010, the average unemployment rate was 5.7 percent. Over the course of the entire period Huntington Beach had an average unemployment rate lower than the State,with 4.2 percent for Huntington Beach,versus 7.2 statewide. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 97 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 280 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Diagram MA-45.2 Annual Unemployment Rate Huntington Beach 1990—2017 BLS Data 12 °.. 10 ra c 8 aj O 6 a E oo c 4 — -- 2 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 Year BLS Data State of California Huntington Beach city e uslnes a nano 32,870 arming,fisheries and forestry occupations 3,590 rvice 9,635 1es and office 26,230 nstruction, extraction, maintenance and 6,640 I oduction,transportation and material 3,725 ovilloom Table 41—Occupations by Sector Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 98 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 281 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Travel Time <30 Minutes 50,990 55% 30-59 Minutes 32,355 35% 60 or More Minutes 9,105 10% Total 92,450 100% Table 42-Travel Time Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Education: Educational Attainment by Employment Status(Population 16 and Older) ss than high school graduate 5,560 450 2,330 h school graduate (includes 12,010 1,270 3,935 uivalency) 7 me college or Associate's degree 28,405 2,425 7,795 chelor's degree or higher 38,310 1,680 6,490 Table 43-Educational Attainment by Employment Status Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Educational Attainment by Age N - Less than 9th grade 110 840 1,125 1,725 1,035 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 1,300 1,350 1,255 2,045 1,440 High school graduate,GED, or 4,425 4,045 4,315 8,865 6,320 alternative Some college, no degree 7,930 6,505 6,365 14,840 7,030 Associate's degree 1,255 3,090 2,545 5,320 2,880 Bachelor's degree 1,705 8,705 7,145 14,505 6,865 r ofes 40 1 2,855 1 4,370 8,930 5,370 Table 44-Educational Attainment by Age Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 99 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 282 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Educational Attainment—Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Tess than high school graduate $20,589 High school graduate (includes equivalency) $35,154 Some college or Associate's degree $2,166 chelor's degree $65,051 $83,111 Table 45—Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Earnings: Orange County The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) produces regional economic accounts, which provide a consistent framework for analyzing and comparing individual state and local area economies. Diagram MA-45.3 shows real average earnings per job for Orange County from 1990 to 2017. Over this period the average earning per job for Orange County was 69,381 dollars, which was higher than the statewide average of 73,593 dollars over the same period. Diagram MA-45.3 Real Average Earnings Per Job Orange County BEA Data 1990-2017 70,000 — ._ ------- ___ .s� O n- 65,000 Ln oA c -E `c 60,000 w v ao L 55,000 — Q 50,000 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 Year BEA Data State of California Orange County i City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 100 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 2B3 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Diagram MA-45.4 shows real per capita income for the Orange County from 1990 to 2017, which is calculated by dividing total personal income from all sources by population. Per capita income is a broader measure of wealth than real average earnings per job, which only captures the working population. Over this period,the real per capita income for Orange County was 66,878 dollars,which was higher than the statewide average of 61,147 dollars over the same period. Real per capita income has been increasing steadily over that last several years showing solid growth during the post- recession recovery period. Diagram MA-45.4 Real Per Capita Income Orange County BEA Data 1990-2017 65,000 tfr 60,000 a� E O 55,000 c 50,000 c4 U 45,000 ______-- —_-._ ____— CL 40,000 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 Year BEA Data State of California -- Orange County Education Education and employment data,as estimated by the 2017 ACS,is presented in Table MA-45.2. In 2017, some 105,337 persons were employed and 5,245 were unemployed. This totaled a labor force of 110,582 persons. The unemployment rate for Huntington Beach was estimated to be 4.7 percent in 2017. Table MA-45.2 Empl. Unemployment Huntington Five-Year2017 Data Employment Status 2017 Five-Year ACS Employed 105,337 Unemployed 5,245 Labor Force 110,582 Unemployment Rate 4.7% In 2017, 93.7 percent of households in Huntington Beach had a high school education or greater. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan tot Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 284 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Table High Schoolor • • Huntington 2017 Five-Year ACS Data Education Level Households High School or Greater 71.874 j Total Households 76,709 Percent High School or Above 93.7% As seen in Table MA-45.4,some 16.8 percent of the population had a high school diploma or equivalent, another 36.o percent have some college, 25.3 percent have a Bachelor's Degree, and 14.2 percent of the population had a graduate or professional degree. Table HuntingtonEducational Attainment • ..ta Education Level Population Percent Less Than High School 12,491 7.7% High School or Equivalent 27,112 16.8% Some College or Associates Degree 58,043 36.0% Bachelor's Degree 40,818 25.3% Graduate or Professional Degree 22,837 14.2% Total Population Above 18 years 161,301 100.0% Based on the Business Activity table above, what are the major employment sectors within your jurisdiction? As shown in Table MA-45.5 the largest employment sectors are Manufacturing, Employment by Industry Health Care, Professional services and Huntington Beach city retail. The highest median earnings are 2018 Total Percent of Median In Utilities, Government and Industry Employment Employment Earnings Management. Administration 3,189 4% $47.894 Arts 1,438 2% $52,409 Construction 4,549 6% $63,260 Education 4,257 6% $72,861 Diagram MA-45.5,on the following page Farming 148 0% $32,500 shows this data as a bubble chart, with Finance 4,743 7% $77,950 Food 3,262 5% $37,705 employment on the x-axis, median Government 3,455 5% $97,218 earnings on the y-axis and the Health Care 7,782 11% $68,333 percentage share of employment as the Information 1,731 2% $82,161 Management 120 0% $83,500 size of the bubble. Manufacturing 10,240 14% $82,543 Mining 137 0% $73,994 Other 2,893 4% $42,338 Professional Services 7,794 11% $81,083 Real Estate 2,500 4% $69,348 Retail 6,947 10% $49,292 Transport 2,290 3% $62,146 I Utilities 748 1% $123,750 Wholesale 2,926 4% $73,151 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 102 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 285 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Diagram MA-45.5 Employment and Earnings City of Huntington Beach BEA Data 1990-2017 Huntin ton Beach city 2018 Five-Year ACS 00 gyp. ti 000 _ 4.9°h ^ 00 °1 0 0 0.2/0 2.4% off % o00 % -------- c �O J0.2% % 6.0 m �2% 6.4% O oo, 2.0% t0, 0.2% 0 2,600 4,600 6,000 8,600 10,000 Number of People Employed Management: 0.2% Info:2.4% Admin:4.5% « Finance:6.7% Mining:0.2% Transport:3.2% Food:4.6% 0 Retail:9.8% Farming:0.2% Real Estate: 3.5% Government:4.9% i Health Care: 10.9% Utilities: 1.1% Other:4.1% Education:6.0% * Prof Service: 11.0% Arts: 2.0% Wholesale: 4.1% Construction:6.4% 0 Manufacturing: 14.4% Describe the workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community: The 2019 Housing and Community Development Survey found that the highest rated needs for businesses and economic development include the retention of existing businesses, fostering businesses with higher paying jobs, and the attraction of new businesses. This was followed by the expansion of existing businesses and the enhancement of business infrastructure. While 55 percent of workers have a less than 30 minute commute,some ten percent have a commute time over 6o minutes. This may indicate a higher level of need for the availability of businesses accessible to Huntington Beach residents. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 103 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 2136 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Table Enhancing Economic Opportunities Huntington Housing and Community Development - Question No Need Low Need Medium Need High Need Don't Know Missing Total Please rate the need for the following BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT activities in the City: Retention of existing businesses 11 24 91 204 20 62 412 Foster businesses with higher paying 24 28 99 172 28 61 412 jobs Attraction of new businesses 35 55 111 123 25 63 412 Provision of job training 39 72 95 111 34 61 412 Expansion of existing businesses 25 63 109 103 44 68 412 Provision of job re-training,such as 44 73 82 103 48 62 412 after plant closure,etc. Enhancement of businesses 26 49 106 98 70 63 412 infrastructure Provision of working capital for 47 74 77 66 81 67 412 businesses Provision of technical assistance for 42 75 86 63 78 68 412 businesses Development of business incubators 52 63 64 55 105 73 412 Development of business parks 65 90 62 54 74 67 412 Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned local or regional public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect job and business growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for workforce development, business support or infrastructure these changes may create. Not applicable. How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to employment opportunities in the jurisdiction? The Housing Community Development survey indicated that many people in Huntington Beach have a moderate level of need for job training and re-training. Increasing job training may result in access to higher paying jobs in the area,while retaining and attracting businesses. There is a large variety in the education levels in the City. An estimated 7.7 percent of the population has less than a high school degree, 16.8 percent of the population had a high school diploma or equivalent, another 36.o percent have some college, 25.3 percent have a Bachelor's Degree, and 14.2 percent of the population had a graduate or professional degree. These education levels lend themselves to a variety of job sector employment,which is demonstrated by the Business Activity table. The City of Huntington Beach has a robust tourist industry.Workers in the tourist industry may not require advanced education levels, but also make less than employment sectors that require higher levels of education. The healthcare industry also makes up a large portion of employment in the city and healthcare workers generally require additional education beyond the high school level, such as professional certifications, or advanced degrees. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan too Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 287 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Describe any current workforce training initiatives,including those supported by Workforce Investment Boards, community colleges and other organizations. Describe how these efforts will support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan. The City established a City of Huntington Beach Ten Point Plan for Local Business. Point 6 is to Expand training and workforce development opportunities for businesses, including:' • Establish a model on site Workplace Literacy program to assist the employees of a local business in improving their reading and language skills. • Update and enhance the Library's Job Search Resources web page and develop a marketing plan to the local business community. • Implement two workshops with the Orange County Workforce Investment Board - one focused on services for employers and the other for services available for jobseekers. Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)?Yes. If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated with the Consolidated Plan? If not, describe other local/regional plans or initiatives that impact economic growth. There are a number of organizations that support economic growth in Huntington Beach and the larger Orange County region. Some of these are described below. • Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce -The Chamber has been a leader in the economic growth of our community for over 90 years.With 1,000 business members, the Chamber is a catalyst for plans, programs, and services that promote a favorable business climate, improve the quality of life, and support the growth and development of Huntington Beach.' • Center for Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Leadership and Opportunities-Through one-on-one coaching, mentoring and training, CIELO takes entrepreneurs through the process of developing their business idea, gaining the entrepreneurial skills to succeed, and surrounding them with tools and resources to build solid business foundations from which to grow. CIELO strategically invests in local ventures that will bring innovation and economic growth to the region.9 • Visit Huntington Beach -Visit Huntington Beach's mission is to position Surf City USA as the preferred California beach destination in order to maximize overnight visitor spending, destination development and quality of life for all residents. Its programs include media relations, marketing, advertising, group and travel trade sales, publications, information services, the Huntington Beach Film Commission, and the Huntington Beach Sports Commission.10 7 https://huntingtonbeachca gov/file /users/economic development/TenpointPlanMatrix-Mayi2oi3.pdf 8 http://www.hbbiz.CQM/dQing-business/business-d valQpment 9 http://www.hbbiz.com/doing-busincs5/­bu5ine55-development °http://www.hbbiz.com/doing-business/business-deveLoRment City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 105 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 288 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan • Service Corps of Retired Executives - SCORE, as it is more commonly known, is a national nonprofit dedicated to helping small businesses get off the ground, grow and achieve their goals through education and mentorship. SCORE's is supported by the U.S. Small Business Administration(SBA), and delivers most services at no charge or at very low cost. • Small Business Development Center(SBDC) -The Orange County SBDC stimulates economic growth in Orange County by providing small businesses and entrepreneurs with expert consulting, effective training and access to resources. The Orange County/Inland Empire Regional SBDC is funded in part through a cooperative agreement with the U.S.Small Business Administration(SBA)and California State University, Fullerton. • Orange County Business Council -Orange County Business Council (OCBC) works to enhance Orange County's economic development and prosperity to preserve a high quality of life by leading a high profile,proactive advocacy program for business interests throughout California and the nation, focusing on four core initiatives of infrastructure, workforce development, economic development and workforce housing. Discussion The economy in Huntington Beach showed an unemployment rate at 2.9 percent in 2018, compared to the statewide unemployment rate of 4.2 percent in 2018. The average earning per job had grown in recent years but ended up below the state average. In 2017, some 16.8 percent of the population had a high school diploma or equivalent,another 36.o percent have some college,25.3 percent have a bachelor's degree, and 14.2 percent of the population had a graduate or professional degree. The largest employment sectors are Manufacturing, Health Care, Professional services and retail. The highest median earnings are in Utilities,Government and Management. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 1o6 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 289 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan MA-5o Needs and Market Analysis Discussion Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated? (include a definition of"concentration") As seen in Map MA-50.1, housing problems tend to be concentrated in the eastern portion of the City, closerto 1-405.These areas have housing problems at a rate between 49.1 and 68.8 percent,compared to areas with rates below 30.8 percent in other parts of the City. In this map, the definition of "concentration" is any area that sees a disproportionate share of housing problems, counted as any area that experiences housing problems at a rate at least ten (1o) percentage higher than the area average. The concentrations of housing problems by race are shown in Maps MA-50.2 through MA-50.4. These maps show the concentration of housing problems for Asian, Black, and Hispanic households. Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are concentrated?(include a definition of"concentration") The following maps show the distribution of the population by race and ethnicity. These maps will be used to describe any areas with a disproportionate share of any one racial or ethnic group. A disproportionate share is defined as having at least ten percentage points higher than the jurisdiction average. For example, if American Indian households account for i.o percent of the total population, there would be a disproportionate share if one area saw a rate of 11.o percent or more. As seen in Map MA-50.5,the Asian population,which accounted for 11.9 percent of Huntington Beach population in 2017, saw a disproportionate share of the population in three Census tracts in northern and eastern parts of the City. Hispanic households are shown in Map MA-5o.6 for 2017. There were several areas with a disproportionate share of Hispanic households. These areas tended to be in eastern parts of Huntington Beach and saw Hispanic population that exceeded 30.2 percent, compared to the 19.3 percent for the citywide average. Poverty in 2017 is shown in Map MA-50.7. There were three Census tracts that had a disproportionate share of poverty, with two tracts with poverty rates over 21.3 percent, compared to the city average of 8.9 percent. What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods? The housing markets in these area tended to have a higher proportion of renter households,as shown in Map MA-15.2. In addition, median home values and median contract rents tended to be lower in these areas than in other areas in the City. This is shown in Maps MA-15.3 and MA-15.4• Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods? City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 107 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 290 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan These areas are adjacent to a variety of amenities in these areas, including access to city schools and parks,community centers, libraries, as well as grocery stores,and service providers. Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas? Areas with high concentrations of low income and poverty level households may present an opportunity for investment through services and public facility funding. The City could also promote economic development in these areas or fund housing development or rehabilitation. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 1o8 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 291 C O N � N � d � N 'O v � m 0 3 c v o > v � V L 7 d L O L O d v N L N N c_ LO B N 01 Q ,� f U O = � O o c IL v m 0 C O V vi L V c a o Y v C Y C C 2 in O O T O �+ = V C O C7 N 0) d O N Y O M O O 3 C N Otj 4 > y�dlfrf♦31 - Id* }� tF0 � o d o a # '05 N cr II i z ar'rk a 4 J m" D 1 Hr e�� Y CR a M Ce M O 47 r- Cf OD 41 W V •� C O lri Of r- z51 i H c a O o a ` k o •N S L 2 a m v O Y � is 2 C_ w O 7 T O = V C O-4- 01) a oN v � o �o N � C lJ � ' � O � tlf d v v ' OS cv 6 Y 0 R t d s 4 . w K _ O V = aR N ao o r �a 'n in �z o T CO° a � O N Q C O l6 - a o a �3 N 9 IL ' o C N V T � C O N � A C 7 C = w :n O � T O = iJ (\ \ ( j j / , _w aR 5 x� a ƒ \ ) � CD 1 \ \ \ \ ( � m § § j � t _ ƒ ° o : 7 { ° , 2 m . . o I � � - I t � m \ 2 \ _ _ ± { ® / . � ) \ § \ 0 I : / k § \ � § _ \ ) \ 0 co d 0 N v is m � o 0 3 c v o V cu v a 3 a `o w t 0 a v z ra ro 0 E d 0 L C d m m to CD Q C 7 rnQ m p c 2 0 � = o C N �0 Q. 2 c a v ro 0 c 0 v in L 'y� V T � C m Q C � O Y C 7 C = w 7 O Y 2 V §\ \ \ = o \ k / ; _ § § cr ®, 2 2 } �2 OL f `7 ©�: d @ � @ @ J/ M � L � R „ o § a 0 . a . � ( - _ / r 0 t IL § ] < ® ( \ k \ u / « — § \ Z \ = 3 2 ° _ / 0 co N cr) CL 0 Cj 4t c o > a) cc 0 cr Ln Lin 3 4- c�! CO 04 04 CL 0 a. c EL L 0 c 0 Z EL rn O v) aj ca by ro 0 C O 0) m N d ON N U 4L Gl ra ra O 6 3 a, 41 lit CL c •� o v v � � A t o K � d v Qj o a 3 _ N CC DC } O N= o Y y y yL1.L WF �C N is � 3e 13e 3P U = Ci Ci v co (Sf ^ N N C'1 l0 ,,^^ 47 Y; T m � HIV Q N Qi• � � � Q�I O'f m O p O N N P5 c Q � c N I r _ I L, N I _ _ C d` O {i a a v C .S' aR ' A ra _ Q T pp�t -o N = I I N < ra Z N � — d N ry O r H C r ON C N d m o t w O m V A _ C'921 o m v N m c j N d' � o(n m Q c o cu Y bo C m Y C 7 2 C v O O � = V C O O 0 O a oN r> v � o �o C v O N V � V_ d 7 d O w t O n v cc m ti L C O m m 01 g a rnC CL •S; Q m o N 2 0 N C A a ro v i+ O VI C O V v� L y V > a) C m Q C Y v m C A C 7 2 C v O 7 ?. O = V c o r a N O d 0 CM N � m -o 0 a 3 c > o _ > Qj cc U V g` O m a e� U i 9 O Q cf) N cc L `m Fg m aL O C U){- r � � WIN n / - N 00 l w m5a r aq� � 4_L d i IL N N tp /V O .dr •� C O d R -a N f+ O N �t ro N ro ra p > > � m c N Q U) o cn 5 Q c N v tic Y C f0 c 7 tc 0 O 7 T O = V Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan MA-6o Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households - 91.2lo(a)(4), 91.31o(a)(2) Describe the need for broadband wiring and connections for households, including low-and moderate-income households and neighborhoods. The City has retained CTC, Energy and Technology to develop a broadband strategic plan. The consultant is currently conducting a market analysis in order to develop a high-level strategic plan that explores options for maximizing the economic development benefits of the City's existing broadband infrastructure, integrating potential future broadband projects with the City's broader economic development planning, and meeting the broadband connectivity needs of business in the City." Describe the need for increased competition by having more than one broadband Internet service provider serve the jurisdiction. While there are a number of broadband service providers in the City of Huntington Beach, there is a continued need for competition to promote affordability and access, as well as choice, in the community. According to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, competition is a crucial component of broadband policy in that it pressures providers to be efficient and innovative." "https://www huntingtonbeachca gov/announcements/announcement cfm?id=959 https://itif org/publications/zoi9/09/03/poIicymakers-guide-broadband-competition City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 119 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 302 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.2lo(a)(5), 91•31o(a)(3) Describe the jurisdiction's increased natural hazard risks associated with climate change. There are several increased risks in Huntington Beach due to climate change. These are discussed in the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and outlined below:13 Coastal erosion: Coastal erosion is caused primarily by tides and by wave action from storms. While tides are not affected by climate change, some studies suggest that climate change is expected to cause a io to 20 percent increase in intensity of the severe storms that affect Southern California, as discussed in greater detail in the Flood section (Oskin 2014b). This means that the significant wave events that already cause substantial erosion in Huntington Beach may become more intense,causing greater loss of beaches and coastal bluffs during these events.Sea level rise,which is caused by climate change, may exacerbate the issue.As the surface of the ocean becomes higher,wave and tidal action will be able to reach farther onto land than they currently can.As a result,wave and tide events that currently do not reach far enough to cause any erosion may be able to do so in the future, and wave and tide events that already cause erosion will be able to affect areas farther from the water line. Sea level rise: Sea level rise is a direct consequence of climate change, and would likely not exist to any substantial degree if climate change was not occurring. Climate change does not create any particular considerations for sea level rise, as the hazard itself is a climate change consideration. Tsunamis: The displacement events that cause tsunamis are geologic in nature and unaffected by climate change to any known degree. However, as sea level rise increases the average height of the ocean, this will allow tsunami waves to reach farther inland. Even though climate change is not expected to affect the severity of tsunamis, sea level rise is likely to create the potential for tsunamis to cause greater damage. Describe the vulnerability to these risks of housing occupied by low-and moderate-income households based on an analysis of data,findings, and methods. Low income households are likely to be impacted by climate change in Huntington Beach due to a lack of resources. The Huntington Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017) noted that this can include droughts, which can include economic hardships for low-income households due to increased water rates. Lower income households may also be disproportionately impacted by earthquake events and sea level rise. 13 https•/Iwww huntingtonbeachca gov/announcements/attachments/Huntington_Beach_pubIic_review_draft_LHMP pdf City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 120 Draft Report for Public Review:0 3/1112 0 2 0 303 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Strategic P0a® SP-05 Overview The Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, which has been guided by the Housing and Community development Survey and public input, identified seven priority needs.These are described below. • Households with housing problems: The need for affordable housing options in the City continue to be high, based on the proportion of households in the City experiencing cost burdens. Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing as well as Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods are two goals to be implemented under this category of priority need. • Homelessness:Homelessness continues to be growing and pressing issue in Huntington Beach and regionally. The City will continue to fund and support efforts that address homelessness and serve persons experiencing homelessness. • Special Needs Populations: There are a number of special needs populations in the City that need continued services and support. These include, but aren't limited to persons with severe mental illness, veterans, persons with substance abuse addictions, seniors, and illiterate persons. • Priority Community Services:There are a number of vital community services in the City that need continued services and support. These community services serve low to moderate income households and include activities such as youth and family services. • Priority Community and Public Facilities: The City recognizes the high need for public improvement activities throughout the City in order to provide for and maintain a safe and decent environment for its citizens. Identified priority needs include, but are not limited to, homeless shelters, parks and recreational centers,youth centers, and healthcare facilities. • Priority Infrastructure Improvements: The City recognizes the high need for public improvement activities throughout the City in order to provide for and maintain a safe and decent environment for its citizens. Identified priority needs include, but are not limited to, street and road improvements, sidewalk improvements, flood drainage improvements, and tree planting. • Other Housing and Community Development Needs: The City has identified the need to provide support for the HOME and CDBG programs in the City, as well as to affirmatively further fair housing. These activities are vital to the continuation of the City's efforts to administer these programs. These Priority Needs are addressed with the following Goals: Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 121 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 304 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Using CDBG funds, the City will sustain and strengthen neighborhoods by eliminating unsafe conditions and blight while improving the quality of life for residents within the community. Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing To the extent possible, based upon the availability of funds and a project's viability, HOME funds will be used to assist affordable housing developers in the acquisition, construction and/or rehabilitation of low-income rental and/or owner housing units, and in the provision of Tenant-Based Rental Assistance(TBRA). Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Using CDBG public service funds,the City will provide assistance to homeless service providers. Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to various social service agencies that provide community and public services to special needs households in the City. Provide Needed Community Services to LMI Persons Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to various social service agencies for programs for youth, anti-crime, and general public services. Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities Using CDBG funds, the City will provide financial assistance to improve public facilities and parks. Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements Using CDBG funds,the City will provide financial assistance to improve public infrastructure. Support Community Development Programs The City will conduct the following administration/planning activities: (1) General Administration of CDBG and HOME Program, including preparation of budget, applications, certifications and agreements, (2) Coordination of CDBG-funded capital improvement projects, (3) Coordination of Public Service Subrecipients, (4) Coordination of HOME-funded housing projects,(5)Monitoring of CDBG and HOME projects/programs to ensure compliance with federal regulations,(6) Preparation of Annual Action Plan, (7) Preparation of the CAPER, and (8) Fair Housing Foundation counseling, education and enforcement (CDBG funded). Up to 20%of the annual CDBG entitlement and up to io% of the HOME entitlement is allowed for administration activities. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 122 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 305 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan SP-io Geographic Priorities - 91.215 (a)(1) General Allocation Priorities Huntington Beach is an urbanized coastal community located in northwestern Orange County, California. Much of the City's residentially designated land has already been developed. Future residential development rests primarily upon the recycling of existing parcels and infill development. Surrounding Huntington Beach are the Cities of Seal Beach to the northwest, Westminster to the northeast, Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa to the east, Newport Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The City utilizes CDBG and HOME funds for projects and programs operated citywide. However, the majority of CDBG-funded infrastructure and facility projects are targeted to the most-needy neighborhoods:those census tracts where 51%or more of the residents are low-or moderate-income, as seen in Map SP-1o.1. Specifically, for Code Enforcement, after establishing the general definition for purposes of code enforcement, the City conducted a visual (windshield) survey of CDBG eligible areas for properties, businesses, parkways, alleys, and structures that met the definition. Based on the visual (windshield) survey,the City determined that low and moderate income areas within the area bound by Bolsa Chica Street to the west, Bolsa Avenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the east, and Atlanta Avenue to the south contained the most properties with deterioration. In some cases, some structures had multiple violations per parcel.This target area is known as "Special Code Enforcement Target Area." Inclusive of the following census tracts, the Special Code Enforcement Target Area is comprised of 46,650 persons,32,395, or 69.44%, of which are of low-moderate income. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 123 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 306 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan SPECIAL CODE ENFORCEMENT TARGET AREA TOTAL POPULATION V.LOW AND MODERATE-INCOME POPULATION 2011-2015 HUD LOW MOD INCOME SUMMARY DATA Effective April 1,2019 Census Tract Total Persons Total LMI Persons Percentage 0992121 1,255 810 64.54% 0992123 1,495 1,030 68.9o% 0992124 1,180 655 55.51% 0992144 765 425 55.56% 0992352 715 515 72.03% 0992353 2,190 1,245 56.85% 0992422 1,930 1,185 61.40% 0992442 1,645 1,145 69.6o% 0992463 815 490 60.12% 0993051 1,710 1,450 84.80% 0993053 2,020 1,330 65.84% 0993055 1,080 935 86.57% 0993056 1,025 560 54.63% 0993061 1,485 760 51.18% 0993093 1,775 915 51.55% 0993103 1,170 690 58.97% 0994021 2,755 2,300 83.48% 0994022 2,720 2,235 82.17% 0994023 575 330 57.39% 0994024 3,375 3,150 93.33% 0994053 1,755 1,070 60.97% 0994103 2,605 1,935 74.28% 0994112 2,180 1,890 86.70% 0994113 1,300 855 65.77% 0994114 880 655 74.43% 0994121 1,810 980 54.14% 0994134 1,360 1,240 91.18% 0996031 3,080 1,615 52.44% TOTAL 46,650 32,395 69.44% City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 124 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 307 C O 00 6 N p d O CM N OJ iv m 0 3 c a, o v v � v a O v- C O d v N T L C CL L C ~ n fn rn Q Q r- � = o N C a v a 0 c 0 V L 1 N C m Q C O1 h0 Y C C 7 2 •in O � T O = V EL (\ § 3 m / \ ¥ } . . . , . . / __ _ -y \ ®_ \ § \ } \ \ » § k \ { ! \ )i ./ A a C-4 5! LU ~^ 3 ■ f § _ � ! ^ S / r! � k ® i \ � % ■ 0 \ ° m ! c \ £ { � 7 ] ` _ / Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2) Priority Needs Table 47-Priority Needs Summary 1 Priority Need Households with Housing Problems Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Elderly Chronic Homelessness Families with Children Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Geographic LMI Areas Areas Citywide Affected Associated Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Goals Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods Description The need for affordable housing options in the City continue to be high, based on the proportion of households in the City experiencing cost burdens. Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing as well as Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods. Basis for Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, survey and public input Relative As seen in Table NA-10.11, 29,264 households in Huntington Beach with a cost Priority burden or severe cost burden. This accounts for 38.1 percent of the overall population. The City will maintain the goal to Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing and Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods. 2 Priority Need Homelessness Name Priority Level High City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 127 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 310 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Population Extremely Low Low Large Families Families with Children Elderly Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children Mentally III Chronic Substance Abuse veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Victims of Domestic Violence Unaccompanied Youth Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families Victims of Domestic Violence Geographic Citywide Areas Affected Associated Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Goals Description Homelessness continues to be growing and pressing issue in Huntington Beach and regionally. The City will continue to fund and support efforts that address homelessness and serve persons experiencing homelessness. Basis for Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, survey and public input Relative The homeless population has grown from 3,833 to 6,860 between 2014 and Priority 2019 regionally. There continues to be a high level of need for housing and service options. 3 Priority Need Special Needs Populations Name Priority Level High City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 128 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 311 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Non-housing Community Development Geographic LMI Area Areas Citywide Affected Associated Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations Goals Description There are a number of special needs populations in the City that need continued services and support. These include, but aren't limited to persons with severe mental illness,veterans, persons with substance abuse addictions, and seniors. Basis for Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, survey and public input. Relative The senior population has grown to account for 17.0 percent of the population, Priority growing faster than any other age group in the City. The proportion of the population with a disability is 9.4 percent. These data are shown in NA-45. 4 Priority Need Priority Community Services Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Non-housing Community Development Geographic LMI Area Areas Citywide Affected Associated Increase Access to Community Services to LMI Persons Goals Description There are a number of vital community services in the City that need continued services and support. These community services serve low to moderate income households and include activities such as youth and senior services. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 129 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 312 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Basis for Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, survey and public input Relative The Housing and Community Development survey found these activities to be Priority highly rated needs in the City. 5 Priority Need Priority Community and Public Facilities Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Non-housing Community Development Geographic LMI Area Areas Citywide Affected Associated Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities Goals Description The City recognizes the high need for public improvement activities throughout the City in order to provide for and maintain a safe and decent environment for its citizens. Identified priority needs include, but are not limited to, homeless shelters, parks and recreational centers,youth centers, and healthcare facilities. Basis for Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, survey and public input Relative The Housing and Community Development survey found these activities to be Priority highly rated needs in the City. 6 Priority Need Priority Infrastructure Improvements Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Non-housing Community Development City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 130 Draft Report for Public Review:03111/2020 313 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Geographic LMI Area Areas Citywide Affected Associated Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements in LMI Neighborhoods Goals Description The City recognizes the high need for public improvement activities throughout the City in order to provide for and maintain a safe and decent environment for its citizens. Identified priority needs include, but are not limited to, street and road improvements, sidewalk improvements,flood drainage improvements, and tree planting Basis for Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, survey and public input Relative The Housing and Community Development survey found these activities to be Priority highly rated needs in the City. 7 Priority Need Other Housing and Community Development Needs Name Priority Level High Population Non-housing Community Development Geographic Citywide Areas Affected Associated Planning for Housing and Community Development Goals Description The City has identified the need to provide support for the HOME and CDBG programs in the City, as well as to affirmatively further fair housing. These activities are vital to the continuation of the City's efforts to administer these programs. Basis for Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, survey and public input Relative Priority Narrative(Optional) The City's Priority Needs are a product of the Needs Assessment, Housing Market Analysis, public input, and survey. These efforts resulted in the priority needs that will be addressed over five years with the goals outlined in Section AP-45• City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 131 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 314 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions - 91.215 (b) Influence of Market Conditions Affordable Market Characteristics that will influence Housing Type the use of funds available for housing type Tenant Based Strong rental market conditions in Huntington Beach are having adverse Rental Assistance repercussions on the ability of low-and moderate-income households to find (TBRA) affordable rentals in the City. Rising rents and low vacancies are impacting the availability for and moderate-income households able to be assisted with limited resources. TBRA for Non- Strong rental market conditions in Huntington Beach are having adverse Homeless Special repercussions on the ability of low-and moderate-income households to find Needs affordable rentals in the City. Rising rents and low vacancies are impacting the availability for and moderate-income households able to be assisted with limited resources. New Unit The production of new housing units is influenced by several market conditions, Production including the cost of land, the cost of construction, and prevailing interest rates. While rates are currently at historic lows,the cost of land and labor act as major barriers to developing any type of new construction in the City with the limited amount of funds available. Rehabilitation Rehabilitation activities can be influenced by the cost of materials and labor. Home rehabilitation can provide an opportunity for households to maintain safe, decent, affordable housing without the cost of acquisition or production. This may help the City to maintain the availability of units that are affordable to a variety of households. Acquisition, While the cost of housing continues to rise within the City,the cost of including acquisition is out of reach in many instances. Typically, the City's rehabilitation preservation resources support combined acquisition and rehabilitation projects in partnership with non-profits that leverage City dollars with other funding sources.The cost of land, labor and materials affects the total development costs and the number of units that the City can support in any given year. Another critical issue that influences the use of funds to acquire properties for the creation or preservation of affordable units is the lack of a permanent source of financing.The elimination of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, coupled with continued reductions in the HOME entitlement, makes addressing priority housing needs more challenging. Table 48—Influence of Market Conditions City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 132 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 315 C C C L C O E O CO bL^ v W O O L L M Q > N > N V ON 7 4� to K Q) al µ- M V � Z 4- E a 4� vi a bA N E cup f6 L C Z E Z p v aj > w a ._ L ro 0 o m r m a) c a 00 v a E M co O n . d W a Q E V L!') Xci V f0 � Q) C 0 N O H O 41 N C ai i/} 41 L C m a� } L O O 00 •j ill N V Q a CC +h M r= ai +' ice-+ ++ O of O U r� E m @ o -' Q b-O O N u a` c ON u t/� � ai CIN O x d. Q) w _ N `i W O N r� r 4 Q O N N � V � m W U 4 4- (1) L LL c U C in 0 0 U E L a QH "-' c 'c o o '� .� o .0 aJ c r- a) .v a1 U a w 0-U w O E o U Q Q d 0 2 a L C ate+ C O _ v N of aJ 'p U a T a 4 a _ �] C LL 0 to O_ m CL N M C L •� m CL 4b v ra m T c C L O f� d — fL0 N p M m ry U io O O m -0 a - Q 'i O 'o _ co QLu 3 N L C u N > V 73 73 Y N CL > 4- E Q f0 N °i cu a) U ° z °1 E : o } N a C OU N N W Qro v m w � o O 00 C O V 3 to N O _ C W O cc . E m FaW Q Q E V N d' O O H 0 f1 �� CY) H L L m L y m {A N 41 L OC _ L O > N F+ a aL CZ N a m a+ u 7 N C O o Q Eoo c, Ln a G1 O` u I� G1 U d C y m X ~ W 7 C Q O lD Q -tn f0 f6 C fD C of +J O +-+ O C C C 41 N-u U Q L L 4-1 LO ° L' 5 - 3 E c E c C a LA N -0 � o ro o m o C v in •- N N O U U ro Q o Ur O .N O 3 v O v O m o u 2 Ul 0 c a Z 0 co 0 v O U N c - m Q LL O C O fn Q bD � C fD 'y C 7 c W 2 f6 o`n o a O O = aL = Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied Federal funds play a crucial role in implementing the Consolidated Plan. Local private and nonfederal funds are usually insufficient to meet the heavy demand for housing and services in our community. Agencies receiving CDBG and HOME funds use those funds as a commitment to receiving other funding sources. Likewise, the City also leverages other resources among the formula grant programs. For example, the HOME program is matched by a variety of sources, including private and public investment including the use of low-income housing tax credits. Other future sources of matching funds include inclusionary housing in-lieu fees; residual receipts from loans of the former Redevelopment Agency; and a State SERAF loan repayment of former Redevelopment Low/Mod Housing Funds. HUD requires a 25% match on HOME funds drawn down for affordable housing. Historically, the City has met the match requirement with the use of former Huntington Beach redevelopment tax increment funds that were layered with HOME funds in developing affordable housing. While redevelopment tax increment funds are no longer available for future match requirements, the City has been utilizing a match surplus derived from prior contributions by the former Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency in developing affordable housing developments. The City was required to utilize 20%of these funds to develop low-and moderate-income housing.The City's match surplus is approximately$2,794,025 as of September 30, 2o18. Due to the National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, HUD has waived the City's HOME Match requirement for all expenditures beginning October 1, 2019 and will continue to do so through September 30, 2021.The City received this waiver on April 24, zozo. If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan The City is in the process of acquiring land that could be used to develop an emergency homeless shelter to help meet the needs of the ever-growing homeless population, a priority need as described in the 2020/21-2024/25 Consolidated Plan. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 135 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 318 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure - 91.215(k) Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan including private industry, non-profit organizations,and public institutions. Responsible Entity Geographic Area Responsible Entity Type Role Served Economic Development Homelessness Non- homeless special Huntington Beach Government needs Ownership Jurisdiction Planning Rental neighborhood improvements public facilities public services Orange County Housing PHA Rental Region Authority Fair Housing Foundation of Long Regional Organization Public Services Region Beach Orange County Regional Organization Homelessness Region Continuum of Care Homelessness Homeless and Special Non-profit Non-homeless special Needs Service Jurisdiction Providers organizations needs Public Services Table 50-Institutional Delivery Structure Assess of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System Huntington Beach is characterized by a capable and extensive housing and community development delivery system. Strong City and City agencies anchor the federal programs and housing and community development programs the City is able to support. In the community, there is a large network of experienced non-profit organizations that deliver a full range of services to residents. The Office of Business Development maintains direct communication with other City departments when revising or updating housing policies, issues and services. Through daily contact and inter- working relations, City staff implements programs and services and tracks issues of concern. This process allows easy access to data on building activity,housing conditions,code requirements,zoning, growth issues, employment trends, and other demographic data. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 136 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 319 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan In addition to the City's internal network, through its federal entitlement and other resources, Huntington Beach interacts with various non-profit agencies and public service groups in the delivery of programs. These agencies are assisted by City staff in planning programs and projects, ensuring activity eligibility and costs,complying with federal regulations and requirements,and monitoring the timely expenditure of annually allocated program funds.The City requires agencies to submit quarterly and annual reports to meet federal requirements, and periodically conducts sub-recipient audits and on-site reviews. Furthermore, the City of Huntington Beach performs project monitoring of all rent restricted affordable units assisted with HOME,CDBG,and former Redevelopment Agency housing funds. • Annually, audits are performed to ensure compliance with regulatory agreements and affordability covenants;and • Periodic, on-site visits are conducted,which will include a property inspection and an in-depth review of the rent restricted affordable unit files assisted with HOME, CDBG, and the former Redevelopment Agency.As part of the Consolidated Plan process,the City received input from numerous housing and public service agencies through a combination of consultation workshops, interviews and a Needs Assessment Survey. These agencies provided valuable input into the identification of needs and gaps in service, and in development of the City's five year Strategic Plan. Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream services Homelessness Prevention Available in the Targeted to Targeted to People Services Community Homeless with HIV Homelessness Prevention Services Counseling/Advocacy X X X Legal Assistance X X Mortgage Assistance Rental Assistance X X Utilities Assistance X X Street Outreach Services Law Enforcement X X Mobile Clinics X X Other Street Outreach Services X X Supportive Services Alcohol & Drug Abuse X X Child Care X X Education X X Employment and Employment Training X X City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 137 Draft Report for Public Review:0 3/1112 0 2 0 320 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Supportive Services Healthcare X X HIV/AIDS X X Life Skills X X Mental Health Counseling X X Transportation X X Other Table 51-Homeless Prevention Services Summary Describe how the service delivery system including, but not limited to, the services listed above meet the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families,families with children,veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) There are a variety of homeless and supportive services in the City that provide a range of care for homeless and at-risk households. These services work together, within the framework of the larger Continuum of Care to meet the needs of households. The homeless services include: • Project Self-Sufficiency-Supports single-parents to gain economic independence. • Interval House—This six-unit transitional housing facility provides safe housing for women and children recovering from domestic violence. Interval House also assists the City with implementing a tenant based rental assistance program. • Collette Children's Home — The eight-unit Colette's Children's Home provides transitional housing for battered/homeless mothers with children and chronically homeless women. • Seniors Outreach Center — Provides services that assist with their physical, emotional and nutritional needs. • Oak View Community Center—The Children's Bureau provides a variety of family support and youth development services at the Oakview Community Center. • Families First — Provides programs to treat at-risk, severely disturbed youth who are experiencing behavioral and emotional issues in their homes or school and may be in jeopardy of being removed from their current placement. • Mercy House — Provides housing and comprehensive supportive services for a variety of homeless populations which includes families, adult men and women, mothers and their children,persons living with HIV/AIDS,individuals overcoming substance addictions,and some who are physically and mentally disabled. • HB Police Department— Provides Homeless Outreach Services. • SteppingUP — Helps to transition extremely low-income families towards greater self- sufficiency by assisting them with housing and education. • Stand Up for Kids OC — Supports homeless youth to self-sufficiency and preventing at-risk youth from gang involvement, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, and dropping out of high school. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 138 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 321 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Supportive Services • Community Service Program Huntington Beach Youth Shelter — The Youth Shelter offers a short-term crisis intervention residential program with the goal of family reunification. • Beach Cities Interfaith Services(BCIS)—Coordinates the provision of a variety of financial and human services for the homeless and persons at-risk of homelessness. • American Family Housing (AFH) — Provides a continuum of services including emergency shelter in coordination with local churches;transitional housing in scattered site locations;and permanent affordable rental housing. • Build Futures—The Agency's mission is to get youth(ages 18 to 24)off the street and provide stable and safe housing and services. • Salvation Army Family Service Office — Operates an Emergency Family Services Office in Huntington Beach. • Huntington Beach Community Clinic—Provides primary,preventative and chronic medical care services. • Mental Health Association of Orange County — Provides mental health clinics, recovery clubhouses,a homeless multi-service center,a youth mentoring program and referral services. Outreach Services • Police Officer Liaison Program — The City's Police Department homelessness teams provide street outreach twice monthly. • AltaMed Mobile Unit — The new AltaMed Medical and Dental Mobile Unit provides preventative health care,and services Beach Cities Interfaith Services(BCIS)on a weekly basis. • Straight Talk Inc., Start House / H.O.M.E., Inc. — Offers housing assistance to persons with HIV/AIDS. • Veterans First—Offers permanent and transitional housing beds for disabled veterans,female veterans, and families of at-risk or deployed vets. • SteppingUP — Helps to transition extremely low-income families towards greater self- sufficiency by assisting them with housing and education. • Stand Up for Kids OC — Supports homeless youth to self-sufficiency and preventing at-risk youth from gang involvement, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, and dropping out of high school. Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed above Coordination between public agencies providing housing resources, assisted housing providers, private and governmental health,mental health and human service agencies are critical to the delivery of viable products/services. In an effort to enhance coordination, the City is a member of the Orange County Commission to End Homelessness. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 139 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 322 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan The primary gap in Huntington Beach's service delivery system is a function of the significant cuts in public and private funding and associated reductions in service. A lack of available funding, coupled with growing demand for services, leaves persons underserved. These gaps can only be filled with additional funding sources while current providers cannot meet all the current need. Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs The City will work with non-profit agencies, for-profit developers, advocacy groups, clubs, and organizations, neighborhood leadership groups, City departments and with the private sector to implement the City's five-year strategy to address the priority needs outlined in this Consolidated Plan. Engaging the community and stakeholders in the delivery of services and programs for the benefit of low to moderate residents will be vital in overcoming gaps in service delivery.The City will also utilize public notices, Community Workshops and Meetings (as appropriate), the City's website, and other forms of media to deliver information on carrying out the Consolidated Plan strategies. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 140 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 323 ro i C O C C O = I oN N a i0- � � a-•+ D i r0 � J � � N O Ch v u 00 u C N OA C E ro E O rLo C _ O N U y O -O v O -O ro } O +� a� O 4O v 0 I au E I a_7 + I - w O w v Q u j 'O 3 2 j � O � -O ? � O 'O a .0 _ � p u a) a 4 rD 4- O O P O N O -- O m s _ y t t rr v a v _ 3 t N V) 3 + V) OA N N O _ l O = O a� ccO rho O =aj -0 O N to O 3 .� O = .� p (' f0 O = C L (D cu O 7 N U 4J O v 0 0 _C O a 03 � � O N O = � O LO O LCL n � 2 tr m a 2 tr I a- 2 tr Ln Q 2 Li- M v w O p` O c 0 C7 0 C7 0 C7 O (7 m m m O 00 300 LL Ln � o mo Ooo qj)- t/)- w Ln t E N a) � N o � a N � � a � � d •N N Z � � O O 2 2 U t 41 Q m y O bo Q d a U i O 00 ra 0 4 O � Q 2 Ln W } N I- N ., L O c0 N GJ � } O rCa 0 n Lm a v E 4-1 t _ L O O y c c N V C '° 0C cz i m C Q O E (� ..0 v Y • V bo 4-tz Ln uo H In z = n O a O y x° V1 V' v O L ) ƒ B\ on j Jzt :3 a . 7 ) E 7 ( E 2 ƒ ) E i / / £ � / 7 / > S ~ f > S ^ y / S 0 \ ° r 0 : e e u 3 / 2 E \ 3 / @ § \ 3 / I - ( E o e u s _ 4 t � m ° 8 U 2 = 0 > e o e = o o e o / 0 ° ) 2 § p ° ± / \ ' o > I E \ \ � > ) - • > E f o a $ \ 2 G (A m < / c 2 I \ = u � , _ \ R m � / E & e L = u \ ° ° ° _ 2 0 _ a m ° _ ° _ � } ° 5 0 © # c ® = 9 a — 0 2 — E g » o 10 = 2 f o 2 2 0 m 2 = \ § 2 u' E \ ƒ / / < � - / / $ 2 ƒ / $ / / / < $ ± < o _ ./ . R _ \ / (D / (D 2 r- / � 3 R � R o R LL 7 I I / v v v qj)- _ a [ \ � ° 7. \ƒ \ \ $ : / 0 0 0 I I I m _0 � \ 0 \ = t t (D u u / / VI 4 m to / 0 0 < I I % r4 / L \ \ � o 0 k / \ 5 s / ° ) 2 \ 2 c § / z ƒ x \ -00 co \ u z t I { m "/ e \ .E 0 / / } / e 0 \ 2 bz \ I < 2 _ y ) 0 I \ 6 m m L L L L L a) a) a) (3) C t L L -C O cO a O O O O O O o M M O (A Ln v ci in cu N M a1 O O O O O cu aJ �' a) a1 a) n C O co L O G1 O N > O V1 — > O tn +, N o U U 4-1 -a U a) roU v n3 L U c I �Ln fu L U c I L 0 a 41 U 0 6 v= � a 4- 4., co -O � 4J O Q _O Q u O Q � Q ( d v 4J U .� '> C U C N ate'' U C t%f CO 4= C .�-�' C 3 •- 2 a) cn L cu 2i a) of J a) H N — =3 v H 3 +3 a, 0 a) \ C \ \ \ U \ CO L — 7 �o (n o L N o a) � o cu LL L o o. 3 +� D L O 4° a � a) C7 J 'n O .� co U J O '? U J 'y O .0 J N O .o .0 � J .N O O O C 3 L C C C 3 i Y C 3 i — co c a p L co C 3 0 L Q o c -C ra o O cn 3 o d 0 3 L o y U 3 = o p > c c t o p > as 0- 4 a a ,12a � m + _ a +� Sui as +JSe�i — 0 c 00 No C7 0 (7 0 M O CO m —1 m of m LL rN �' �� ir-4 rl c1 m a) a) Ln 0 (U . (o E E U curo a-+ a, 3 E ELL 3 a) Q Q H O O SU3 EV) C V (n U U >- 0- ceU � L a • a V � • > aJ L L L L Ln o L Z O a O i O -p o } Q L a) L a) C: C .L C E a Z a N a fo CL — _ U_ V) s v a) a) m a, M y Q Q p Q > T y +J + + + C7 u u J U J u Ln i a) 'a (1) '6 c C O FV a) 41 a) ate+ a) C a) cu a E Z E z � m c E = c E v S E O S E O c v cu c E c E > c E > Z N Z Ln S Z U M Z U O M N N N N C y W O O O O ` L O O � O "M N fV O N N w O O O O 12 a 4- o +' Y co 4' O c E aJ a) N i C C U n m U z N a) O U a) of L Z C — a) Ln Ln U -0 a) '-' u cu Ln ua p Q v _p Q 0 uJ � y U E m C Z c Q ' (n +' N 3 L > Z Q a) L aj > o E Ln Ln U c a) a) o Q 3 cn O O c L L L E _ cn Q a — U J d U ca a 0 'G o ELn � L T L N L o a U j a M a) N U O 2 E U m g C ++ .i O a) ++ C o 2 Cl a) L ,� 3 to Ln Z Va N 3 C n a-•• 41 0 O V) L 41 o E _^ � C ro L C a� v v U u O .� O .O O 0 O a1 OO M, j 4-1 M 41 C � � r�o 'O � E t _ O U O L ai C + O U Q Q � �, C _n in (o = 2 to a Q W 'E � n3 M C O is- M V7 t O C7 a Q O E S C O E C aJ = o -0 ajcn O Z = Q LL4- 0O 16 O 'O Q — Ln a)O C 3 a) ai cC C U Ln E O aj O _ OU N LL C OU �_ i E C Cn w N C7 aj 'a -0 n m coo .v o w 3 L N m p V Cz U > O c mu c a Q O 0 U. t/} U to U w O O � � � C C C U U L V) ate+ O a1 7 co 0) C _ ,, O i O V) c C O :E m - (1) = 01 ro a) — O if > -0 of aJ Gl Cp Z iii ro n3 Q E Z t cr Ln L O C -0 u 4A u W CO L v v ,n v o a) L o o ^c a o C E 6 O Ct O N L > 2 7 a p CL C C1 -- u CL p a7 L E ° L co t0 u +' a1 a) L >, O co +� Z t E > m O +J w _0 u O U 41 O O C C C C •N r�o C O U p t O to O n M rEo E '� u `o 'N Ln 4A v N FA 0 E �"� C i � Q Ln i 0 = aJ (o •Vf O O L C 'a u to Q > 0 4J _C -C 3 � u � ai 'j co 0 tw +, aU O , v o aJ a, c o: Ln L C7 U Ln v O -0 v CZ w 4' + ro +� v� O n E M _ N +J ~ �(A ru N U- l0 6 rU a) C y aJ N tw V) •N 41 OO ate+ -0Q 4= W Q v H a) Ln W V) 7 C t Ln Ln in c C o W O c Q 7 ai 3 O C o Ql E �' L a, ar Q- V1 C E L E C E j s — O 'Q Z c L .> O O O W 3 a1 O 7 = C 0 2 Z U p O > ) u m v�i Q L O Ln Z +' = u y O a 2 ,n _ L. _0 L O U O O V > c ui a) +s+ 4� 4J C C .� a Q N (n i+ L y - v oA O U E o C O d° Co o o •— *' C Oln M � cLo m 4 4.1 E Q u Etw 4• Wp 0 40V C L O Cl O V !- N a C 7- Wi v � OW CLL m to 0 O 4-1 �, m m C L - N x U - a in ' > 4, C U > C co Uw a) '6L O O bn OA W Qy ro v 4r � N p L7 U a F— co t U Vf p O 0 E O iT+ ut v° Z 2 C: } = v c E E a E O O O m v c' O O •L m M ma 41 m 41 VId on N -O > QJ m f0 •Vf m f0 •Vf ra fC •VUbn f c C CL co p C7 C7 0 C7 C7 (7 C7 0 = n O 0 00 C O N N N D 4+ M t f0 fL0 Q) In O O C Q1 U W :-a ++ c 0 C O >• •- c O v _ Q)Ln Ln Q) E E to .O m vi Q) a'' w ._ "p 3 p c '41' > L to c c > LL. .O U :3 O O 'E_ ��tDLO co n Q) � f° C7 O W o N W 2 Q coo > L O �+ O O bA CL O4� m 0 aL �O d U v- 2 O 2 4- p Q) O c am — v O U Cn O cn O O cO t v c m c o 0c O -a o C) a1 v co O cELO 'O 4- Ln (> C t O N c N ++ D �..i cn u u U 0 C w O .L > c > n i 4 O Q) 1]A a E L L QI Q) Q) 4� N Q c U C c Q- i < (n n - l9 N n O Q roru iv w •� m .0 4�- c 4) N vi E 2 m .3 O U O U u c L + L +1 O Ul LO Ln cD m a u 'co v > _ O O Q Q v O v v > > in Ln L c > 4 > 7 H OL OL (3) c Q) c c O O u �O M N Q Q +J O N O (0 aJ a c a c m u O O m :� E a p o � 4- N LL '� 4-1M- Q U p c V u u c O Ln pp U p 4- a H N N Q) ._ c U OL Q) O = O Gto v c° 'a � +� c N Q om-+ c r I �' v = ac = Ln c v O U O v1 V) d p N 3 O •c L .. C m cv coo '} N c N _E M L N 0) L yam,, — — O O 'O O 4- r,4 o L = O C = = C C C +� W to N .O 3 t G 3 0 O to G! co m v_� co Q Q) J c C L +-? c Q) O Q) O O) j O +�+ d N � dA c Q) O L CV O Z C, O +' V vi E Q) n > Q) O 2 O z E L 'Fac c°� > a a . a °o C Q E Ln u 4-1 n a0i vi Ln Q- a a 'O a) c O � �7 f6 � > � N 6 c N Z OJ = L E C 00 c- Q) } ++ 3 3 O O U U O c n3 O LA ajc •U y L Q) c _ 3c U Q L U w L U E > Q) a .� GA u , 0 O c E i Q) U H Q) E 0 Q) Q c (co D tD o O L >" UQC ro 4-1 Ln Ln 4- -0 4- a- O U — i p U o N U U') V .4- c O 0 c Q �, X > �, (D = o — c L v = a a4 m v C Z m O YJ m a_ Z m U U 3 C O L O •N a u .Q E QJ U U O QJ L L � E CD O 41 N 3 aJ O to Q 'C on U 0w) w E 'a N O U cLo u Q) c _ o Q. c bD > c � c j c Q. tip +J Q) O_ 3 Q. '6 O 0 +, a) E O L Q Q) O a O Q) -o O E L oN N C L L c L !n O L 'N 4-- vf p co a a p ra 0. p U a p N H d u Q a m m Q ii o V vi L ra m Q) = 0) O O) O 0) O Q) C ai C- EO O O O E O m c v Z Q' Z EL •Q' Z O' Z Q" no Y •L •L L •L •L � ro H H N H y O O Q) O O (L) O� /0 Q) O� O 0) OO� 0) j (D to o c� c� o o V o D / o w in O Ln to 00 = V Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91-315(b)(2) As presented above, the City's five-year goal is to provide affordable housing opportunities to 362 extremely low, low, and moderate-income households through the following activities: • Owner-Occupied SF,Condo,and Mobile Home Grant Program:The City offers a one-time grant not to exceed $1o,000 to low-income homeowners for deferred maintenance and health and safety-related household repairs. Deferred maintenance can include paint, siding replacement, window and door replacement, roof repair, or removal of any condition of blight. Household repairs may include restoration or replacement of inoperable or severely deteriorated plumbing,heating,and electrical systems,structural and appliance replacement. The City proposes to fund 40 grants during FY 2020/21 —2024/25. • Owner-Occupied Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program: Funded with CDBG Revolving Loan Funds, the Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program offers low-income homeowners up to $75,000 in deferred payment loans. Individual loans may be increased by up to $1o,000 if deemed necessary to meet HUD HQS requirements and rehabilitation standards and would require the approval by the Director of Economic Development. Payment of the principal and accrued interest is deferred until the property is sold,transferred, or refinanced. During the 5- year Consolidated Plan timeframe,the City proposes to fund to loans. • Acquisition/Rehabilitation/New Construction Affordable Housing Program: The City expects to have approximately $4 million available HOME funds to provide gap financing for the development of affordable housing. With a federal investment of $4 million, the City anticipates that 20 units can be developed and HOME-restricted. • Tenant Based Rental Assistance: The City will continue implementing Tenant Based Rental Assistance Programs with qualified and experienced providers and have a goal to assist a total of loo households with short and medium-term rental assistance as well as housing relocation and stabilization services. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 146 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 329 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement - 91.215(c) Need to Increase the Number of Accessible Units(if Required by a Section 504 Voluntary Compliance Agreement) Not applicable. Activities to Increase Resident Involvements Not applicable. Is the public housing agency designated as troubled under 24 CFR part 9O2? Plan to remove the`troubled'designation Not applicable. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 147 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 330 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing- 91.215(h) Barriers to Affordable Housing The 2019 Housing and Community Development Survey found that the most highly recognized barriers to the development of affordable housing include the cost of land or lot, lack of available land,the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) Mentality. This was followed by density or other zoning requirements and the permitting process. Table Providing Decent . . Housing and Community Development Survey Question Response Do any of the following act as barriers to the development or preservation of _ affordable housing in your community: Cost of land or lot 205 Lack of available land 183 Not In My Back Yard(NIMBY)mentality 155 Density or other zoning requirements 114 Permitting process 107 ILack of affordable housing development 102 policies i Permitting fees 100 Cost of labor 91 Construction fees 83 Cost of materials 81 Lack of other infrastructure 79 Impact fees 61 Lot size 54 Building codes 46 Lack of water system 43 Lack of sewer system 40 ADA codes 36 Lack of qualified contractors or builders 18 Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing Through the administration of the CDBG and HOME programs,every effort is made to remove barriers to affordable housing through agreements with for-profit and non-profit affordable housing developers. These efforts also include working with neighborhood residents to ensure affordable housing projects are acceptable. Ongoing monitoring of"for sale" affordable units is conducted by department staff by assuring that the affordable housing covenants are recorded on title when the unit is sold.To address the decline in sources of housing funds, the City will continue to advocate for and pursue federal,state, local and private funding sources for affordable housing. Additionally, as part of the City's Housing Element update, the City must assess and to the extent feasible, mitigate, its governmental constraints to housing for lower and moderate-income City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 148 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 331 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan households and persons with disabilities. The Housing Element addresses the City's provisions for affordable housing, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing.The following programs in the City's 2013-2021 Housing Element specifically address the variety of regulatory and financial tools used by the City to remove barriers and facilitate the provision of affordable housing: Program 2.Multi-family Acquisition/Rehabilitation through Non-Profit Developers Objective:Acquire, rehabilitate,and establish affordability covenants on 8o rental units. Program 7. Residential and Mixed-Use Sites Inventory Objective: Maintain current inventory of vacant and underutilized development sites and provide to developers along with information on incentives. Program 8. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Objective: Facilitate development through flexible, form-based standards, and streamlined processing. Encourage affordable housing by requiring inclusionary units to be provided on-site, or within the Specific Plan, and providing additional incentives for increased percentages of affordable units. Program lo. Inclusionary Program and Housing Trust Fund Objective: Continue implementation and re-evaluate Ordinance to provide consistency with case law and market conditions. Establish in-lieu fee amount for projects between 10-30 units. Program ii.Affordable Housing Development Assistance Objective: Provide financial and regulatory assistance in support of affordable housing. Provide information on incentives to development community. Program 13.Affordable Housing Density Bonus Objective:Continue to offer density bonus incentives as a means of enhancing the economic feasibility of affordable housing development. Program 14. Development Fee Assistance Objective: Continue to offer fee reductions to incentivize affordable housing. Specify the waiver of i00%of application processing fees in the Code for projects with io%extremely low-income units. Program 15. Residential Processing Procedures Objective: Provide non-discretionary development review within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan.Adopt streamlined review procedures for multi-family development on a Citywide basis. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 149 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 332 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan SP-6o Homelessness Strategy - 91.215(d) Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs The City of Huntington Beach is committed to addressing homelessness. In March 2014, the City Council conducted a study session on homelessness in the community,including a presentation by the Executive Director of the Orange County Commission to End Homelessness and the City's Police Chief. Subsequently,the City contracted with City Net, a collaborative organization,to conduct research on the scope and scale of the homeless issues in Huntington Beach, provide an asset map of homeless services and resources, and deliver recommendations about how to strategically leverage existing assets and resources in the community to address the problem. City Net's findings and recommendations are summarized below: 1. The City possesses an abundance of non-profit organizations, faith congregations, local businesses, and community groups that are eager for collaborative solutions to ending homelessness in Huntington Beach. 2. The groups listed above are decentralized both structurally and geographically. 3. The City should invest in coordinating these resources without aggregating them or investing in heavy infrastructure. 4. A proactive connection should be established between the non-profit and faith communities to City safety personnel and other first responders. 5. The City should invest in a multi-sector collective impact collaborative which would meet regularly to achieve goals over the course of iz-months. The City's Police Department recently engaged the services of the Coast to Coast Foundation, a non- profit Police Officer Liaison Program (POLP) designed to eliminate resource barriers and support law enforcement homelessness teams. Coast to Coast partners with police departments throughout Orange County, providing a model that balances enforcement with outreach. Resources include: Homeless Liaison Officer (HLO) kits for daily patrol, 24/7 locker locations kits, homeless relocation, trained outreach team, community campaign/education and empowerment in support of law enforcement. The City's Police Department and Coast to Coast have created a volunteer program specifically designed to the needs of Huntington Beach. The volunteers engage in monthly outreach efforts to the homeless and have experienced great success. Addressing the emergency and transitional housing needs of homeless persons The City has and will continue to address the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless and homeless families through support of homeless programs such as the Huntington Beach Youth Emergency Shelter, Interval House, Families Forward, and Mercy House. Through the City's Homeless Task Force, the City will also support the provision of emergency housing and services by Beach Cities Interfaith Services and the local faith-based community. The City has also created a Homeless Outreach Coordinator and Homeless Case Manager position who are responsible for City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 150 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 333 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan creating relationships with the homeless and to provide services with an eye toward bringing their homelessness to an end. In FY 2019/20, the City Council approved purchase of property located at 17631 Cameron Lane using non-federal funds.Via a substantial amendment to the FY 2019/2o Annual Action Plan,the City Council will consider an allocation of $1.5 million of federal CDBG and CARES Act funds to help offset costs associated operating the homeless shelter facility at the project site. The need for such a facility has increased in recent months due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Orange County's Safer at Home Order. The Navigation Center will bring homeless service providers on-site to help persons experiencing homelessness "navigate" eligible social services, medical services and benefits to stabilize them with the ultimate goal of transitioning them to more permanent housing. Helping homeless persons(especially chronically homeless individuals and families,families with children,veterans and their families,and unaccompanied youth)make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again. In an ongoing effort to continue to address the needs of the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, the City will focus on the development of sustainable and effective programming, including: applying for short and long-term available funding; partnerships with experienced service providers capable of leveraging other funding; the ability to create or secure affordable housing; perform homeless case management;and engage the homeless through a street outreach component in order to better connect them to available services.The City's goal is to expand on current homeless programs and activities to assist with their successful transition toward self-sufficiency. In FY 2020/21,the City will continue its dedication to assisting families in Huntington Beach with much needed rental assistance. In May zozo,a NOFA/RFP was solicited to qualified agencies with experience with administering HOME-funded TBRA programs, and a selection is expected in June zozo.With an investment of $9oo,000 towards this effort, the City anticipates that approximately 6o households could be served over a two-year period. Households that qualify for assistance include those that are of low and moderate income, as well as households who are currently housed,but are at risk of losing their housing due to COVID-19. Help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families who are likely to become homeless after being discharged from a publicly funded institution or system of care, or who are receiving assistance from public and private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education or youth needs To help prevent homelessness and protect at-risk populations, Huntington Beach will continue to participate in the Orange County Continuum of Care System to provide assistance to persons at risk of City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 151 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 334 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan becoming homeless. In addition, the City continues to pursue opportunities to expand its affordable housing inventory to benefit primarily low-income renters. The City does not receive Emergency Shelter Grants(ESG) or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding and therefore is not required to develop a discharge coordination policy. However, the City will continue to address a discharge coordination policy with the Orange County Housing Authority and the Continuum of Care Homeless Issues Task Force. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 152 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 335 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards —91.215(i) Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards As a means of better protecting children and families against lead poisoning, in 1999 HUD instituted revised lead-based paint regulations focused around the following five activities: • Notification • Lead Hazard Evaluation • Lead Hazard Reduction • Ongoing Maintenance • Response to Children with Environmental Intervention Blood Lead Level The City has implemented HUD Lead Based Paint Regulations(Title X),which requires federally funded rehabilitation projects to address lead hazards. Lead-based paint abatement is part of the City's Residential Rehabilitation Program and the Acquisition/Rehabilitation of Affordable Rental Housing Program. Units within rental housing projects selected for rehabilitation are tested if not statutorily exempt. Elimination or encapsulation remedies are implemented if lead is detected and is paid for by either the developer of the project, or with CDBG or HOME funds, as appropriate. How are the actions listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards? According to 2017 ACS data, an estimated 9.1 percent of housing units in the City are at risk of lead- based paint and have children aged 6 or under in those units. The efforts listed above are based on the City's on-going efforts to keep households safe from lead-based paint hazards. These efforts are focused on education and response efforts to systematically address lead based paint issues citywide. How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures? To reduce lead-based paint hazards in existing housing, all housing rehabilitation projects supported with federal funds are tested for lead and asbestos. When a lead-based paint hazard is present, the City or the City's sub-grantee contracts with a lead consultant for abatement or implementation of interim controls,based on the findings of the report.Tenants are notified of the results of the test and the clearance report. In Section 8 programs,staff annually inspects units on the existing program and new units as they become available.In all cases,defective paint surfaces must be repaired.In situations where a unit is occupied by a household with children under the age of six, corrective actions will include testing and abatement if necessary, or abatement without testing. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 153 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 336 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan SP-7o Anti-Poverty Strategy - 91•2150) Jurisdiction Goals, Programs and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty-Level Families The City's major objectives in reducing poverty within Huntington Beach are to: Reduce the number of families on welfare; Reduce the number of families needing housing subsidies; and Increase economic opportunities for low-and moderate-income persons.The City's anti-poverty strategy seeks to enhance the employability of residents through the promotion and support of programs which provide employment training and supportive services, while expanding employment opportunities through the implementation of a Business Improvement District, and its Economic Development Strategy that focuses on business retention, attraction, and marketing efforts. Lastly, the City supports a variety of economic development activities that help to create and retain jobs for low- and moderate-income households. Activities supported include a commercial property locator; ; financial assistance through the Small Business Administration; business counseling and training via a litany of not-for-profit Orange County agencies; technical assistance in permits, trademarks, environmental review, and taxes; and export and trade assistance. Micro-enterprise assistance, job training services, and technical assistance are some areas that may warrant consideration for funding during the Consolidated Plan period. How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this affordable housing plan: Huntington Beach's overall program for affordable housing is integral to the City's strategy for reducing the number of poverty level families and individuals in the community. Examples of the interrelatedness of Huntington Beach's housing programs to poverty reduction include: • Participation by over 1,000 low and extremely low-income Huntington Beach households in the Housing Choice Rental Assistance Voucher Program administered by the Orange County Housing Authority(OCHA). • During this Consolidated Planning Period, the City will utilize HOME funds to gap finance an affordable housing project at a location yet to be determined. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 154 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 337 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan SP-8o Monitoring — 91.230 Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements Huntington Beach follows monitoring procedures for CDBG-funded public service subrecipients which includes desk reviews of quarterly progress reports and expenditures, and periodic on-site visits to ensure compliance with federal regulations. All subrecipients are required by their subrecipient agreement to submit performance reports that demonstrate work is being performed in accordance with the scope of service,that evidences progress in meeting performance milestones,and that shows expenditures are allowable under the agreement. Staff also conducts periodic on-site monitoring of project activities to document compliance with HUD eligibility guidelines, performance in reaching contract goals, to determine if administrative and fiscal systems are adequate, and to ensure compliance with other crosscutting federal regulations. CDBG-funded capital projects are monitored by regular status and fiscal reports for Davis/Bacon requirements throughout the course of the project, as well as frequent site visits by staff. For some projects, the City's Public Works Department outsources the monitoring and project inspections on construction work. The City is also responsible to HUD for monitoring HOME-assisted rental projects throughout the period of affordability to ensure that these projects are in continued compliance with Federal and State regulations. The City shall also follow steps to monitor beneficiaries of the Single-Family Residential Rehabilitation Program. During the pre-monitoring phase, applicants will sign a clause on the application form certifying that the property is the principal residence. City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 155 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 338 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 202®Annual Action Plan Under Separate Cover City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 156 Draft Report for Public Review:03/11/2020 339 ATTACHMENT #2 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ANNUAL ACTION PLAN JULY 1� 2020 - JUNE 30, 2021 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT June 5 ® July 6, 2020 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACHy CA 92648 340 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2020121 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary (AP-05).........................................................................................1 Lead & Responsible Agencies (PR-05)........................................................................ 9 Consultation (AP-1o)...................................................................................................10 Citizen Participation (AP-12).......................................................................................16 Expected Resources (AP-15)....................................................................................... 21 Annual Goals and Objectives (AP-20) ........................................................................23 Projects (AP-35)...........................................................................................................31 ProjectSummary(AP-38).......................................................................................... 34 Geographic Distribution (AP-50)................................................................................53 Affordable Housing(AP-55)...................................................................................... 56 Public Housing(AP-6o).............................................................................................. 58 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities (AP-65)..........................................•• 59 Barriers to Affordable Housing(AP-75).................................................................... 63 OtherActions (AP-85)................................................................................................ 65 Program Specific Requirements (AP-90).................................................................. 70 Appendices Appendix A- Certifications Appendix B -Application for Federal Assistance(SF 424)for CDBG Program Appendix C-Assurances - Construction Programs (SF 424D)for CDBG Program Appendix D-Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424)for HOME Program Appendix E-Assurances- Construction Programs (SF 424D)for HOME Program Appendix F- Public Notices Appendix G - Citizen Participation Comments 341 Aw Executive Summary AP-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.22o(b) 1. Introduction Huntington Beach's 2020/21-2024/25 Consolidated Plan constitutes the City's strategy for addressing its housing and community development needs utilizing federal entitlement funds. The goals are to assist low and moderate-income persons, provide decent housing, create suitable living environments, and expand economic opportunities. Included in the Consolidated Plan are broad five-year objectives and strategies to accomplish these goals. Specific identifiable benchmarks for measuring progress in realizing the City's strategy are proposed in the Annual Action Plans. The 2020/21 Annual Action Plan includes application for funds under two different HUD entitlement programs - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the HOME Investment Partnership Program. Current year entitlements combined with reallocations and repayments from prior year activities(program income) bring the total estimated funding for program year 2020/21 to almost $5.5 million. The following Annual Action Plan describes resources, programs, activities and actions Huntington Beach will use in the coming 2020/21 fiscal year to implement its strategic plan and ultimately achieve its Consolidated Plan goals and objectives, summarized in the table on the following page. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 1 343 Consolidated Plan by! a Wig` _ Outcome% 5 Year Priority. I p ernentmg Programs - zoio/z� Goal = Objective T�, d4 NIII�I��i�f,,.,: ■ Special Code Enforcement boo Housing Units ■ Owner-Occupied SF, Condo, 8 Housing Units SL 3 DH-1 and Mobile Home Grant Sustain and Strengthen Program Neighborhoods ■ Owner-Occupied Single-Family z Housing Units DH-� Rehabilitation Loan Program Housing Rehabilitation Loan to Housing Units DH-� ■ Administration Preserve Existing and ■ Acq/Rehab/New Construction 10 Housing Units DH-z Create New Affordable Affordable Housing Project Housing ■ Tenant Based Rental Assistance 6o Households DH-z Program ■ Homeless Outreach Program 400 Persons SL-1 Support Efforts to Address ■ Stand Up for Kids OC—Street 112 Persons SL-i Homelessness Outreach Program ■ Robyne's Nest Housing for High 9 Persons SL-1 School Students Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Senior Services, Care Management 165 Persons SL-1 Populations Increase Access to Youth Services Community Services to LMI ■ Children's Bureau 400 Persons SL-1 Persons General Public Services ■ Oakview Family Literacy 190 Persons SL-1 ■ Central Library Lower Level 14,180 Persons SL-3 Preserve Existing and Restrooms ADA Improvement Project Create New Public Facilities ■ Back-up Project: Cameron Lane zoo Persons SL-1 Facility Improvement Project Provide Needed Infrastructure ■ ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance 1,939 Persons SL-3 Improvements in LMI Zone 3 Neighborhoods Planning for Housing and ■ HOME Administration Not Applicable Not ■ CDBG Administration Not Applicable Community Development . Fair HousingServices Not Applicable Applicable 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Priorities,Implementing Programs,and FY 2020121 Goals z. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan See Table above. 3. Evaluation of past performance Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 2 344 HUD requires that grantees provide an evaluation of past performance. Since the current year, 2019/20, is still in progress, the City of Huntington Beach will more fully measure performance outputs and outcomes for CDBG and HOME under the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER)which captures progress towards meeting five-year goals and objectives. Nonetheless, below is a synopsis of what has been accomplished over the last five years: Decent Housing • In May 2015, the City issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) identifying nearly $2.5 million in available affordable housing funds. The City's goal was to obtain proposals for affordable housing projects as well as Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) programs. The City identified homeless, those at risk of homelessness, veterans, seniors, and victims of domestic violence as the population for which the housing programs should be targeted. The NOFA was available on the City's website and was disseminated to local CHDO's in the area.The City received five(5) proposals: three (3) proposals for affordable housing projects, and two (2) proposals for TBRA programs. • In FY 2015/16, the City entered into a subrecipient agreement with a nonprofit agency, Interval House, to operate a city-wide Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program using tenant selection policies and criteria. The City gave local preference to households impacted by homelessness, persons at risk of homelessness, veterans, seniors, and victims of domestic violence in Huntington Beach. The contract with Interval House was renewed two more times during the past five years and to date have assisted 69 households with rental subsidies. • Beginning in October 2o16, HOME funding was provided to Mercy House to implement a second tenant based rental assistance program to very low and low-income households,focusing on veterans and seniors. In October 2o18, the City entered into a new two-year contract with Mercy House to run through the end of FY 2019/20. To date, Mercy House has provided assistance to 51 households. • A third tenant based rental assistance program was implemented in partnership with Families Forward in October 2o18. The non-profit organization provides short and medium-term rental assistance, case management, housing navigation, and supportive services to eligible households. To date, Families Forward has assisted ig households. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 3 345 • The Residential Rehabilitation Program consists of a grant and loan program. First,the Owner-Occupied Single-Family, Condo, and Mobile Home Grant Program Home Improvement Program offers a one-time grant not to exceed $1o,000 to low-income homeowners for deferred maintenance and health and safety-related household repairs. The City's Owner-Occupied Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program, in comparison, offers low-income homeowners up to $75,000 in deferred payment loans. Both programs are intended to assist low-income homeowners to make much needed repairs to keep their property safe and livable.The 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan goal is to fund 75 grants/loans over the five-year period. A total of 40 loans/grants have funded to date (February 2020),with more currently in the review stage. • In October 2016,the City approved a Substantial Amendment to the FY 2016/17 Annual Action Plan to provide $781,220 in HOME funds for an acquisition and rehabilitation project located at 7792 Barton Drive.The property, now owned by the Orange County Community Housing Corporation, consists of four rental units, two of which will eventually be rented to two (2)very low- and two (2) low-income eligible households. Project was completed in FY 2017/18. • In December 2016,the City completed an affordable housing project comprised of nine units at 313 lith Street, Huntington Beach, also known as Project Self-Sufficiency(PSS) House. Rehabilitation included new exterior stucco, roof, sewer, plumbing, electrical, and several window and door replacements. The units will be income and rent restricted for 55-years. Suitable Living Environment • The City's Special Code Enforcement program continues to accomplish their goal of assisting boo housing units each year in CDBG-eligible areas. • The City has assisted various public service agencies. While the number of public service programs assisted with CDBG funds has been reduced due to of decreased CDBG entitlement funds, the City continues to work towards its goals in providing quality and effective services to youth, homeless, seniors, the disabled, and illiterate adults, as well as fair housing services funded through Administrative costs, to the Huntington Beach community. • The City had a goal to assist 400 persons through the provision of public facility improvements. To that end, in 2015/16, the City funded the Oak View Class and Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 4 346 Counseling Space Project which intended to provide additional classroom space for the afterschool recreation program operated at the Oak View Family Resource Center by Children's Bureau and the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Huntington Valley. Space was limited at this location and the additional classroom,office and meeting space was needed to accommodate various enrichment programs at the facility due to increased demand for services. The project scope of work was amended in FY 2ol6/17 to simply reconfigure the Family Resource Center, rather than providing additional space. The newly reconfigured space was completed in FY 2o16/17 and eliminated the need for the remainder of the work. • City-funded infrastructure improvements included ADA improvements to Public Works Maintenance Zone 12 in FY 2015/16, Maintenance Zone to in FY 2o16/17, Maintenance Zone 1 in FY 2017/18, and Maintenance Zone 9 in FY 2019/2o. The City also awarded $500,000 in CDBG Revolving Loan Funds to various curb cuts citywide in FY 2017/18. The City has already reached its Consolidated Plan goal of assisting 1,224 persons in this category; and, will continue funding to ADA improvements in the new Consolidated Plan cycle. • CDBG RLF funds in the amount of $600,000 were authorized in 2017/18 for the Huntington Beach Youth Shelter Roof, Structural, and ADA Improvements. The Youth Shelter project will benefit homeless youth which seek shelter and assistance through this facility. The project was completed in FY 2019/20. • In FY 2o18/19, via substantial amendment, the City allocated $223,607 in CDBG funds and $766,905 in CDBG revolving loan funds towards the Huntington Beach Navigation Center located at 15311 Pipeline Lane, Huntington Beach. The project was met with much public criticism and with litigation concerning the use of the building for a homeless shelter.The City is currently selling the property and all sale proceeds will be returned to the CDBG line of credit and the project will be cancelled. The City is in the process of looking for a new site to develop this new public facility project. • In April 2020, the City was awarded $727,819 in supplemental CDBG funds under the CARES Act which was signed into law to help grantees across America to prevent, prepare, and respond to the Novel Coronavirus pandemic. By substantial amendment, the City allocated these funds, along with $772,181 in unallocated CDBG funds to the operations of a new emergency homeless shelter to be located at 17631 Cameron Lane. The property is in the process of being purchased by the City and will be leased to the Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 5 347 County to operate a homeless facility during the Orange County Safer at Home order as a response to COVID-ig. When the order is lifted, the City plans to continue operating the site as a homeless facility to protect the City's homeless population when additional outbreaks of COVID-19 occur. Economic Opportunity • During 2015/16, City staff worked closely with two grassroots groups established in the Oak View community, one of the most impacted areas of the City, and one in which many resources have been concentrated in recent years. These efforts included increased outreach to property owners and residents of the area and expansion of the number of materials provided in Spanish. These efforts resulted in a bilingual Code Enforcement officer being specifically hired to serve the Oak View community. Staff has continued to connect the Fair Housing Foundation to the Oak View community, and they are now non-voting partners of the Oak View Collaborative, which will give them increased access to the clientele in need being served out of the Oak View Family Resource Center. • While not funded with federal CDBG funds,the City in 2014, prepared a comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. The purpose of the Strategy was to identify the highest priority economic development objectives in Huntington Beach, and to set goals, policies and recommended actions for short term (0-2 years), mid-term (3-5 years), and long-term economic decisions. 4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process The City developed its 2020/21 Annual Action Plan through extensive consultation and coordination with housing, social service and healthcare providers; public agencies; and the local public housing agency as presented below. As a means of gaining input from the public, the City conducted public hearings and invited comments on the draft Action Plan. The City followed its Citizen Participation Plan and H UD's guidelines for citizen and community involvement in preparation of the Action Plan to encourage citizen participation in the preparation of the documents. A draft of the 2020/21 Annual Action Plan will be made available for public comment for the minimum 3o-day period (June 5 -July 6, 202o). A City Council public hearing will be held on July 6, 2020, providing residents and interested parties a final opportunity to comment on the Consolidated Plan prior to adoption and submittal to HUD. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 6 348 5. Summary of public comments See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. 6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them The City of Huntington Beach responded to all relevant comments. 7. Summary The Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, which has been guided by the Housing and Community Development Survey and public input, identified seven priority needs. These are described below. • Households with housing problems: The need for affordable housing options in the City continue to be high, based on the proportion of households in the City experiencing cost burdens. Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing as well as Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods. • Homelessness: Homelessness continues to be growing and pressing issue in Huntington Beach and regionally. The City will continue to fund and support efforts that address homelessness and serve persons experiencing homelessness. • Special Needs Populations:There are a number of special needs populations in the City that need continued services and support. These include, but aren't limited to persons with severe mental illness, veterans, persons with substance abuse addictions, and seniors. • Priority Community Services: There are a number of vital community services in the City that need continued funding and support. These community services serve low to moderate income households and include activities such as youth and senior services. • Priority Community and Public Facilities: The City recognizes the high need for public improvement activities throughout the City in order to provide for and maintain a safe and decent environment for its citizens. Identified priority needs include, but are not limited to, homeless shelters, parks and recreational centers, youth centers, and healthcare facilities. • Priority Infrastructure Improvements: The City recognizes the high need for public improvement activities throughout the City in order to provide for and maintain a safe and decent environment for its citizens. Identified priority needs include, but are not Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 7 349 limited to, street and road improvements, sidewalk improvements, flood drainage improvements, and tree planting • Other Housing and Community Development Needs: The City has identified the need to provide support for the HOME and CDBG programs in the City, as well as to affirmatively further fair housing. These activities are vital to the continuation of the City's efforts to administer these programs. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 8 350 PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.2oo(b) 1. Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. A ency Rble Name _ Department/A ency Cead Agency _ HUNTINGTON°BEACH ;% Office of Business Development; CDBG Administrator Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Community Development Department/Office of Business Director Development HOME Administrator Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Community Development Department/Office of Business Director Development Table i—Responsible Agencies Narrative The Lead Agency for the 2020121 Annual Action Plan is the City of Huntington Beach, Office of Business Development. Annual Action Plan Public Contact Information Ursula Luna-Reynosa Community Development Director City of Huntington Beach Office of Business Development 2000 Main Street, 51h Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phone: (714)374-5186 Email: ursula.luna-reynosa@surfcity-hb.org Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 9 351 ANo Consultation - 9moo, 91.2oo(b), 91.2150) 1. Introduction Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction's activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(I)). The City developed its five-year (2020/21 — 2024/25) Consolidated Plan through consultation with the Orange County Housing Authority; City departments; health and social service providers; and adjacent local governments. As a means of gaining input from housing, homeless and social service providers active in Huntington Beach, the City provided agencies a brief survey requesting input on services provided, priority needs and gaps in services. The City funds a Homeless Task Force made up of staff from the City's Police Department, and it consists of a homeless outreach coordinator, case managers, and Huntington Beach Police Department Homeless Liaison Officers who coordinate services provided to the Homeless. The Coordinator oversees a collaborative comprised of local homeless service providers and faith-based organizations who conduct monthly meetings with the purpose of synchronizing efforts and sharing information to most effectively address the issue of homelessness in Huntington Beach. It is the goal of the City to provide the homeless population with skilled individuals who are able to navigate the County's Coordinated Entry System. Additionally, these individuals must have knowledge of broader housing opportunities, mental health and addiction resources, medical resources, and job resources. In 2020/21, this team will include one Homeless Outreach Coordinator and three (3) part-time Homeless Case Managers, all of whom work with the Homeless Liaison Police Officers,to further increase the level of service to the homeless population. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children,veterans,and unaccompanied youth)and persons at risk of homelessness The City of Huntington Beach, through its Homeless Outreach Case Manager, participates in the Orange County Continuum of Care, led and coordinated by 2-1-1 Orange County and the OC Community Services. This public-nonprofit partnership helps ensure comprehensive and regional coordination of efforts and resources to reduce the number of homeless and persons at risk of homelessness throughout Orange County. This group serves as the regional convener of the year-round CoC planning process and as a catalyst for the involvement of the public and private agencies that make-up the regional homeless system of care. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 10 352 The Orange County Continuum of Care system consists of six basic components: 1. Advocacy on behalf of those who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless. 2. A system of outreach, assessment, and prevention for determining the needs and conditions of an individual or family who is homeless. 3. Emergency shelters with appropriate supportive services to help ensure that homeless individuals and families receive adequate emergency shelter and referrals. 4. Transitional housing to help homeless individuals and families who are not prepared to make the transition to permanent housing and independent living. 5. Permanent housing, or permanent supportive housing,to help meet the long-term needs of homeless individuals and families. 6. Reducing chronic homelessness in Orange County and addressing the needs of homeless families and individuals using motels to meet their housing needs. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS The City of Huntington Beach does not receive ESG funds, so this is not applicable. 2. Describe Agencies,groups,organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities � 41 �r i.� ' How wa the Agency/��G oup/�. y r r 'g ` { '� ills li� IN , 'fin, r �h „ q�� are the antiapated outcomes 1 a rx � s �� 1 Lei R il) i Agency/Group/ ryi" Agency/Group/ What section'of the Planrwas !i the consultation or areas for ' Organiiatlon. Or anizat�on Type addcessedzby Consultation' v v, improved coordmation� - , Housing Need Assessment Homeless Needs Homelessness Strategy Citizen Participation Advisory Board (CPAB)and Homeless Non-Homeless Special Needs Collaborative meetings. City will City of Huntington Beach Other government Market Analysis continue maintaining its strong - Local Economic Development relationships with service Non-Housing Community Development Strategy providers and local jurisdictions to Anti-Poverty Strategy implement the 5-year strategy. Lead-based Paint Strategy Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 11 353 s r, r y ';',P , How was t e Agency Group a ,�i,n �K�. Organizatfon'consultedand�„,wliat IV! 40 r. are the anticipated outcomes of Agency/Group/ ;; = Agency/Group/# 1a What sec ion of the Plan inias the consultation.or areas for° 7 ,Irc s^,u'� i n�,l "r rip;. TA,— a p.r „� p Or" anization ,v I Or angation Types, addressed by Corisultation? �� improved coordination�� Housing Need Assessment Public hearings. City Council Non-Homeless Special Needs members reflect the needs of Huntington Beach City Market Analysis their constituents in the Civic Leaders Economic Development Council Non-Housing Community community,which have been reflected in the needs and Development Strategy Anti-Poverty Strategy Priorities identified in the Plan. PHA Housing Need Assessment Orange County Housing Housing Public Housing Needs Invitation to participate in the Authority Other government Homelessness Strategy survey, public input meeting, and —City Non-Homeless Special Needs comment on the draft plan Anti-Poverty Strategy AIDS Services Foundation Invitation to participate in the of Orange County Services- Health Non-Homeless Special Needs survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Housing Needs Assessment Invitation to participate in the Alzheimer's Family Services Public Housing Needs Center Services- Health Homelessness Strategy survey, public input meeting, and Anti-Poverty Strategy comment on the draft plan Homeless Needs-Chronically Invitation to participate in the homeless survey, public input meeting, and Homeless Needs- Families comment on the draft plan Beach Cities Interfaith Services- with children Services(BCIS) Homeless Homelessness Needs- Veterans Homelessness Needs- Unaccompanied youth Homelessness Strategy Housing Need Assessment Invitation to participate in the Build Futures Services- Non-Homeless Special survey, public input meeting, and Homeless Needs comment on the draft plan Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Strategy Invitation to participate in the Children's Bureau Services— Non-Homeless Special Needs survey, public input meeting, and Children Market Analysis comment on the draft plan Economic Development Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Strategy Invitation to participate in the Collette's Children's Home Services- Non-Homeless Special Needs survey, public input meeting, and Homeless Market Analysis comment on the draft plan Economic Development Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 12 354 �aa1 .� How was the Agency Group/ ` hl H�IN till F �?'Ii ,�OrgarllZatlOp COIISU�ted artd What .. u{ "�, „ '5.are the anticipated outcomes of, n �I� 11^}3r�aha_d.i alp" ;g,4 `� :" �I ��P�II��i� 1� Agency/Group/ Agency/Group/,What section of the Planwas�°fi`1�l;; the'consultation�or'areas for a p ri�v': �i�� i !�tli "i ifs I�I�p ', :#a x :+'�;�ti` � Or�anization s: �„ ,Or anization Type;; addressedby Consultations !iE�'�� hirnproued coordination? Housing Need Assessment Services- Elderly Homelessness Strategy Invitation to participate in the Community SeniorSery Persons Non-Homeless Special Needs survey, public input meeting, and Market Analysis comment on the draft plan Economic Development Housing Need Assessment Invitation to participate in the CrossPoint Church Services- Homelessness Strategy survey, public input meeting,and Homeless Market Analysis comment on the draft plan Economic Development Housing Need Assessment Invitation to participate in the CSP, Huntington Beach Services- Homelessness Strategy Youth Shelter Homeless Market Analysis survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Economic Development Housing Need Assessment Services- Persons Non-Homeless Special Needs Invitation to participate in the Dayle McIntosh Center survey, public input meeting, and With Disabilities Market Analysis comment on the draft plan Economic Development Housing Need Assessment Invitation to participate in the Family Literacy Program Services- Literacy Homelessness Strategy survey, public input meeting, and Market Analysis comment on the draft plan Economic Development Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs Invitation to participate in the Huntington Beach Hospital Services- Health Market Analysis survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Economic Development Huntington Beach Police Services- Homeless Needs Homeless Collaborative Meeting. Department Homeless Homelessness Strategy CPAB meeting. Housing Need Assessment Invitation to participate in the Huntington Beach Senior Services- Elderly Non-Homeless Special Needs Services/Senior Outreach Persons Market Analysis survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Economic Development Homeless Needs-Chronically homeless Invitation to participate in the Project Self-Sufficiency Services- Homelessness Needs- survey, public input meeting, and Homeless Veterans comment on the draft plan Homelessness Strategy Housing Need Assessment Invitation to participate in the Regional Center of Orange Services- Health Non-Homeless Special Needs survey, public input meeting, and County Market Analysis comment on the draft plan Economic Development Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 13 355 ;G l' :` How was the Agency/j Group r� ,,,gl„ „g, Organization onsultead�and what w x are the anticipated outcomes of u k Xs' Agency/Group/-.' Agency/Group/ What section ofahe Plan'was the consultation or areassfor . .Organiiation �, a Or arnzatiort Type = a dressed.by Consultation? ,q`„f, ,improved coordinations I,7, Society of St.Vincent de Services- Homeless Needs Invitation to participate in the Paul Homeless Homelessness Strategy survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan St.Vincent DePaul Society, Services- Homeless Needs Invitation to participate in the St. Mary's by the Sea Homeless Homelessness Strategy survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special U.S. Department of Needs Market Analysis The U.S. Department of Housing g and Urban Government- Economic Development and Urban Development has been Housing Development Federal consulted regarding the COVID-19 Non-Housing Community outbreak. Development Strategy Anti-Poverty Strategy Table 2-Agencies,groups,organizations who participated Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting The City of Huntington Beach developed its Consolidated Plan through consultation with housing, social and health service providers; local agencies/governments; and the Orange County Housing Authority. The City is unaware of any Agency types relevant to the Consolidated Plan that were not consulted. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 14 356 Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Namebf,Plan �,I��i�, ��;i`� Lead Organization'� ,',Ho�nr do the goals of your''" OI�M) a pat i 3«'� Strategic�Plan overlap with "�i owls=of each plan? Y Continuum of Care OC Partnership, 2-1-1 Orange For the past several years, County and the OC Community leadership and coordination of Services. Orange County's Continuum of Care planning process has been the shared responsibility of OC Partnership, 2-1-1 Orange County and the OC Community Services.These organizations use housing and demographic data obtained through HMIS and Homeless Counts to determine needs and to pinpoint gaps in housing and services. This in turn helps to pool and coordinate resources with the County and cities to develop coordinated homeless access and assessment centers. Huntington Beach participates in building the regional continuum of care to address the homeless and persons at-risk of homelessness. Huntington Beach 2013-2021 City of Huntington Beach The City recently updated its Housing Element Planning Division Housing Element for the 2013- 2021 period. Key housing policies and programs from the Housing Element have been reflected within the Consolidated Plan. Table 3-Other local/regional/federal planning efforts Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 15 357 AP-12 Participation - 91.105, 91.200(c) 1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation The City of Huntington Beach has a Citizen Participation Plan to guide the City's citizen participation process as it relates to its federal HOME and CDBG programs. All citizens are encouraged to participate in the planning, development, and implementation of the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan.The City holds advertised public hearings each year to gather input on community needs as part of the development of the Plans and to advise on the progress of existing subrecipients. In all cases, a Notice of Public Hearing is published at least 15 days prior to the hearing to provide residents with adequate notice. Housing and Community Development Needs Survey In order to evaluate public opinion of specific housing and community development needs for the 2020/21 - 2024/25 Consolidated Plan, the City utilized a Housing and Community Development Needs Survey (in English and Spanish) in which the respondent was asked to rank the level of need for a particular service, capital improvement,and public benefit. A total Of 417 responses were received and helped shape the outcome of the Plan's Five-Year Goals and Objectives. Community Meetings For development of the Consolidated Plan, the Citizen Participation Advisory Board (CPAB) conducted a series of public hearings on community needs on October 3, 2019, November 7, 2019, December 5, 2019, and February 20, 202o at Huntington Beach City Hall and at the Oak View Branch Library. The comments received are summarized in the Consolidated Plan Appendix. Public Comment and Final Adoption A draft FY 2020/21 - 2024/25 Consolidated Plan and draft FY 2020/21 Annual Action Plan was made available for public comment for a 3o-day period beginning on June 5, 202o and concluding on July 6, 202o. A public hearing was held on July 6, 2020 providing residents and interested parties a final opportunity to comment on the Plans prior to adoption and submittal to HUD. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 16 358 Citizen a Participation �1� . �,� �' �$Ummary Of " � a5x'z.. Qutreach� ,G�hl :� Summary of- mmary,of comments hot , Mode of Target of, response) Comments ksaccepted 7 URL(If ' _Outreach Outreach_ attendance andreasons applicable)i ,,,,., Internet Non- A Housing and The results are Not applicable. Outreach targeted/broad Community available as community Development part of the Needs Survey Needs was available Assessment on the City's and Market website during Analysis. the month of August 2019.A total of 412 surveys were received. 7 were received in Spanish. Public Meeting Non- Three public A complete set Not applicable. targeted/broad input meetings of transcripts community were held on from the December 5, meeting is 2019.The included in the community Appendix. and Huntington Beach stakeholders were invited to attend to share their opinions on needs and gaps in service. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 17 359 Participation �a $ ,� �� �� Summary�of Y<Outreach 4 _ Sum�iiaryof = it t Summary of comments not Mode of Target of esponse/ HAT CommTents accepted URL(If jri F,,i Outreach utreacl ,� - �attendance�� ° rec ei ved and reasons��;;. applicable) Public Hearing Minorities The Citizen See All comments Participation Huntington received were Non-English Advisory Board Beach Citizen accepted. Speaking- (CPAB), a Participation Spanish group of Comments in appointed Appendix. Persons with Huntington disabilities Beach citizens, held public Residents of hearings on Public and 10/3/19, 11/7/19, Assisted and 12/5/19 to Housing solicit input on housing and Non-targeted/ community broad development community needs. Public Meeting Service Agencies Presentations All comments N/A providers and requesting from the received were faith-based CDBG funding various accepted. organizations in FY 2020/21 agencies representing gave covered need seniors,youth, presentations for service in homeless,fair and answered Huntington housing, code questions from Beach enforcement, the Citizen community infrastructure Participation and requested improvements, Advisory Board allocations. and housing. (CPAB). See Meetings took Huntington place on Beach Citizen 1/30/2o and Participation 2/6/20. Comments in Appendix. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 18 360 tq "IF ;CIti� e11 ����� ii >' li no Ii r n�ii go Participation = Summary of gs Outreach " Summary of Summar of comments not, �; �) yi ii i�i� d Y Mode of Target of response/ i''uhComments accepted '' w ''' URL`(If ,.r 7 r I�( �.. .. Outreach Outreach, . rattendance received- and'reasons rrw applicable)_ Newspaper Ad Non-targeted/ A newspaper See No comments N/A broad advertisement Huntington were received. community was published Beach Citizen on 01/30/2020 Participation to solicit public Comments in comment on Appendix. community development and housing needsand priorities and to notify the public of a public hearing on the matter scheduled for 2/2012020. Public Hearing Non-targeted/ A public See No comments broad hearing was Huntington were received. community held on Beach Citizen 02/20/2020 to Participation solicit public Comments in comment on Appendix. community development and housing needsand priorities. Public Meeting Non-targeted/ A joint CPAB See All comments N/A broad and City Huntington received were community Council study Beach Citizen accepted. session was Participation held on 3/2/20. Comments in Appendix. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 19 361 Citizen - TP,ff ,,Participation, ,� Surnmar'y of �; M Outreach �;�� Summary,of Summary of,�, comments not i "d0 �� '�� �1''i�� #` ���' '� "K`a. s�'a��� Mode of r Tar et of res once Comments "! acce ted fir: URL(If Outreach Outreachm� attendance 'received and reasons applicable Newspaper Ad Non-targeted/ A newspaper See All comments N/A broad advertisement Huntington received were community was made Beach Citizen accepted. soliciting Participation public Comments in comment on Appendix. the draft FY 2020/21- 2024/25 Consolidated Plan and the FY 2020/21 Annual Action Plan and to notify the public of a public hearing to adopt the Plans on 7/6/2o. The public notice was published on 6/5/20. Public Hearing Non-targeted/ The City See All comments N/A broad Council held a Huntington received were community public hearing Beach Citizen accepted. to adopt the Participation FY 2020/21- Comments in 2024/25 Appendix. Consolidated Plan and FY 2020/21 Annual Action Plan on 7/6/20. Table 4-Citizen Participation Outreach Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 20 362 Expected Resources AP-15 Expected Resources - 91.220(c) (1,2) Expected Amount Available}Y Oar,._, uExpected Trat = Amount Source,, Annual � � PriorYear „ G�� �Rernainder YI �iJ� i! a ��tli��,�'; io i ( il�i( kNi�l� . ,� of ,;y� . ��o�,i� b Allocation. Progi-1,% Resources Total: 1,1 of conPlan Narrative �;', � � C� ti p� ., Income 4 � .DescH ion Pro gram Funds:.. Uses of Funds $i $ , $ - $- �a. $ _p CDBG Public- Acquisition, $1,237,224 $200,000 $583,493 $2,020,717 $5,748,896 Entitlement Federal Planning, funds Economic allocation Development, plus Housing, estimated Public program Improvements, income plus Public Services prior-year resources. HOME Public- Acquisition, $619,677 $75,000 $2,760,123 $3,454,800 $2,778,708 Entitlement Federal Homebuyer allocation assistance, plus Homeowner estimated rehab, program Multifamily income and rental new prior-year construction, resources. Multifamily rental rehab, New construction for ownership, TBRA Table 5-Expected Resources-Priority Table Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 21 363 Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied Federal funds play a crucial role in implementing the Consolidated Plan. Local private and non- federal funds are usually insufficient to meet the heavy demand for housing and services in our community. Agencies receiving CDBG and HOME funds use those funds as a commitment to receiving other funding sources. Likewise, the City also leverages other resources among the formula grant programs. For example, the HOME program is matched by a variety of sources, including private and public investment including the use of low-income housing tax credits. Other future sources of matching funds include inclusionary housing in-lieu fees; residual receipts from loans of the former Redevelopment Agency;and a State SERAF loan repayment of former Redevelopment Low/Mod Housing Funds. HUD requires a 25% match on HOME funds drawn down for affordable housing. Historically, the City has met the match requirement with the use of former Huntington Beach redevelopment tax increment funds that were layered with HOME funds in developing affordable housing. While redevelopment tax increment funds are no longer available for . future match requirements, the City has been utilizing a match surplus derived from prior contributions by the former Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency in developing affordable housing developments. The City was required to utilize 20% of these funds to develop low- and moderate- income housing. The City's match surplus is approximately $2,794,025 as of September 30, 2o18. Due to the National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus(COVID-19) pandemic, HUD has waived the City's HOME Match requirement for all expenditures beginning October s,2019 and will continue to do so through September 30, 2021.The City received this waiver on April 24, 2020. If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan The City Council recently authorized acquisition of property located at 17631 Cameron Lane that is being considered for development as an emergency homeless shelter to help meet the needs of the ever-growing homeless population, a priority need as described in the 2020/21- 2024/25 Consolidated Plan. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 22 364 LL. + n +Ln aJ c c v > o .otA O v +, v a, 41 LO +u+ R �f0 n 4- v V y _ � ro W%n bbb'in + n v C V c� O C U C aJ bD O C ro b0 7 C ro n C v L •� O 3 s O f0 O .0 L O O O } •� L ro o L �' v L � v 0 0 O�. v t H C ai L '= O p - V = t�C o E v = c ° = E v o in ro a) o = L = w v o w V c O _ O V = N o O p[ = p[ ¢ �O00 l0 M lV Ul E O V o V o V 0 V Cc oc om mac ' {:3 N yr � t a Ln bA E 0 •Ln v L _ = C ra bD V c s = v o raa L: Q L N O Q a GJ aJ V to � u � o ro N ra a) CD V1 c 0 cM f0 N N 5, m N to ' O V : GJ c v � � o V `° b.0 c Z 4° z tn C In L' 1 L Q �, o c v +1 v + in _v 1 v �_ E v +� 0 Ln v aj +1 E +_ n r"o +' o `"_ � a�i L CD C v 0 c ° tY 0 `" a! ° `^ j r. .L c i v '� N u C .� Z `+0 Ln co + s � = + c .c c Q E j rail bA vNi O Ln +�+ m H O rLa N +�+ m `� j rru Q) ate- m Q �' bA 41 O -D C 0 O 'O d O a V1 a1 N 4L O= C � m •� D a v Ln 0 W 0 v 0� v � O bA 0 v 0 O bA C T vn to 6 o n .c i vl 'O N v .0 0 O O c x c +� x o¢C + v CL n L c a «� v, fl o rru o = ¢ �° � ¢ om ;> 3 ca E a ;> cad° ` a ;> 3 m c �° V JO 0 00 V 0 2 N V) V) .�+ O ° CL `. v ra d0. ra ra O o�p w o w o V O 0 o V ° � om om om c-, O ° O v, m ,nin 0 0 t +� LA Q) Ln c G v Ln 0 o v D ° o o = = c rrs a c v (U o u a 7 C c Q N a) LA O bb LA rV ro ._ v O i :3 C U O ° O ra Q = 2 v co c O w c N N 0 O O 0 N N = O O N N O O N N 41 N fa b0 Q) v c v u � � o ¢ Ln rOa = O v hog +' LA aLni a O v u' o ¢ 0 _ � a Ln v a vz ° a V^ N r'r� C C C ro 4) ro ro 41 I }, �, ro 41 1 y 7 Q) E v� V • t E + Ln v v L E +� n ro 4! O N ,� `n C U t- 0 v .0 �- O N VI L co Q - v Q Y E L s a1 Q - L = - N Q m Cl) p O Co L 41 v� O O m J Ln O -0 m C =n V n 0 W Cp v v to 0 bA 0 3 v in 0 to O C rn ro _ L L � °' •C L > a, L v :> oa '°° ra a > 3 oa ri '> 3 Ln 0)° xro � N Q x 0 ° x o v Ln N C o O r. o V o o CC o m o in C) 6 in Go 0 ra v Ln C 41 n v O E v rn "d ++ •L 7 V v ro O E . v L Z a E v 0 0 O rn •L a v a c a c a v o U 7 C C Ln Ln N Q) .'�T' 41 N N QJ v CD C E E Z 0 0 a N O is x E o u C v C O 0 0- O Q�j a1 Z LAZ V co C 0 uo C 4-1 N N D O O C N N x O o N N O o N N 41 +� Ln C C V Ln 7 Q E o +� ra E L O 0 Q) a V a 0 0 v a 4, V Ln o J C -O `n O Q) W Q) }, bA a v Q Z Q v v •� O V in L a v ro a a a v vi � � v t/1 C �r U-N L—•dV`—A' ,}LcC +cL>+ .0 r" � L rd. L aL) Y � c S n `v� •- '2Coro v I Q ra a) 1 � ro ) C 'ra ucOO O a) E 4' ^ _ 4 te E a 0 m � E N U- ` Co 0 a+ `' JO " a) >. O LA O ~ C 4, o rCOoA W VO L > Q a) c V a) h O c v 4� V v O co c V E C Q o v o Cl) W 41 4J —++ — � +J L o o � O -° y . ^ (D > Oda) m " om V 1M ° Ll- O O � O O n O CL ALC � O O VI Y O M 41 Q 4' cc 4" `" COQ o41 1 L rn r V, Q Q Cin - M Lon) + p> �° 0- EZ O + o J J Q Q Q o N Z '0 Q Q x N 0 j aJ c V m j -v O m m 'gy w m O1 � m �o p O L p ry� p � O p 00co N N -V� v -V� -Ul- p v a) V)Qj ro c c c LA ac) +'+ 'u +' V E E E n c ra L c O a O c o > x E o v L V 'L VI o L O Z � E •— d ro L N V E p o c ro t a ro ro c a, v v v ro Q ro Q T o °' z f 0 Q -0 EV J C lJ J � C Q — — C Q c-I N bA aT Ufa41 aT 0 Zl N j c E c E L ro O O O a o O a a) 41 N x E C) x E C) .L c 0 0 > O O ° > O E a) Z U p Z V p Q m C O a-+ t10 C N N N C O O O O N N N x O O O N N N O O O N N N � V � aJ V C a1 V a L f0 E ro C n ° ro MLA 4- a) � a) b° 41 E ° v C C - > = p vLn 7 V O O T u) E " a) a c a) O Z E C L V v c E Q) ° � E 0 v v o d V z L 1.0 s= ::3 0) v z o v 0 ra c r` N O ^ U^J d' LQm o "E �* O rr� V 2 Q Z c a s= O Q U Z L Q c� CC � G � � Q n rl 0 O V N I p Q N Z -C a v ro H N m C O O bA C N � O N = O N O N N C 7 LL. ra ++ u V O C D Goal Descriptions t =GoaA—a e= ,Sustain and Stren"then Nei hbo hoods , f Goal Using CDBG funds, the City will sustain and strengthen neighborhoods by uk Description eliminating unsafe conditions and blight while improving the quality of life of residents within the community. (Project: Owner-Occupied SF, Condo, and Mobile Home Grant Program; Owner-Occupied Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program; Housing Rehab Loan Administration; Special Code Enforcement) 2 Goal Name Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housin Goal To the extent possible, based upon the availability of funds and a project's Description viability, HOME funds will be used to assist affordable housing developers in the acquisition, construction and/or rehabilitation of low-income rental and/or owner housing units. HOME funds will also be used to fund tenant based rental assistance efforts. (Projects: Acquisition/Rehabilitation/New Construction Affordable Housing;Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program) 3 PPPz Goal'Name Su ort Effor,'ts to Address Homelessness Goal Using CDBG funds, the City will provide assistance for homeless service Description providers. (Projects: Homeless Outreach Program; StandUp for Kids Street Outreach Program; Robyne's Nest Housing for Homeless High Schoolers) 4Y Goal Name ,,Support A encies that Assist,5pecial,`Npeds Populations °''"'I Goal Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to various Description social service agencies that provide community and public services to special needs households in the City. (Projects: Senior Care Management; Oak View Family Literacy Program) l '�•` u � • I �'� asp h h`� 37`✓'�N 5 't GoalrName Increase Accessuto CommunityServicesto LMI Persons Goal Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to various Description social service agencies for programs for youth,anti-crime,and general public services. (Projects:Children's Bureau) f "�Ffft.d"�'. II ��' 6'r,�" J( 6 _Goal' Rreserve`Existin and Create New Communi#y and Public Faalitiesr Goal Using CDBG funds,the City will provide financial assistance to improve public t Description facilities and parks. (Central Library Lower Level Restrooms ADA Improvement Project; Back-Up Project: 2019 Cameron Lane Navigation Center) uw7,y Goal Named s Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements_ ,G. z . Goal Using CDBG funds,the City will provide financial assistance to improve public Description infrastructure in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods or for low- and moderate-income persons. (ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3 Project) Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 28 370 nnin � �mu; � �� � u 8 Goal Name H Pla for Housmand_CommunityD,eveloprnent t ° a Goal The City will conduct the following administration/planning activities: (1) Description General Administration of CDBG and HOME Program, including preparation of budget, applications, certifications and agreements, (2) Coordination of � CDBG-funded capital improvement projects, (3) Coordination of Public yx Service Subrecipients, (4) Coordination of HOME-funded housing projects, (5) Monitoring of CDBG and HOME projects/programs to ensure compliance with federal regulations, (6) Preparation of Annual Action Plan, (7) Preparation of the CAPER; and (8) Fair Housing Foundation counseling, education and enforcement (CDBG funded). Up to 20% of the annual CDBG " entitlement and up to 25% of the HOME entitlement is allowed for administration activities.The HOME Administration cap was increased to 2S% for 2020/21 via a HOME waiver granted to the city on April 24,2020.) (Projects: HOME Administration, CDBG Administration, Fair Housing Foundation) Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.215(b) As presented above, the City's one-year goal is to provide affordable housing opportunities to 76 extremely low, low, and moderate-income households through the following activities: • Owner-Occupied SF, Condo, and Mobile Home Grant Program: The City offers a one- time grant not to exceed $1o,000 to low-income homeowners for deferred maintenance and health and safety-related household repairs. Deferred maintenance can include paint, siding replacement, window and door replacement, roof repair, or removal of any condition of blight. Household repairs may include restoration or replacement of inoperable or severely deteriorated plumbing, heating, and electrical systems, structural and appliance replacement. The City proposes to fund 8 grants in FY 2020/21. • Owner-Occupied Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program: Funded with CDBG funds, the Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program offers low-income homeowners up to $75,000 in deferred payment loans. Individual loans may be increased by up to $1o,000 if deemed necessary to meet HUD HQS requirements and rehabilitation standards and would require the approval by the Director of Economic Development. Payment of the principal and accrued interest is deferred until the property is sold, transferred, or refinanced. In FY 2020/21, the City proposes to fund two loans. • Acquisition/Rehabilitation/New Construction Affordable Housing Program: The City has approximately $2.4 million available HOME funds to provide gap financing in the development of affordable housing. While a project is yet to be determined, the City will likely fund a project(s)that meets the needs of the H B community as determined Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 29 371 by the City's 5-Year Consolidated Plan (Con Plan). The Con Plan has demonstrated a need for housing for homeless persons, low- and moderate-income households, and large families. With a federal investment of $2.4 million, the City anticipates that io units will be HOME-restricted. • Tenant Based Rental Assistance: The City will continue working with TBD service providers to provide a total of 6o households with short and medium-term rental assistance as well as housing relocation and stabilization services. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 30 372 Projects AP-35 Projects - 91.220(d) The City plans to undertake the following CDBG and HOME funded activities during Fiscal Year 2020/21 to address its priority housing and community development needs. All proposed activities are eligible and meet program service targets. Additionally, the City of Huntington Beach has not exceeded any of its maximum allocations for CDBG public services, CDBG administration, or HOME administration. With a CDBG allocation of $1,237,224, the City of Huntington Beach allocated $244,000 for public services, representing nearly 20%of the CDBG entitlement. The 15% public service cap was waived for FY 2020/21 in order to respond to COVID-19. This Annual Action Plan proposes to allocate the following to public services: Homeless Outreach Program ($85,000); Senior Services Care Management ($44,000); Children's Bureau ($80,000); StandUp for Kids Street Outreach ($15,000); Oakview Family Literacy Program ($1o,000); and Robyne's Nest Housing for Homeless High Schoolers ($1o,000). CDBG regulations also permit a maximum allocation of 20% of the annual entitlement plus 20% of program income, or$287,445, for CDBG administration activities. The City has allocated $257,445 for CDBG Administration and $30,000 to the Fair Housing Foundation,for a total of$287,445,the maximum allowed. Lastly, under a HOME waiver that was given to the City, a maximum of 25% of the annual HOME entitlement, $154,919, was allocated to HOME Program Administration in FY 2020/21. Consistent with the City's Citizen Participation Plan for 2020/21-2024/25, the Annual Action Plan may contain a list of "back-up" projects to be activated during the given program year due to one or more of the following circumstances: • Additional funding becomes available during the program year from the close out of current projects that were completed under budget. • More program income becomes available than originally estimated and budgeted in the Annual Action Plan. • If, during the development of the Annual Action Plan, the City of Huntington Beach has not definitively decided which public facility or infrastructure improvement project to fund,the City may opt to categorize each option as a"back-up"project until further project and budget planning is performed. Initiation and funding of one or more of the "back-up" projects would not constitute a substantial amendment as defined in the Citizen Participation Plan. Preferential consideration will be given to those projects that demonstrate the ability to spend CDBG funds in a timely manner, consistent with the City's goal to meet CDBG timeliness rules,as well as those projects Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 31 373 that meet the needs of the community as defined in the Consolidated Plan. Projects Prol'e'ct ' �.P �'lib '�"�'' • o) 1 Owner-Occupied SF, Condo, and Mobile Home Grant Program 2 Owner-Occupied Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program 3 Housing Rehabilitation Program Administration 4 Special Code Enforcement 5 Acquisition/Rehabilitation/New Construction Affordable Housing 6 Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program 7 Homeless Outreach Program 8 StandUp for Kids Street Outreach Program 9 Robyne's Nest Housing for Homeless High Schoolers 10 Senior Services—Care Management 11 Oak View Family Literacy Program 12 Oak View Community Center— Children's Bureau 13 Central Library Lower Level Restrooms ADA Improvement Project 14 ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3 15 HOME Administration 16 CDBG Administration 17 Fair Housing Foundation 18 Unallocated CDBG Funds 19 Unallocated CDBG Funds Back-Up Project: 2019 Cameron Lane Navigation Center Table 8-Project Information Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs The Housing and Homeless Needs Assessment of the Consolidated Plan discusses housing need by income category. Income levels identified are 1) extremely low-income; 2) very low- income, and; 3) low- and moderate-income households. Based on HUD recommendations, general relative priorities for funding will be as follows: HIGH PRIORITY:Activities to address this need will be funded during the five-year period. MEDIUM PRIORITY: If funds are available, activities to address this need may be funded by the City during the five-year period. The City may also use other sources of funds and take actions to locate other sources of funds. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 32 374 LOW PRIORITY: It is not likely the City will fund activities to address this need during the five- year period. The highest priority has been assigned to the needs of the lowest income residents, based on the assumption that in this high cost real estate market, they are at greater risk of displacement, homelessness or other serious housing situations due to limited financial resources and other limitations they may face. The Consolidated Plan identifies several obstacles in meeting underserved needs, including the high and sustained demand for public services, as well as the shortage of funding to address the community's needs. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 33 375 AP-38 Project Summary Project Summary Information Protect Name �,� Owner Occupied SF;Condo,and Mobile Home GrantlPro `ram - Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding CDBG: $1oo,000 Description Eligibility Citation:24 CFR 570.202 -Housing/Rehab: Single Unit Residential National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) - Low Mod Housing Benefit The City offers a one-time grant not to exceed $1o,000 to low-income homeowners for deferred maintenance and health and safety-related household repairs. Deferred maintenance can include paint, siding replacement, window and door replacement, roof repair, or removal of any condition of blight. Household repairs may° g P Y include ai restoration or replacement of inoperable or severely deteriorated plumbing, heating, and ry electrical systems, structural and appliance a replacement. The City proposes to fund 8 grants in FY 2020/21. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will 8 housing units benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 34 376 °,;�;'' Owner Occupied Single-Family Rehabilitation' u t z = Protect Name ti� ��' ' { M P= m = Loan Pro ram ;a �r Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems =< FundingCDBG: $90,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.202 Housing/Rehab: Single Unit Residential National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) - Low Mod Housing Benefit Funded with CDBG Revolving Loan Funds, the Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program offers low-income homeowners up to $75,000 in deferred payment loans. Individual loans may be increased by up to $1o,000 if deemed necessary to meet HUD HQS requirements and rehabilitation standards and would require the approval by the Director of Economic Development. Payment of the principal and accrued interest is deferred until the property is sold,transferred,or refinanced. In FY 2020/21,the City proposes to fund two loans. - Tar et Date 6/30/2021 _ Estimate the number and type of families that will 2 housing units benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 35 377 ,3 Project Name -_ .g Housin Rehab`Pr'o ram Admmistration Tam Yet Area Citywide Goals Supported Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods = $- Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding CDBG: $65,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.202 (b)(9) — Rehab Administration National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208 (a)(3) — Housing Activities The City of Huntington Beach Housing Rehabilitation Grant and Loan Programs provide emergency grants and low interest loans to low and very low-income families who need repairs to their homes. The City is requesting a grant in the amount of $65,000 to pay for operational costs associated with the City's two Rehabilitation Programs, which has been administered by the Office of Business Development since the early. 1970's. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that to housing units will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 36 378 � S 4 �"Pro' _N `` Speaal Code Enforcement Target Area Low-and Moderate-Income Areas Goals Supported Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding CDBG: $240,000 u Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.202 (c) - Code Enforcement National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(1)- Low Mod Area Benefit Funding will be used to support two (2) full-time I ` Code Enforcement Officers(CEO)for all the CDBG districts and the replacement of one(1)aging Code Enforcement vehicle used for CDBG Officers in the h, fleet.As the City ages, certain areas within the City of Huntington Beach need ongoing, proactive property maintenance inspections by code enforcement to maintain a safe, habitable living environment. Thus, with continued . code enforcement efforts and education, the quality of life and housing standards are maintained. The Code Enforcement Program benefits the community overall by working to upgrade the housing stock within deteriorating/ deteriorated areas. 1 Target Date 6 0 2021 Estimate the number and type of families that boo housing units r will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Low-and Moderate-Income Areas F ., Planned ActivitiesI Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 37 379 5:r; „Protect Name , ',;i ; ilnAcquisition/Rehabilitation/New Construction E i,n•�� w Afordable`Housm P`ro ram �r* ih ° Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding HOME: $2,399,881 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 92.205(a)(1) Acquisition/Rehabilitation/New Construction National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) Low Mod Housing Benefit .;' The City has approximately$2.4 million in FY 2020/21 to provide gap financing for the development of affordable housing. The City must use a portion of these funds on developing affordable housing with a local community housing development or anization(CH DO). Target Date June 30,2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will Approximately to HOME units can be developed benefit from the proposed activities with HOME funds. Units will be restricted to low- and moderate-income households. Location Description To be determined. Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 38 380 6 ?', Protect Name;. . z m Tenant Based RentalAssistance(TBRA) Pro ram ,j Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding HOME: $900,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 92.205(a)(1) — Tenant Based Rental Assistance `t National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) - Low Mod Housing Benefit f The City will continue working with TBRA service providers to provide 6o households with short and medium-term rental assistance as well as housing relocation and stabilization services. Households affected by the COVI D-19 pandemic are also eligible for the TBRA Program. Target Date o6/30/2022 Estimate the number and type of families that will 6o households benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Citywide. y, Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 39 381 7± Project Name, _ r H'omeless`Outreach;Pro` 'ram, Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Support Efforts to Address Homelessness —Pa Needs Addressed Homelessness Fundin CDBG: $85,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201 (c) - Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)- Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit The homeless experience a broad range of issues, often involving mental illness, addiction, evictions, poor credit, unemployment, under-education, and lack of skills. The goal of the City is to provide its homeless with skilled individuals who are able to navigate the County's Coordinated entry System. In addition,these individuals must have knowledge of broader housing opportunities, mental health and addiction resources, medical resources, and job resources. The project will continue to fund the part-time Homeless Outreach Coordinator who oversees these efforts, as well as 3 part-time Case Managers, all of whom work in conjunction with 2 full-time Police Officers. These 6 individuals are _ strictly dedicated to homeless outreach and enforcement issues and comprise the City's Homeless Task Force.This is the only group within the City of Huntington Beach that represents all demographics at Orange County's Coordinated to Entry meetings. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that 400 persons(homeless) G=. will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Citywide . Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 40 382 ., II�1II I1y n 1 �'II AI `. 8. Project Name ff.;t__ - St6ndUp for Kids Street Outreach Pro ram Tar et Area Citywide Goals Supported Support Efforts to Address Homelessness q Needs Addressed Homelessness 1,1(I�AI Fun din CDBG: $15,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201 (c) - Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)- Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit The core mission of StandUp for Kids is to end the cycle of youth homelessness. Our organization's focus is on prevention, outreach support, transitional housing and providing an array of resources and services to help homeless and at-risk youth on their journey to becoming self-sufficient adults. StandUp for Kids Orange County's weekly Street Outreach & Mentoring Program is a county- wide program where volunteer staff scout Orange County streets searching for youth who are currently unsheltered or unstably housed.StandUp ` for Kids serves teens and youth (ages 12 - 24) who are homeless, at-risk, aging-out of foster care, or J lMlr runaways to equip them with the tools they need to transition from life on the street to a life of stability and opportunity. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that 112 persons(homeless) will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 41 383 t1�, k!1 1 N "I I III tll.• �11 1I) 4 g. Project Name �b Illu,�� ,1� i, P�Robyne's Nest Housmgfor Homeless High IIl�lt� _ iil,l� 11Schoolers Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Needs Addressed Homelessness Funding CDBG: $1o,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201 (c) - Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)- Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit The mission of Robyne's Nest is to identify at-risk and homeless high school students and provide them a path to become stable and productive citizens. Robyne's Nest helps high school students in the Huntington Beach area who have little to no parental support with academic, financial, and life skills. They assist students with security, routine, and a place to belong. Their purpose is to enable students to complete their high school diploma and continue onward with college,trade school,or military programs. Robyne's Nest provide housing r„ resources; basic needs such as food, clothing, and supplies; educational assistance such as tutoring, Chromebooks, school supplies, and fees; and overall help with health and wellbeing in the form of counseling, therapy, mentoring, and life skills classes. Robyne's Nest Housing, in its fifth year of operation, consists of three primary housing options to ensure a safe and stable home environment. 1) Background checked, screened, and trained host homes take in students so they have a safe, positive environment to finish high school.2) Dedicated,supervised,transitional home in Huntington Beach is for students over the age of 18. 3) Housing assistance in the form of a living stipend offsets the cost of housing in order to free :u up the student to focus on schoolwork. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that g persons (homeless) r will benefit from the proposed activities YS Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 42 384 10 Project Name = ",, ,, rRE '' Senior,SenricesNCare IVlana emerit'_ =u Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations Needs Addressed Priority Special Needs Populations W' Funding CDBG: $44,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201(e) - Public Services/Senior Services National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)- Low Mod Limited Clientele Benefit Senior Center Care Management(CM)assists 400+ at-risk older adults in HB through calls, office & home visits yearly. CM consults with families & caregivers in addition to working with services providers to help address unmet needs of older HB adults. CM promotes safe aging in place while helping maintain or improve quality of life. Services focus on nutrition, home safety, mobility, social support & emotional wellbeing. Direct services include assessment, care planning, education, advocacy, benefits review, home delivered meals assessment & coordination, minor home repairs, emergency & supplemental nutrition, friendly visitors & callers, information & referrals on aging issues. CDBG historically funds two half-time positions which account for services to approximately 165 unduplicated older adult residents. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will 165 persons(seniors) benefit from the proposed activities Location Description The Senior Services Care Management Program is located at 18041 Goldenwest Street, Huntington Beach; however,the service is available to elderly : persons citywide. Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 43 385 Protect Name ,c4S Oakv�ewFam ily Literacy ProA ram A , Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations Needs Addressed Priority Special Needs Populations Fundin CDBG: $1o,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201(e) - Public Services/Other Public Services National Objective:24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)-Low Mod Limited Clientele Benefit CDBG funds will be used to operate the Family Literacy Program which provides one-to-one and small group tutoring so that low income adults in Huntington Beach can improve their ability to understand, speak, read, and write in English. Increased English literacy skills give adults improved ability to function on the job and in the community and help their children succeed in school. Basic computer workshops increase computer literacy necessary for adults to function in the list century. Having a literate citizenry makes a safer and more successful community for all. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will Igo persons benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 44 386 iz# Project Name CFildren s Bureau. - x az. Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Increase Access to Community Services for LMI Persons Needs Addressed Priority Community Services Funding CDBG: $8o,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.2ol(e) - Public Services/Youth Services ,. National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) - Low Mod Limited Clientele Benefit This request for funds is for the Oak View Family Resource Center (FRC), located in the Oak View enhancement area. In this area, many of the families are linguistically isolated which creates a need for specialized services.This is the only area in Huntington Beach that is identified as a Minority = High Concentration area. Specifically, these Community Development Block Grant funds will be used to provide the after school drop-in recreation program at the FRC. Per anon-exclusive license agreement with the City of HB, the Children's Bureau is responsible to provide after school recreation in a safe environment, promoting healthy activity, social interaction, and FUN as an alternative to unsupervised, unstructured, high-risk activity. If funding is awarded to the FRC, it will be used to pay for staffing for the after-school recreation program, as well as for related costs for supplies, equipment and services. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will 400 persons(youth) 4 benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Oakview Enhancement Area Planned Activities See description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 45 387 i3 ProlectENameti Central Library Lower,Leve ;Restrooms ADA i�Irnprovement Prolectk '���i���i Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities Needs Addressed Priority Community and Public Facilities Fundin CDBG: $286,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201(c)-Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements/Other National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)- Low Mod Limited Clientele Benefit The Central Library, located at 7111 Talbert Avenue, was originally constructed in the early 1970's and opened in 1975.The restrooms on the lower level appear to be original to the 1970's and do not meet current ADA accessibility standards.The lower level restrooms serve adjacent meeting rooms,the new Maker's Space, and coffee kiosk. 'j The Central Library is utilized by hundreds of visitors each week. The Public Works Department proposes to design and construct renovations to the lower level Men's and Women's restrooms in the original section of the Central Library.These renovations will be designed by a professional architect to create gn ! ADA-compliant restrooms,thereby improving accessibility to this facility for individuals with disabilities. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will 14,18o persons benefit from the proposed activities Location Description 7111 Talbert Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 46 388 t4i P*oiect Name` 'r DADA Curb Cuts in Mamtenance'Zone 3 W'a + �ua�.w Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements Needs Addressed Priority Infrastructure Improvements Funding CDBG: $393,732 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201(c)- Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements/Other National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)- Low Mod Limited Clientele Benefit Residents and visitors with disabilities utilize ADA ramps to access street intersections when traveling on city sidewalks. CDBG funds will be used to construct approximately too curb ramps at various locations in the City within Maintenance Zone 3,which is bound by Garfield Avenue to the north, Indianapolis Avenue to the south, Newland Street to the west, and Bushard Street to the east. , This area has been evaluated for specific pavement and concrete improvements. Maintenance Zone 3 encompasses a portion of the Garfield-Adams CDBG Area. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will 1,939 persons benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Maintenance Zone 3 which is bound by Garfield Avenue to the north, Indianapolis Avenue to the south, Newland Street to the west, and Bushard Street to the east.This area has been evaluated for specific pavement and concrete improvements. Maintenance Zone 3 encompasses a portion of the Garfield-Adams CDBG Area. Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 47 389 15! , Prolect:Name ,4 ,', HOME Pro ram Administration n !� " Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Planning for Housing and Community Development Needs Addressed Other Housing and Community Development Needs Funding HOME: $154,919 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 92.207(a) General Management, Oversight and Coordination National Objective Citation: Not Applicable ` The City of Huntington Beach Office of Business Development is responsible for administering the HOME program. Up to 25 percent of the HOME allocation will be used to provide for staffing and other program administration costs associated with the HOME program, including planning, reporting, monitoring, and IDIS setup and maintenance.The 25%is above the statutory limit of 1o% and is authorized based on a HOME waiver received from HUD on April 24, 2020. Target Date 6/30/2021 't Estimate the number and type of families that will Not applicable. hI�'E benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Not applicable. Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 48 390 Project Name a CDBG Pro ram Administration _ . Jn­ Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Planning for Housing and Community Development Needs Addressed Other Housing and Community Development Needs Funding CDBG: $257,445 Description Eligibility Citation: z4 CFR 570.2o6(a) - Administration and Planning/General Program Administration National Objective Citation: Not Applicable The City will conduct the following administration/planning activities: (1) General ._' Administration of CDBG Program, including preparation of budget, applications, certifications and agreements; (z) Coordination of CDBG-funded capital improvement projects; (3) Coordination of Public Service Subrecipients, (4) Coordination of b` HOME-funded housing projects; (5) Monitoring of CDBG projects/programs to ensure compliance with federal regulations; (6) Preparation of the Annual Action Plan; (7) Preparation of the CAPER; and (8) Fair Housing Foundation counseling, education and enforcement. Up to zo% of the annual CDBG entitlement, plus zo% of estimated program income, is allowed for administration ` activities. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will Not applicable. benefit from the proposed activities ` Location Description Not applicable. Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 49 391 �7 Project Name . ` ;a� _. " pry Fair Housin Foundation Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Planning for Housing and Community Development Needs Addressed Other Housing and Community Development Needs Funding CDBG: $30,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.2o6(c) - Administration and Planning/Fair Housing Activities National Objective Citation: Not Applicable The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) offers a comprehensive Fair Housing Program that meets the HUD CDBG requirement to affirmatively further fair housing and includes the following services: 1) discrimination complaint counseling, intake, investigations, and resolutions; 2) education and outreach services; 3) general housing (tenant/landlord) counseling, mediations, assistance, resolution, and referrals; � and 4)affirmatively further fair housing activities to address the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. Tar et Date 6130/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will Not applicable. benefit from the proposed activities ' Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 50 392 " `„S p t„ u 19 Prolect.Name ° �iiur; Unallocated CDBG,Funds,l,I; * Target Area Not applicable Goals Supported Not applicable "_- Needs Addressed Not applicable Funding CDBG: $314,540 Description Unallocated CDBG Funds Target Date Not applicable Estimate the number and type of families that will Not applicable benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Not applicable Planned Activities Not applicable Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 51 393 _ Project Namur x� m a` Back UpP rolect zo19Cameron Lane Navigat�on ntil , Center_ t 4 Target Area Citywide � Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities rt Needs Addressed Priority Community and Public Facilities FundingCDBG: $o Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201(c) - Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements/Other National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) - Low Mod Limited Clientele Benefit _z In 2019/20, the City of Huntington Beach is proposing to amend their Annual Action Plan to add the Cameron Lane Navigation Center, a new emergency homeless shelter located at 17631 Cameron Lane, Huntington Beach.The City Council authorized acquisition of this property using non- federal funds and the amendment proposed to allocate$791,200 in CDBG to offset costs associated with the construction and/or installation of a structure to be used as a homeless shelter facility, with space for administration, storage, dining/recreational and sleeping purposes. The project also entails construction of water, sewer, storm drain, and electrical utilities, as well as hardscape and landscape improvements. The Navigation Center will also provide wrap around services. The project was originally awarded $791,200 in CDBG funds; however additional funds may be needed in FY 2020/21 to complete the project. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will zoo persons benefit from the proposed activities Location Description 17631 Cameron Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 R.i Planned Activities Same as description. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 52 394 AP-5o Geographic Distribution - 91.220(f) Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration)where assistance will be directed Huntington Beach is an urbanized coastal community located in northwestern Orange County, California. Much of the City's residentially designated land has already been developed. Future residential development rests primarily upon the recycling of existing parcels and infill development. Surrounding Huntington Beach are the cities of Seal Beach to the northwest, Westminster to the northeast, Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa to the east, Newport Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The City utilizes CDBG and HOME funds for projects and programs operated citywide. However,the majority of CDBG-funded infrastructure and facility projects are targeted to the most-needy neighborhoods: those census tracts where 51% or more of the residents are low- or moderate-income. Specifically for Code Enforcement, after establishing the general definition for purposes of code enforcement, the City conducted a visual (windshield) survey of CDBG eligible areas for properties, businesses, parkways, alleys, and structures that met the definition. Based on the visual (windshield) survey, the City determined that low and moderate income areas within the area bound by Bolsa Chica Street to the west, Bolsa Avenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the east, and Atlanta Avenue to the south contained the most properties with deterioration. In some cases, some structures had multiple violations per parcel. This target area is known as "Special Code Enforcement Target Area." Inclusive of the following census tracts, the Special Code Enforcement Target Area is comprised of 46,650 persons, 32,395, or 69.44%, of which are of low-moderate income. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 53 395 SPECIAL CODE ENFORCEMENT TARGET AREA TOTAL POPULATION V. LOW AND MODERATE-INCOME POPULATION 2011-2015 HUD LOW MOD INCOME SUMMARY DATA Effective April 1, 2019 Census Tract Total Persons Total LMI Persons Percentage 0992121 17255 810 64.54% 0992123 1,495 1,030 68.9o% 0992124 1,18o 655 55.51% 0992144 765 425 55.56% 0992352 715 515 72.03% 0992353 21190 11245 56.85% 0992422 1,930 17185 61.40% 0992442 1,645 17145 69.6o% 0992463 815 490 60.12% 0993051 1,710 1,450 84.8o% 0993053 21020 1,330 65.84% 0993055 11o8o 935 86.57% 0993056 1,025 56o 54.63% 0993o61 1,485 76o 51.18% 0993093 1,775 915 51.55% 0993103 11170 690 58.97% 0994021 2,755 2,300 83.48% 0994022 2,720 21235 82.17% 0994023 575 330 57.39% 0994024 3,375 3,150 93.33% 0994053 1,755 1,070 60.97% 0994103 2,605 1,935 74.28% 0994112 2118o 17890 86.70% 0994113 1,300 855 65.77% 0994114 880 655 74.43% 0994121 1,810 98o 54.14% 0994134 1,36o 11240 91.18% . o996031 3,o8o 1,615 52.44% TOTAL 46,650 32395 69.44% Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 54 396 Geographic Distribution i h Tar et�F►reaa .�!t, Percents a of Funds. Low/Mod Income Areas Special Code Enforcement Target Areas 4% Citywide 96% Table io-Geographic Distribution Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically All public service programs, ADA improvement projects, and housing projects funded with CDBG or HOME will be available citywide to eligible persons. The City will also allocate CDBG funds for special code enforcement and preservation activities in Special Code Enforcement Target Area that have been identified as deteriorated based on the observance of violations of the Uniform Housing Code. This area is bound by Bolsa Chica Street to the west, Bolsa Avenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the east, and Atlanta Avenue to the south. Public facility and public infrastructure projects will be targeted to neighborhoods where 51% or more of residents are low and moderate income, unless they serve a specific limited clientele in which case they may be located anywhere in the city. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 55 397 Affordable Housing AP-55 Affordable Housing— 91.220(g) Introduction One Years Goals for the Ndin er_of H"o'useholds to be Supported Homeless 6o Non-Homeless 20 Special-Needs Total 8o Table ii-One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement One Year Goals for;'the Numtier:of Househol&Supported"Thcou hx Rental Assistance 6o The Production of New Units 10 Rehab of Existing Units 10 Acquisition of Existing Units Total 8o Table 12-One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type Discussion The City will use CDBG funds to implement two residential rehabilitation programs. First, the Owner-Occupied SF, Condo, and Mobile Home Grant Program offers a one-time grant not to exceed $1o,000 to low-income homeowners for deferred maintenance and health and safety- related household repairs.The City proposes to fund 8 grants in FY 2020/21. The Owner-Occupied Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program, funded with CDBG funds, offers low-income homeowners up to $75,000 in deferred payment loans. Individual loans may be increased by up to $1o,000 if deemed necessary to meet HUD HQS requirements and rehabilitation standards and would require the approval by the Director of Economic Development. Payment of the principal and accrued interest is deferred until the property is sold, transferred, or refinanced. In FY 2020/21, the City proposes to fund two loans. The City has approximately $2.4 million available HOME funds to provide gap financing in the development of affordable housing.While a project is yet to be determined,the City will likely fund a project(s) that meets the needs of the HB community as determined by the City's 5- Year Consolidated Plan, which has demonstrated a housing for homeless persons, low- and moderate-income households, and large families. With a federal investment of $2.4 million, Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 56 398 the City anticipates that to units will be HOME-restricted. Finally, the City allocate $9oo,000 in HOME to fund a tenant based rental assistance (TBRA) program.The City released a Notice of Available Funding(NOFA)and a Request for Proposals (RFP) to qualified agencies with experience administering such a program. It is anticipated that approximately 6o households can be assisted with short and medium-term rental assistance as well as housing relocation and stabilization services. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 57 399 AP-6o Public Housing - 91.22o(h) Introduction The City of Huntington Beach does not have any public housing developments. However, Huntington Beach is one of a number of cities that benefits from the services of the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA), which is currently manages Housing Choice Vouchers for residential units within Huntington Beach. The OCHA waiting list is currently closed. Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing Not applicable. Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership Not applicable. If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance Not applicable. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 58 400 AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities - 91.220(i) Introduction Throughout the country and the Los Angeles and Orange County region, homelessness has become an increasing challenge. Factors contributing to the rise in homelessness include a lack of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income persons, increases in people living below poverty levels, reductions in subsidies to the poor, drug/alcohol abuse, and de- institutionalization of the mentally ill. In March 2015, the City Council authorized formation of a Homeless Task Force Subcommittee to coordinate homeless and housing efforts and provide City support and guidance regarding services. The Task Force is keeping the City Council apprised of issues and services and makes recommendations as needed. In addition, the Office of Business Development and the Huntington Beach Police Department utilized CDBG public service funds for one part-time Homeless Coordinator and several part-time Homeless Case Mangers to serve as the City's point persons for homeless issues. Funding will continue in 2020/21. Once every two years, Orange County undertakes an effort to enumerate all of the sheltered and unsheltered homeless people within the county in a given twenty-four-hour period.This effort, known as the Homeless Point-in-Time (PIT) Count, is congressionally mandated for all communities that receive U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding for homeless programs. The most recent PIT in Orange County was held on a single night in January 2019 with the assistance of many homeless service providers. The Orange County January 2019 PIT count enumerated 6,86o homeless individuals in Orange County, reflecting an over 40% increase from the 2017 tally of 4,792 homeless people. However, Orange County officials said it would be misleading to make a direct comparison to prior years due to the change in methodology and more thorough accounting of homeless. Among the 6,86o homeless counted, 2,899 (42%) were in some kind of emergency or transitional shelter.This reflects an increase of 691 sheltered homeless from 2017, or 31%. In Huntington Beach specifically, there were 349 total persons counted in Huntington Beach, with 289 unsheltered, and 6o that were sheltered. Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 59 401 individual needs Beginning in 2015, the City assigned a full-time officer dedicated to homeless issues and has continued to allocate resources as the number of homeless continues to grow. The City's efforts have grown to include a Homeless Task Force (with two full-time officers, 1 program coordinator and up to 4 case managers) and a plan to create a Navigation Center to provide shelter for eligible homeless individuals with ties to Huntington Beach. This multi-pronged approach is accomplished in a variety of ways such as weekly outreach to engage homeless individuals and determine their needs, reuniting individuals with family members, working within the County's Coordinated Entry System to match individuals and families with housing opportunities, assisting in eviction prevention, maintaining walk-in office hours at the South Police Substation, as well as working cooperatively with local schools to assist children who are homeless or housing insecure. Since 2015, officers and case managers have helped hundreds of individuals transition off the streets (with many being reunified with family). Also, in FY 2020/21, City will be funding the StandUp for Kids Street Outreach Program where volunteer staff scout streets of Huntington Beach searching for youth who are currently unsheltered or unstably housed. StandUp for Kids serves teens and youth (ages 12 - 24)who are homeless, at-risk, aging-out of foster care, or runaways to equip them with the tools they need to transition from life on the street to a life of stability and opportunity. The Street Outreach program provides basic services (food, clothing, hygiene items, and survival kits)as well as medical assistance and compassionate mentoring. Another public service that will be funded in FY 2020/21 is the Robyne's Nest Housing for Homeless High Schoolers Program. The mission of Robyne's Nest is to identify at-risk and homeless high school students and provide them a path to become stable and productive citizens. Robyne's Nest will target high school students in the Huntington Beach area who have little to no parental support with academic,financial, and life skills. The program aims to enable students to complete their high school diploma and continue onward with college, trade school, or military programs. Participants are provided with housing resources; basic needs such as food, clothing, and supplies; educational assistance such as tutoring, Chromebooks, school supplies, and fees; and overall help with health and wellbeing in the form of counseling, therapy, mentoring, and life skills classes. Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons The City has and will continue to address the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless and homeless families through support of homeless programs such as the Huntington Beach Youth Emergency Shelter, Interval House, Families Forward, and Mercy Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 60 402 House. Through the City's Homeless Task Force, the City will also support the provision of emergency housing and services by Beach Cities Interfaith Services and the local faith-based community. The City has also created a Homeless Outreach Coordinator and a Homeless Case Manager positions who are responsible for creating relationships with the homeless and to provide services with an eye toward bringing their homelessness to an end. In FY 2019/20, the City Council approved purchase of property located at 17631 Cameron Lane using non-federal funds. Via a substantial amendment to the FY 2019/2o Annual Action Plan, the City Council will consider an allocation of$1.5 million of federal CDBG and CARES Act funds to help offset costs associated operating the homeless shelter facility at the project site. The need for such a facility has increased in recent months due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Orange County's Safer at Home Order. The Navigation Center will bring homeless service providers on-site to help persons experiencing homelessness "navigate" eligible social services,medical services and benefits to stabilize them with the ultimate goal of transitioning them to more permanent housing. Helping homeless persons(especially chronically homeless individuals and families,families with children,veterans and their families,and unaccompanied youth)make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units,and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again In an ongoing effort to continue to address the needs of the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, the City will focus on the development of sustainable and effective programming,including:applying for short and long-term available funding;partnerships with experienced service providers capable of leveraging other funding; the ability to create or secure affordable housing; perform homeless case management; and engage the homeless through a street outreach component in order to better connect them to available services. The City's goal is to expand on current homeless programs and activities to assist with their successful transition toward self-sufficiency. In FY 2020/21, the City will continue its dedication to assisting families in Huntington Beach with much needed rental assistance. In May 2020, a NOFA/RFP was solicited to qualified agencies with experience with administering HOME-funded TBRA programs, and a selection is expected in June 2020. With an investment of $900,00o towards this effort, the City anticipates that approximately 6o households could be served over a two-year period. Households that qualify for assistance include those that are of low and moderate income, as well as households who are currently housed, but are at risk of losing their housing due to Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 61 403 COVI D-1 g. Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless,especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs. To help prevent homelessness and protect at-risk populations, Huntington Beach will continue to participate in the Orange County Continuum of Care System to provide assistance to persons at risk of becoming homeless. In addition, the City continues to pursue opportunities to expand its affordable housing inventory to benefit primarily low-income renters. The City does not receive Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding and therefore is not required to develop a discharge coordination policy. However,the City will continue to address a discharge coordination policy with the Orange County Housing Authority and the Continuum of Care Homeless Issues Task Force. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 62 404 AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing- 91.220(j) Introduction Huntington Beach has a strong history of supporting affordable housing. The City has adopted numerous provisions in its Zoning Ordinance that facilitate a range of residential development types and encourage affordable housing. In addition, the City and its former Redevelopment Agency have provided direct financial assistance to support affordable and mixed income housing projects. The loss of Redevelopment Housing Funds,which previously generated approximately $3 million per year for housing activities, will dampen the level of future affordable housing production in the City. In addition to funding constraints, the primary barrier to the provision of affordable housing in Huntington Beach is the lack of vacant land suitable for residential development. Separate owners of smaller parcels hold much of the underdeveloped and residentially zoned land in the City. This calls for alternative policy tools such as lot consolidation and/or demolition of existing older structures to accommodate higher density infill development. Through adoption of the Downtown and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plans, the City has provided opportunities for high density mixed use and residential inf ill. Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls,tax policies affecting land,zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment Through the administration of the CDBG and HOME programs, every effort is made to remove barriers to affordable housing through agreements with for-profit and non-profit affordable housing developers. These efforts also include working with neighborhood residents to ensure affordable housing projects are acceptable. Ongoing monitoring of "for sale" affordable units is conducted by department staff by assuring that the affordable housing covenants are recorded on title when the unit is sold. To address the decline in sources of housing funds, the City will continue to advocate for and pursue federal, state, local and private funding sources for affordable housing. Additionally, as part of the City's Housing Element update, the City must assess and to the extent feasible, mitigate, its governmental constraints to housing for lower and moderate- income households and persons with disabilities. The Housing Element addresses the City's provisions for affordable housing, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing. The following programs in the City's 2013-202i Housing Element specifically address Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 63 405 the variety of regulatory and financial tools used by the City to remove barriers and facilitate the provision of affordable housing: Program 2. Multi-family Acquisition/Rehabilitation through Non-Profit Developers Objective:Acquire, rehabilitate, and establish affordability covenants on 8o rental units. Program 7. Residential and Mixed-Use Sites Inventory Objective:Maintain current inventory of vacant and underutilized development sites and provide to developers along with information on incentives. Program 8. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Objective: Facilitate development through flexible, form-based standards, and streamlined processing. Encourage affordable housing by requiring inclusionary units to be provided on-site, or within the Specific Plan, and providing additional incentives for increased percentages of affordable units. Program io. Inclusionary Program and Housing Trust Fund Objective: Continue implementation and re-evaluate Ordinance to provide consistency with case law and market conditions. Establish in-lieu fee amount for projects between io-3o units. Program ».Affordable Housing Development Assistance Objective: Provide financial and regulatory assistance in support of affordable housing. Provide information on incentives to development community. Program 13.Affordable Housing Density Bonus Objective: Continue to offer density bonus incentives as a means of enhancing the economic feasibility of affordable housing development. Program 14. Development Fee Assistance Objective: Continue to offer fee reductions to incentivize affordable housing. Specify the waiver of i00% of application processing fees in the Code for projects with lo% extremely low-income units. Program 15. Residential Processing Procedures Objective: Provide non-discretionary development review within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Adopt streamlined review procedures for multi-family development on a Citywide basis. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 64 406 AP-85 Other Actions - 91.22o(k) Introduction Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The City of Huntington Beach has identified long-range strategies, activities and funding sources to implement the goals in the areas of housing and community development services for the benefit of the residents. • The City will continue to seek other resources and funding sources to address the biggest obstacle to meeting the community's underserved needs, which is the lack of funding and/or inadequate funding. • The City will look for innovative and creative ways to make its delivery systems more comprehensive and will continue existing partnerships with both for-profit and not- for-profit organizations. • The City will use HOME and CDBG funds to concentrate on both affordable rental housing, tenant-based rental housing, and homeowner rehabilitation programs. • The City is currently addressing certain housing needs with federal funds such as availability, condition, and fair housing practices to prevent homelessness. • The City is also addressing community development needs with federal funds such as infrastructure, improving public facilities and code enforcement. • The City is working with surrounding jurisdictions on a regional approach to meeting the underserved needs. Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City's Consolidated Plan has identified the preservation of existing, and the creation of new, affordable housing as a priority need during the 2020/21 -2024/25 timeframe. The City will continue to offer funding to tenant based rental assistance programs in Huntington Beach. In FY 2020/21 alone, $9oo,000 in HOME funding will be allocated to this effort. Over the next two years, the City is proposing to provide assistance to 6o households through this program. The City will also have approximately $2.4 million available HOME funds for the development of new affordable housing.The City plans to partner with a community housing development organization, or CH DO, to develop an affordable housing project for low- and moderate- income Huntington Beach households. With $2.4 million, the City hopes to develop Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 65 407 approximately io HOME-restricted units. Finally,the City is also proposing to use$190,00o in CDBG to fund two residential rehabilitation programs. Both programs will be available to Huntington Beach homeowners. The first program offers a grant of up to $1o,000 to eligible homeowners to make health and safety or code violation repairs. The second program offers a loan of up to $75,000 for larger home improvements. Collectively, the City is proposing to assist to households with housing rehabilitation assistance. Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards As a means of better protecting children and families against lead poisoning, in 1999 HUD instituted revised lead-based paint regulations focused around the following five activities: • Notification • Lead Hazard Evaluation • Lead Hazard Reduction • Ongoing Maintenance • Response to Children with Environmental Intervention Blood Lead Level The City has implemented HUD Lead Based Paint Regulations (Title X), which requires federally funded rehabilitation projects to address lead hazards. Lead-based paint abatement is part of the City's Residential Rehabilitation Program and the Acquisition/Rehabilitation of Affordable Rental Housing Program. Units within rental housing projects selected for rehabilitation are tested if not statutorily exempt. Elimination or encapsulation remedies are implemented if lead is detected and is paid for by either the developer of the project, or with CDBG or HOME funds, as appropriate. To reduce lead-based paint hazards in existing housing, all housing rehabilitation projects supported with federal funds are tested for lead and asbestos. When a lead-based paint hazard is present, the City or the City's sub-grantee contracts with a lead consultant for abatement or implementation of interim controls, based on the findings of the report. Tenants are notified of the results of the test and the clearance report. In Section 8 programs, staff annually inspects units on the existing program and new units as they become available. In all cases, defective paint surfaces must be repaired. In situations where a unit is occupied by a household with children under the age of six, corrective actions will include testing and Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 66 408 abatement if necessary, or abatement without testing. Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families The City's major objectives in reducing poverty within Huntington Beach are to: • Reduce the number of families on welfare; • Reduce the number of families needing housing subsidies; and • Increase economic opportunities for low and moderate-income persons. The City's anti-poverty strategy seeks to enhance the employability of residents through the promotion and support of programs which provide employment training and supportive services, while expanding employment opportunities through the implementation of three Business Improvement Districts,and its recently completed Economic Development Strategy. In terms of employment training and supportive services, the City supports literacy programs for families (Oakview Family Literacy Program) with a combination of General Funds and CDBG that help enhance the employability of low-income persons with deficient English speaking, reading, and writing skills. The City is also funding Robyne's Nest, an organization that aims to supply homeless high school students with housing, tools, and services needed to complete high school and move on to college, trade school, or the military. As funding permits, the City will continue to support the following Public Services to increase family stability for lower income households: • Counseling • Domestic Violence Prevention Services • Provision of food • Substance Abuse Services • Job Training Lastly, the City of Huntington Beach supports a variety of economic development activities that help to create and retain jobs for low- and moderate-income households. Activities supported include a commercial property locator; employment assistance including of a referral service for finding and training employees; financial assistance through the Small Business Administration; business counseling and training via a litany of not-for-profit Orange County agencies; technical assistance in permits, trademarks, environmental review, and taxes; and export and trade assistance. Micro-enterprise assistance,job training services, and Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 67 409 technical assistance are some areas that may warrant consideration for funding during the next Consolidated Plan period. The City will fully comply with Section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Act, which helps foster local economic development and individual self-sufficiency. This set of regulations require that to the greatest extent feasible, the City will provide job training, employment, and contracting opportunities for low or very low-income residents in connection with housing and public construction projects. Actions planned to develop institutional structure As the recipient of CDBG and HOME funds, the City has delegated the Office of Business Development to be the lead department responsible for the overall administration of HUD grants. In that regard, the Division will prepare the Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice every five years, draft the Annual Action Plan and CAPER, as well as all other reports required by federal rules and regulations. The City will work with non-profit agencies,for-profit developers, advocacy groups, clubs, and organizations, neighborhood leadership groups, City departments and with the private sector to implement the City's five-year strategy to address the priority needs outlined in the Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2020/21 - 2024/25. Engaging the community and stakeholders in the delivery of services and programs for the benefit of low to moderate residents will be vital in overcoming gaps in service delivery. The City will also utilize public notices, Community Workshops and Meetings (as appropriate), the City's website, and other forms of media to deliver information on carrying out the Consolidated Plan strategies. Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies In an ongoing effort to bridge the gap of various programs and activities, the City has developed partnerships and collaborations with local service providers and City departments that have been instrumental in meeting the needs and demands of the homeless, low income individuals and families, and other special needs. The array of partners include, but are not limited to: the Huntington Beach Police Department, Library Services, Community Services, and Public Works Departments; American Family Housing, Habitat for Humanity, Interval House, Mercy House, Families Forward, Collete's Children's Home, and AMCAL; Orange County Community Housing Corporation; Jamboree Housing; Community SeniorServ; AIDS Services Foundation; Project Self Sufficiency; Alzheimer's Family Services; Fair Housing Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 68 410 Foundation; the Orange County Housing Authority; and 2-1-1 Orange County and OC Community Services (Orange County Continuum of Care). During FY 2020/21, the City will continue to develop these partnerships. In FY 2020/21, the City will also work with homeless service providers to make Huntington Beach's Navigation Center a successful public facility for the homeless population. The Navigation Center is proposed to include a transitional housing facility with at least 6o beds, coupled with wrap around homeless services to help participants transition to more stable living. Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 69 411 Program Specific Requirements AP-go Program Specific Requirements - 91.220(1) (111,24) Introduction The City of Huntington Beach participates in HUD's CDBG Program that is used for creating decent affordable housing, suitable living environments, and economic opportunities. The program year(2020/21)will begin on July 1, 202o.The FY 2020/21 CDBG allocation of$1,237,224 will be used to implement CDBG projects and programs during the program year. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(I)(1) Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table.The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out. 1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before $o the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 2.The amount of proceeds from section 1o8 loan guarantees that will be $o used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan 3.The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements $o 4.The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the $0 planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan. 5.The amount of income from float-funded activities $0 Total Program Income $0 Other CDBG Requirements 1.The amount of urgent need activities $0 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 70 412 HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(I)(2) The City of Huntington Beach participates in HUD's HOME Program that can be used to promote affordable housing in the City through activities such as rental housing development and tenant-based rental assistance.The 2020/21 Program Year will commence on July 1, 2020. The FY 2020/21 HOME allocation is $619,677. 1. A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section 92.205 is as follows: The City will provide grants, interest-bearing and non-interest-bearing deferred payment loans or residual receipts loans permitted under 24 CFR 92.206 (b) (1). The City will not institute other forms of investment forms not described in the aforementioned section nor provide loan guarantees described under 24 CFR 92.206 (b) (21). 2. A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds when used for homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows: The City is not administering a homebuyer program with CDBG or HOME funds as part of its 2020/21 Annual Action Plan. The Annual Plan, therefore, does not describe resale or recapture guidelines as required in 92.254• 3. A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of units acquired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows: The City is not administering a homebuyer program with CDBG or HOME funds as part of its 2020/21 Annual Action Plan. The Annual Plan, therefore, does not describe resale or recapture guidelines that ensure the affordability of units acquired with HOME funds as required in 92.254(a)(4)• 4. Plans for using HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines required that will be used under 24 CFR 92.2o6(b), are as follows: The City is not proposing to use HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing rehabilitated with HOME funds. Thus, since the City does not propose to undertake refinancing, the City is not required to discuss its financing guidelines required under 24 CFR 92.2o6(b). Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 71 413 ATTACHMENT #3 rN 17,,�190g P 2020/21-2024/25 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN (with Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT (June 5, 2020 — July 6, 2020) For Council Consideration on July 6, 2020 414 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................1 ROLEOF CITIZENS ..................................................................................... 2 GUIDELINES FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ..................................................3 Citizen Participation Advisory Board (CPAB)................................................3 Consolidated Plan,Annual Action Plan, Assessment to Fair Housing ..................4 Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan ...............................................4 Assessment to Fair Housing .............................................................6 Plan Amendments and Revisions ...............................................................7 Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan Amendments ..............................7 Assessmentto Fair Housing Plan Revisions ..........................................8 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) ..................9 PUBLICCOMMENT .......................................................................................9 BACK-UP PROJECTS....................................................................................10 ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND RECORDS ...................................................11 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ............................................................................11 COMMENT AND COMPLAINT PROCESS ....................................................... 11 CHANGES IN FEDERAL FUNDING LEVEL ......................................................12 ASSURANCES .............................................................................................12 CODE OF ETHICS /CONFLICT OF INTEREST.................................................12 ANTI-DISPLACEMENNT ..............................................................................12 RESIDENTIAL ANTI-DISPLACEMENT AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN ..13 415 Minimize Displacement ..........................................................................13 Relocation Assistance to Displaced Persons .................................................14 One-for-One Replacement of Lower-Income Dwelling Units ............................14 Disclosure and Reporting Requirements .....................................................15 Replacement not Required Based on Unit Availability ....................................16 DEFINITIONS ..............................................................................................17 ADDENDUM: Citizen Participation Procedures Under National Emergency Concerning Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic............................................................18 416 INTRODUCTION The City of Huntington Beach receives an annual entitlement of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for housing and community development activities to assist low-income persons. In accordance with the entitlement programs, the City must create a 5- Year Consolidated Plan (Consolidated Plan) that addresses affordable housing and community development needs, submit an Annual Action Plan(Annual Plan)to outline spending and activities for the corresponding program years, and provide a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report(CAPER)to evaluate the City's accomplishments and use of CDBG and HOME funds. As required by HUD regulations 24 CFR 91.105, the City must have and follow a detailed Citizen Participation Plan that specifies the city's policies and procedures for engaging citizens and encouraging them to participate in creating, evaluating, and implementing the CDBG and HOME programs and the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). The Draft 2020/21-2024/25 Citizen Participation Plan was available for public review and comment between April 3, 2020 and May 4, 2020. The City published a notice in the Orange County Register on April 2, 2020 informing the public of the availability of the document for review and comment. The public had access to review the draft document at the City of Huntington Beach Office of Business Development and on the City's website. The public was invited to provide comments on the Draft 2020/21-2024/25 Citizen Participation Plan at a regular public hearing meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council on May 4, 2020. OBJECTIVES The City's Citizen Participation Plan is designed to ensure equitable representation of all segments of the population and to aid communication between the City and its residents on matters pertaining to the use of all federal funding from HUD. The Citizen Participation Plan sets forth policies and procedures the City Council adopted to encourage citizen involvement regarding the use of federal funds, notably Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds. The intent of the Citizen Participation Plan is to encourage those least likely to participate in the process, especially low-income persons living in distressed neighborhoods, in public and assisted housing developments, and in areas where CDBG funds are proposed to be used. This document outlines basic tenets of the citizen participation regulations and remains in effect throughout the implementation of the City's entitlement awards from the federal government or until these funds are closed out. The Citizen Participation Plan promotes citizen participation in the following key areas: • Preparation and review of, and comment on the: ✓ Consolidated Plan, a five-year strategic plan that outlines the strategy and goals for the City's use of the federal funding sources. 1IPa2e 417 ✓ Annual Action Plan, which describes projects that will be undertaken in the upcoming fiscal year with the federal funding sources. ✓ Substantial Amendments to a Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan. ✓ Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). • Provides an opportunity for residents to review and comment on the annual Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), which describes Huntington Beach's implementation of activities funded by the HUD formula programs CDBG and HOME. • Provides residents reasonable and timely access to information, meetings, and records. • Provides assistance for non-English-speaking and Limited English Proficient (LEP) persons upon advance request provided such services are available. • Provides reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities upon advance request. ROLE OF CITIZENS Citizen involvement is essential in assuring that City policies,procedures,programs and activities are well suited to local needs. Citizens' concerns and ideas may be expressed to the City Council. The City Council addresses itself to the development, review and adoption of the following areas: A. The City's Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan. B. The submission of the City's CAPER. C. City improvement strategies,programs, policies and procedures. D. The Citizen Participation Plan. Regular meetings of the City Council/Public Financing Authority are held on the first and third Mondays of each month, and typically begin on or preceding the hour of 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. A Study Session used to present information to Council for discussion purposes only with no objection being taken or Closed Session may be convened subject to the Brown Act, and may be scheduled prior to the main, public meeting that convenes at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. If a regularly scheduled meeting falls on a holiday, the meeting will be held on the next business day. City Council Meeting agendum and supporting documentation is available for public review at https://huiitin,tonbeach.Ie,istar.com/Calendar.aspx on Wednesdays prior to a scheduled meeting. If a holiday occurs on the Monday or Tuesday prior to Wednesday's scheduled agenda packet release, delivery of packet material to Council and the public may delayed by one additional day. 2I .Page 418 Regular City Council meetings are broadcast live on Huntington Beach Cable Channel 3 and repeated on Tuesdays at 10 a.m. and Wednesdays at 7 p.m. Council meetings are webcast live and also archived on the City's website. GUIDELINES FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The citizen participation process provides citizens of Huntington Beach with a formal opportunity to take part in the development of housing and community development programs and amendments to adopted plans at a community-wide level in a public forum during a specified City Council Meeting or Citizen Participation Advisory Board (CPAB) Meeting. Listed below are the specific guidelines governing information access, public notices, and technical assistance, among others, that the City will follow to encourage citizen participation in the preparation of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, AFH, and CAPER. Citizen Participation Advisory Board The Citizen Participation Advisory Board (CPAB) was established in October 1996. It is comprised of seven members appointed by each of the individual City Council members. The CPAB strives to represent the diverse views on the socioeconomic issues related to low/moderate income individuals. To that end, low-income residents and members of minority groups are encouraged to apply to the City for appointment to the CPAB when vacancies arise, so that members of minority groups can be substantially represented. The purpose of the Citizen Participation Advisory Board(CPAB)is to provide citizen participation and coordination in the City's planning processes for HUD formula grants, principally the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME) Programs. Along with staff, the Board shall assess the needs of the community particularly that of low and moderate income households, evaluate and prioritize projects pertaining to the required plans and provide recommendations to City Council on such plans and projects, and consider alternative public involvement techniques and quantitative ways to measure efforts that encourage citizen participation. It is the responsibility of the CPAB to review grant proposals and make recommendations to the City Council concerning federal funding. Committee meetings are open to the public and are held regularly during the CDBG application and deliberation period. The CPAB establishes its meeting dates by consensus. All meetings are open to the public and special meetings may be called in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. The Board will hold public hearings to obtain citizen input on community needs, plans or proposals. The CPAB is encouraged to hold public meetings in areas where there is a significant concentration of low to moderate-income persons. To ensure that all City residents have sufficient opportunity to take notice of all scheduled public hearings, all public hearing notices will include the date, time and location of the City Council Chambers located at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach and notification that meeting locations are accessible to the disabled. To maximize community participation by individuals served through 3 1 P a a e 419 CDBG and HOME programs, meetings are also held in the Oakview neighborhood, which is within an eligible low- and moderate-income area. Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, Assessment to Fair Housing As mandated by federal regulations, the City submits a Consolidated Plan and Assessment to Fair Housing every five years and an Annual Action Plan every year to HUD. The Consolidated Plan is a long-range plan that identifies community development and housing needs of low-income Huntington Beach residents, establishes priorities, and describes goals, objectives and strategies to address identified priorities. The Annual Action Plan is a document that lists specific activities for CDBG and HOME funding in the upcoming program year, as well as applications for both federal programs. An Assessment to Fair Housing (AFH) Plan describes patterns of integration and segregation; racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; disparities in access to opportunity; and disproportionate housing needs. The following steps will be taken to encourage all Huntington Beach citizens,including minorities, non-English speaking or limited English proficient (LEP) persons, and persons with disabilities, to participate in the development of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, and AFH and afford these citizens an opportunity to review and comment on them: Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan 1. In preparation of the Consolidated Plan, the City will distribute a Community Needs Survey (and in Spanish if necessary) to local agencies, and will conduct a consultation workshop with housing, health, homeless, disabled, and other social service providers to identify key housing and community development needs and issues in the City, as well as identifying gaps in service. 2. The City will conduct a community workshop in English (and in Spanish if necessary) to solicit citizens' opinions regarding perceived community needs during development of the Consolidated Plan, and provide a written Community Needs Survey (in Spanish if necessary)to establish expenditure priorities of CDBG and HOME monies. 3. The City will distribute from time-to-time a Request for Proposals (RFP) to nonprofit organizations and City departments to carry out public service and/or housing activities. 4. The City will elicit comment from local and regional institutions, the Continuum of Care and other organizations (including businesses, developers, nonprofit organizations, philanthropic organizations, and community-based and faith-based organizations) when developing and implementing the Consolidated Plan. 5. In conjunction with consultation with public housing agencies, the City will encourage participation of residents in public and assisted housing developments while developing and implementing the Consolidated Plan, along with other low-income residents of targeted revitalization areas in which the developments are located. The City will provide information to public housing agencies in Huntington Beach and surrounding cities about 4 Page 420 consolidated plan activities related to its developments and surrounding communities so that the PHA can make this information available at the annual public hearing required for the PHA Plan. 6. Prior to the publication of the City's Consolidated Plan, the first of two public hearings will be held to solicit and consider any public comments (oral and written) on the use of CDBG and HOME funds. The public hearing will serve to obtain the views of citizens on housing and community development needs, including priority non-housing community development needs. To ensure that all City residents have sufficient opportunity to take notice of all scheduled public hearings, all public hearing notices, including the date, time and location, and summary of the proposed action shall be published in a local newspaper of general circulation at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the public hearing. This first public hearing is to be held by the CPAB at the Oak View Branch Library located at 17251 Oak Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 and is accessible to the disabled. 7. Following the 1st public hearing,the CPAB will hold one or more meetings to allow CDBG applicants to present their request for funding and to talk about their programs. The CPAB will prioritize the eligible programs and projects and will prepare a recommendation on funding levels to be included in the Draft Annual Action Plan. 8. A summary describing the contents and purpose of the proposed Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan will be published in a newspaper of general circulation. The summary will also include a list of locations where a complete draft of the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan may be obtained for review. The summary will include the amount of assistance expected to be received from grant funds and program income, the range of activities that may be undertaken and the estimated amount that will benefit persons of low- and moderate-income. 9. The publication of the summary will commence a 30-day public comment period, during which citizens will have the opportunity to examine the proposed Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan and submit comments regarding the draft document(s) to the City's Community Development Department / Office of Business Development (see address below). Complete copies of the draft Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan will be available for review at the following locations and at https://www.hunting,tonbeaclica.izov/business/economic-development/ City of Huntington Beach Oak View Branch Library Office of Business Development 17251 Oak Lane 2000 Main Street, 5th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 10. The City Council will accept a draft Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan to initiate the 30-day public review period. 11. A second public hearing before the City Council will be held to provide citizens further opportunity to comment on the draft Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan, which 5 Page 421 must be adopted by the City Council. The public hearing will serve again to obtain the views of citizens on housing and community development needs, including priority non- housing community development needs. A summary of comments or views along with a summary of any comment or view not accepted and the reasons,therefore, shall be attached to the final Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan. To ensure that all City residents have sufficient opportunity to take notice of this public hearing, a public hearing notice, including the date, time and location, and summary of the proposed action shall be published in a local newspaper of general circulation at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the public hearing. Public hearings are held at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach and is accessible to the disabled. Assessment to Fair Housing Plan 1. Huntington Beach staff will at, or as soon as feasible after, the start of the public participation process, make the HUD-provided data and any other supplemental information the jurisdiction plans to incorporate into its AFH available to its residents, public agencies, and other interested parties. Huntington Beach may make the HUD- provided data available to the public by cross-referencing to the data on the HUD's website. 2. A summary describing the contents and purpose of the proposed AFH will be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the public hearing. The public notice will also commence a 30-day public comment period, during which citizens will have the opportunity to examine the proposed AFH and submit comments regarding the draft document to the City's Community Development Department / Office of Business Development. The public notice will also announce the date, time, and location of the public hearing scheduled to adopt the AFH. Public hearings are held at 6:00 p.m.in the City Council Chambers located at 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach and are accessible to the disabled. 3. Complete copies of the draft AFH will be available for review at the following locations, as well as on the City's website at https://,A ww.liunting-tonbeachca.gov/business/economic- development/ : City of Huntington Beach Oak View Branch Library Office of Business Development 17251 Oak Lane 2000 Main Street, 5th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 4. A public hearing before the City Council will be held to provide citizens further opportunity to comment on the draft AFH, which must be adopted by the City Council. A summary of comments or views made along with a summary of any comment or view not accepted and the reasons, therefore, shall be attached to the final AFH. 61Page 422 Plan Amendments and Revisions Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan Amendments Consolidated Plans and/or Annual Action Plans may be revised during the program year. • Minor Amendments. Any revisions not defined below as a Substantial Amendment constitutes a minor amendment not requiring public notification or citizen participation in advance of implementing such changes. Upon completion, the City will make the amendment public by placing the amendment to the City's website and will notify HUD that an amendment has been made. The City will submit a copy of each amendment to HUD as it occurs, or at the close of program year. Minor changes and/or corrections may be made, so long as the changes do not constitute a substantial amendment. Minor changes, including but not limited to modifications of goal outcome indicators, will not be considered a substantial amendment and do not require public review or a public hearing. • Substantial Amendments. The following changes to the City's Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan constitute substantial amendments requiring public notification and public review subject to the citizen participation process described at 24 CFR 91.105 and 24 CFR 91.115. 1. The City makes a change in its allocation priorities or a change in the method of distribution of funds. 2. An addition, modification, or elimination of a Consolidated Plan goal. 3. The City carries out an activity not previously described in the Annual Action Plan using funds covered by the Consolidated plan, including Program Income. 4. The City proposes not to carry out an activity described in the Annual Action Plan and, if funded, cancel the activity in the federal Integrated Disbursement Information System (IDIS). 5. There is a change in the purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries of an activity in the Annual Action Plan. 6. There is a cumulative change in the use of CDBG or HOME funds from one activity to another activity in the Annual Action Plan that exceeds 30 percent of the entitlement award for the program year. If the CDBG award, for instance, is $1.0 million, then an activity budget(s) could be increased or decreased by up to $300,000. In the event that an amendment to the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan qualifies as a substantial change, citizens will be given an opportunity to participate in the planning process. This opportunity will be afforded to the citizens by following these steps: 7 P a 2 e 423 1. The City will publish a notice describing the contents and purpose of the proposed substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan in a newspaper of general circulation. The summary will also include a list of locations where a complete draft of the Amended Consolidated Plan and/or Amended Annual Action Plan may be obtained for review. 2. The publication of the summary will commence a 30-day public comment period, during which citizens will have the opportunity to examine the proposed Amended Consolidated Plan and/or Amended Annual Action Plan and submit comments regarding the draft document to the City's Community Development Department/ Office of Business Development. 3. After the close of the 30-day public comment period,the City Council will consider approving the Substantial Amendment to the City's Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan. All substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan and all amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Council. A summary of comments or views along with a summary of any comment or view not accepted and the reasons, therefore,will be attached to the final Amended Consolidated Plan and/or Amended Annual Action Plan. Assessment to Fair Housing Plan Revisions An AFH previously accepted by HUD must be revised and submitted to HUD for review under the following circumstances: • A material change occurs. A material change is a change in circumstances in the jurisdiction of a program participant that affects the information on which the AFH is based to the extent that the analysis, the fair housing contributing factors, or the priorities and goals of the AFH no longer reflect actual circumstances. Examples include Presidentially declared disasters, under title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), in the program participant's area that are of such a nature as to significantly impact the steps a program participant may need to take to affirmatively further fair housing; significant demographic changes; new significant contributing factors in the participant's jurisdiction; and civil rights findings, determinations, settlements (including Voluntary Compliance Agreements), or court orders. A revised AFH under this circumstance must be submitted within 12 months of the onset of the material change, or at a later date as HUD may provide. Where the material change is the result of a Presidentially declared disaster, the revised AFH submission shall be automatically extended to the date that is 2 years after the date upon which the disaster declaration is made, and HUD may extend such deadline, upon request, for good cause shown. 8 P a 2 e 424 • Upon HUD's written notification specifying a material change that requires the revision. Under this scenario,HUD will specify a date by which the program participant must submit the revision of the AFH to HUD, taking into account the material change, the program participant's capacity, and the need for a valid AFH to guide planning activities. HUD may extend the due date upon written request by the program participant that describes the reasons the program participant is unable to make the deadline. On or before 30 calendar days following the date of HUD's written notification under this circumstance, Huntington Beach may advise HUD in writing if it believes that a revision to the AFH is not required. The City will state with specificity the reasons for its belief that a revision is not required. HUD will respond on or before 30 calendar days following the date of the receipt of the City's correspondence and will advise the City in writing whether HUD agrees or disagrees with the City. If HUD disagrees, the program participant must proceed with the revision. HUD may establish a new due date that is later than the date specified in its original notification. A revised AFH will consist of preparing and submitting amended analyses, assessments,priorities, and goals that take into account the material change, including any new fair housing issues and contributing factors that may arise as a result of the material change. A revision may not necessarily require the submission of an entirely new AFH. The revision need only focus on the material change and appropriate adjustments to the analyses, assessments,priorities, or goals. Huntington Beach will follow citizen participation guidelines as outlined here for a Consolidated Plan Substantial Amendment, including publishing a public notice at least thirty (30) days in advance of a public hearing to adopt the Revised AFH and a 30-day public comment period. Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) The City will prepare an annual CAPER to evaluate the progress of the Consolidated Plan and to review accomplishments for the previous program year. Upon completion of the CAPER and prior to its submission to HUD, a public notice will be published in a newspaper of general circulation announcing the availability of the CAPER for review and comment prior to a public hearing. This public review and comment period shall be for a minimum 15-day period beginning on the day of publication. During this period, citizens will have the opportunity to examine the CAPER and submit comments to the City's Community Development Department / Office of Business Development regarding the document. A public hearing will also serve to obtain the views of citizens about program performance. A summary of comments or views along with a summary of any comment or view not accepted and the reasons, therefore, will be attached to the CAPER. PUBLIC COMMENT Public comment, verbally or in writing, is accepted throughout the program year, and is particularly invited during the noticed public comment periods described above. Public hearings 9 1 P a g e 425 shall provide a major opportunity for citizen input on proposed neighborhood improvement programs, activities, policies and procedures. At a minimum, the City will conduct three separate public hearings annually--one for the purpose of soliciting comments from the public on needs and priorities for the development of the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan, a second for the purpose of adopting the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan, and a third public hearing accepting the Consolidated Annual Action Plan (CAPER) following a review of program performance. Public hearings will be held at times convenient to potential and actual beneficiaries, and accessible to the disabled. Notices of public comment periods shall be published on the first day of the public comment period, which shall conclude with the public hearing before City Council. To ensure that all City residents have sufficient opportunity to take notice of all scheduled public hearings, all public hearing notices, including the date, time and location, shall be published in a local newspaper of general circulation at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the public hearing. Public notices will be published in local newspapers of general circulation when pertaining to any projects proposed citywide, such as the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan and CAPER. BACK-UP PROJECTS The Annual Action Plan may contain a list of projects to be funded for the given program year under one or more of the following circumstances: • Additional funding becomes available during the program year from the close out of current projects that were completed under budget. • More program income becomes available than originally estimated and budgeted in the Annual Action Plan. • If, during the development of the Annual Action Plan, staff has not definitively decided which public facility or infrastructure improvement project to fund, the City may opt to categorize each option as a "back-up" project until further project and budget planning is performed. Initiation and funding of one or more of the "back-up" projects would not constitute a substantial amendment as defined in the Citizen Participation Plan. Preferential consideration will be given to those projects that demonstrate the ability to spend CDBG funds in a timely manner, consistent with the City's goal to meet CDBG timeliness rules, as well as those projects that meet the needs of the community as defined in the Consolidated Plan. A list of"back-up" projects can include public facility and infrastructure improvement projects can be included in the Annual Action Plan and be approved by the City Council to serve as back- up projects. The City may activate these back-up projects at any time when funding becomes available. The City needs to receive HUD approval for these back-up projects along with the approved and funded projects as part of its approval for the Annual Action Plan. Initiation and funding of these projects would not constitute a substantial amendment as defined above. 10 Page 426 ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND RECORDS Any citizen, organization, or other interested parry may submit written requests for information regarding the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, AFH, or CAPER, including the City's use of funds under the CDBG and HOME programs and the benefit to low- to moderate-income residents during the preceding five years. Copies of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, Citizen Participation Plan, CAPER, AFH, amendments or revisions to these Plans, and documents regarding other important program requirements including contracting procedures, environmental policies, fair housing/equal opportunity requirements and relocation provisions, are available to the public during the City's regular business hours,Monday through Thursday 8:00 am—5:00 pm and every other Friday from 8:00 am — 5:00 pm, in the City's Office of Business Development located at Huntington Beach City Hall, 2000 Main Street, 5th Floor,Huntington Beach, CA 92648. Additional information may be obtained by calling (714) 375-5186. Upon request, the City will make all information available in a format accessible to persons with disabilities. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE In an effort to encourage the submission of views and proposals regarding the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan, particularly from residents of target areas and groups representative of persons of low- and moderate-income, the City shall provide technical assistance in developing proposals for funding assistance under any of the programs covered by the Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan, if requested. Such assistance will include, but is not limited to, the provision of sample proposals, and program regulations and guidelines. COMMENT AND COMPLAINT PROCESS The City will consider any comments from citizens received in writing or orally at public hearings in preparing this Citizen Participation Plan, the Consolidated Plan, Annual Plan, CAPER, AFH, and/or substantial amendments to these plans. A summary of all comments will be attached and submitted to HUD. The City will respond to written complaints received relating to the Consolidated Plan, Annual Plan, AFH, CAPER, and/or substantial amendments. Written complaints must describe the objection and provide contact information of the complainant. The city will respond to complaints within fifteen (15) working days of receiving the written complaint, acknowledging the letter and identifying a plan of action, if necessary. Correspondence may be addressed to: City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department/Office of Business Development C/O Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director 2000 Main Street, 51h Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 11 Page 427 Persons wishing to contact the Los Angeles Area Field HUD Office may address correspondence to: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development C/O Robert DiGruccio, HUD Representative 300 North Los Angeles Street Suite 4054 Los Angeles, CA 90012 CHANGES IN FEDERAL FUNDING LEVEL Any changes in the federal funding level after the comment period of either the Draft Consolidated Plan and/or the Draft Annual Action Plan has expired, the resulting effect on the distribution of funds will not be considered an amendment or a substantial amendment. ASSURANCES The City of Huntington Beach assures that the most diligent effort will be made to comply with the process and procedures outlined in this 2020/21-2024/25 Citizen Participation Plan. CODE OF ETHICS / CONFLICT OF INTEREST It shall be forbidden for any member of boards, commissions, and committees having a material interest in the outcome of decisions to participate in the review of, discussion regarding or voting upon any application on or in any way attempt to influence other members of the respective body. According to direction from the Los Angeles area office of HUD, any CRAB member with such a conflict must resign from either the board or from the position from which the conflict arises. City staff will review applications for new members and attempt to identify potential conflicts prior to appointment. ANTI-DISPLACEMENT The City of Huntington Beach strives to avoid and minimize the displacement of individuals as a result of HUD funded activities. Therefore,to the greatest extent possible, the City: • Will consider the impact of displacement in the site selection, during the project planning phase. • Will provide information to displaced individual's on available assistance and relocations benefits. 121Page 428 In an effort to minimize displacement of persons and to assist any persons displaced by governmental actions,the City of Huntington Beach has prepared a Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan which is provided in this document. RESIDENTIAL ANTI-DISPLACEMENT AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN This Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan (RARAP) is prepared by the City of Huntington Beach (City) in accordance with the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; and Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)regulations at 24 CFR 42.325 and is applicable to the City's Community Development Block Grant(CDBG), including the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, and HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME)-assisted projects. Section 104(d)of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,as amended(HCD Act), and U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program regulations provide that, as a condition for receiving assistance, as a grantee, the City must certify that it is following a Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan (RARAP), which contains two major components: 1. A requirement to replace all occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate-income dwelling units that are demolished or converted to a use other than low-moderate-income housing in connection with an activity assisted under the HCD Act and 24 CFR 570.606(c)(1)); and 2. A requirement to provide certain relocation assistance to any lower income person displaced as a direct result of(1)the demolition of any dwelling unit or (2)the conversion of a low/moderate-income dwelling unit to a use other than a low/moderate-income dwelling in connection with an assisted activity. Minimize Displacement Consistent with the goals and objectives of activities assisted under the Act, Huntington Beach will take the following steps to minimize the direct and indirect displacement of persons from their homes: • Coordinate code enforcement with rehabilitation and housing assistance programs. • Stage rehabilitation of apartment units to allow tenants to remain in the building complex during and after the rehabilitation, working with empty units first. • Where feasible, give priority to rehabilitation of housing in lieu of demolition to minimize displacement. 131Page 429 • If feasible, demolish or convert only dwelling units that are unoccupied or vacant occupiable) dwelling units, especially if units are lower-income units as defined in 24 CFR 42.305. • Target only those properties deemed essential to the need or success of the project. Relocation Assistance to Displaced Persons The City will provide relocation assistance for lower-income tenants who, in connection with an activity assisted under the CDBG and HOME Programs, move permanently or move personal property from real property as a direct result of the demolitions of any dwelling unit or the conversion of a lower-income dwelling unit3 in accordance with requirements of 24 CFR 42.350. A displaced person who is not a lower-income tenant will be provided relocation assistance in accordance with the Uniform Act, as amended, and implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24. One-for One Replacement of Lower-Income Dwelling Units In accordance with section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (HCD Act) (Pub. L. 93-383, 42 U.S. C. 5301 et seq) and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR 42.375,the City will fulfill its obligation of providing one-for-one replacement housing by replacing all occupied and vacant occupiable lower-income dwelling units demolished or converted to a use other than lower-income housing in connection with a project assisted with funds provided under the CDBG and HOME Programs. To that end,the City,in fulfillment of 24 CFR 42.375,will replace all units triggering replacement- housing obligations with comparable lower-income dwelling units. Acceptable replacement units that are provided by the City or private developer will meet these requirements: • The units will be located within the city and,to the extent feasible and consistent with other statutory priorities, located within the same neighborhood as the units replaced. t A vacant occupiable dwelling unit means a vacant dwelling unit that is in a standard condition; a vacant dwelling unit that is in a substandard condition, but is suitable for rehabilitation; or a dwelling unit in any condition that has been occupied(except by a squatter)at any time within the period beginning three months before the date of execution of the agreement by the recipient covering the rehabilitation or demolition. z The term conversion means altering a housing unit to either use the dwelling for non-housing purposes, continue to use a unit for housing; but it fails to meet the definition of lower-income dwelling unit;or it is used as an emergency shelter. If a housing unit continues to be used for housing after completion of the project is not considered a "conversion" insofar as the unit is owned and occupied by a person who owned and occupied the unit before the project. 'A lower-income dwelling unit means a dwelling unit with a market rent(including utility costs)that does not exceed the applicable Fair Market Rent. a The term dwelling as defined by the URA at 49 CFR 24.2(a)(10) includes transitional housing units or non- housekeeping units (SRO) commonly found in HUD programs. An emergency shelter is generally not considered a "dwelling"because such a facility is usually not a place ofpermanent, transitional or customary and usual residence. 14 Page 430 • The units must be sufficient in number and size to house no fewer than the number of occupants who could have been housed, as determined by the City's local housing occupancy codes, in the units that are demolished or converted. • The units must be provided in standard condition. • Replacement units must initially be made available for occupancy up to one year prior to the City publishing information regarding the project initiating replacement housing requirements and ending three years after commencing demolition or rehabilitation related to the conversion. • Replacement units must remain lower-income dwelling units for a minimum of ten years from the date of initial occupancy. Replacement lower-income dwelling units may include public housing or existing housing receiving Section 8 project-based assistance. Disclosure and Reporting Requirements Before entering into a contract committing the City to provide funds for a project that will directly result in demolition or conversion of lower-income dwelling units, the City will make public by publishing in a newspaper of general circulation and will submit to HUD the following information in writing: 1. A description of the proposed assisted project. 2. The address, number of bedrooms and location on a map of lower-income dwelling units that will be demolished or converted to a use other than as lower-income dwelling units as a result of and assisted project. 3. A time schedule for the commencement and completion of the demolition or conversion. 4. To the extent known,the address, number of lower-income dwelling units by size (number of bedrooms) and location on a map of at the replacement lower-income housing that has been or will be provided. 5. The source of funding and a time schedule for the provision of the replacement dwelling units. 6. The basis for concluding that each replacement dwelling unit will remain a lower-income dwelling unit for at least ten years from the date of initial occupancy. 7. Information demonstrating that any proposed replacement of lower-income dwelling units with smaller dwelling units (e.g., a two-bedroom unit with two one-bedroom units), or any proposed replacement of efficiency or single-room occupancy (SRO) units with units or a different size, is appropriate and consistent with the housing needs and priorities identified in the HUD-approved Consolidated Plan and 24 CFR 42.375(b). 151Page 431 To the extent that the specific location of the replacement dwelling units and other data in items four through seven are unavailable at the time of the general submission, the City will identify the general locations of such dwelling units on a map and complete the disclosure and submission requirements as soon as the specific data is available. Replacement not Required Based on Unit Availability Under 24 CFR 42.375(d),the City may submit a request to HUD for a determination that the one- to-one replacement requirement does not apply based on objective data that there is an adequate supply of vacant lower-income dwelling units in standard condition available on a non- discriminatory basis within the area. 16 P a a e 432 DEFINITIONS Annual Action Plan. A one-year(July 1 —June 30)planning document detailing approved funding allocations for specific eligible activities. The Annual Action Plan is submitted to HUD 45-days prior to the beginning of the program year. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The general and permanent rules and regulations published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the U.S. government. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). Authorized under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, the CDBG Program combined multiple federal categorical grants under one regulation. The funds are a block grant that can be used to address critical and unmet community needs including those for housing rehabilitation, public facilities, infrastructure, economic development, public services, and more. The City is provided an annual grant on a formula basis as a CDBG Entitlement recipient. Funds are used to develop a viable urban community by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons. Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). The CAPER is prepared at the end of the program year to detail how funds were actually expended and the extent to which these funds were used for activities that benefitted low-and moderate-income people. The CAPER is submitted to HUD within 90-days of the program year end. Consolidated Plan. The document that is submitted to HUD that serves as the comprehensive housing affordability strategy, community development plan, and submissions for funding under any of the Community Planning and Development formula grant programs (e.g., CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA), that is prepared in accordance with the process described in this part. HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). HOME funds are awarded annually as formula grants to participating jurisdictions (PJs), States and localities, that are used - often in partnership with local nonprofit groups - to fund a wide range of activities including building, buying, and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or homeownership or providing direct rental assistance to low-income people. HOME is the largest Federal block grant to state and local governments designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households. HUD. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is the federal agency which administers and provides guidance for the Consolidated Plan process and use the federal funds such as CDBG and HOME. Low- and Moderate-Income Persons. Individuals from households with a total income that does not exceed 80 percent of the median household income for the area adjusted for family size. 171Paae 433 ADDENDUM 2020-2024 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES UNDER NATIONAL EMERGENCY CONCERNING NOVEL CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) PANDEMIC Due to the National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) declared in March 2020, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)has made available temporary guidelines for citizen participation relative to the public comment period, reasonable notice, and opportunity to comment for substantial amendments. This addendum outlines steps the City will take during the national emergency to support communication and encourage involvement between the City and its residents on matters pertaining to the use of all federal funding from HUD, particularly those funds that will be used to prevent, prepare, and respond to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. These temporary guidelines will therefore apply to Community Development Block Grant funding under FY 2019/20, FY 2020/21, and the Coronavirus Aid,Relief, and Economic Security(CARES)Act funds, as well as Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME) funds under FY 2019/20 and FY 2020/21, unless otherwise extended due to a longer period of national emergency. This Citizen Participation Plan may also be amended from time to time to include additional or revised procedures issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in response to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)pandemic. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR CONSOLIDATED PLAN SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC The City of Huntington Beach may amend an approved consolidated plan in accordance with 24 CFR 91.505. Substantial amendments to the consolidated plan are subject to the citizen participation process which usually requires a 30-day public comment period to allow interested citizens a period of time by which they have an opportunity to comment on any proposed changes to the Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan. Given the need to expedite actions to respond to COVID-19, HUD waives the 30-day public comment period, in order to balance the need to respond quickly to the growing spread and effects of COVID-19 with the statutory requirement to provide reasonable notice and opportunity for citizens to comment on substantial amendments concerning the proposed uses of CDBG and HOME funds. Temporary Public Comment Period: This 30-day minimum for the required public comment period is waived for substantial amendments, provided that no less than 5 days are provided for public comments on each substantial amendment. The waiver is available through the end of Huntington Beach's 2020/21 program year(June 30, 2021). CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REASONABLE NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC 181Paae 434 Regulations at 24 CFR 91.105 (for local governments) set forth the citizen participation plan requirements for the City of Huntington Beach. For substantial amendments to the consolidated plan,the regulations require the City to follow its citizen participation plan to provide citizens with reasonable notice and opportunity to comment. The citizen participation plan must state how reasonable notice and opportunity to comment will be given.HUD recognizes the efforts to contain COVID-19 require limiting public gatherings, such as those often used to obtain citizen participation, and that there is a need to respond quickly to the growing spread and effects of COVID-19. Therefore, HUD waives this requirement to allow the City to determine what constitutes reasonable notice and opportunity to comment given their circumstances. The waiver is available through the end of Huntington Beach's 2020/21 program year(June 30, 2021). Temporary Reasonable Notice and Opportunity to Comment: In the event that an amendment to the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan qualifies as a substantial change, citizens will be given an opportunity to participate in the planning process. This opportunity will be afforded to the citizens by following these steps: 1. The City will publish a notice describing the contents and purpose of the proposed substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan on the City's website at www.huntingtonbeachea.gov/business/economic-development/cdbg/ in lieu of a newspaper of general circulation. Along with the public notice, the City will post the subject Amended Consolidated Plan and/or Amended Annual Action Plan for public review. The Amendments can also be delivered to persons wishing to review it via U.S. mail or via email upon request by calling the City's Office of Business Development at (714) 536-5582 or by emailing Robert.Ramirezgsurfcit. -1�g . 2. The publication of the notice will commence a 5-day public comment period, during which citizens will have the opportunity to examine the proposed Amended Consolidated Plan and/or Amended Annual Action Plan and submit comments regarding the draft document to the City's Office of Business Development via the following methods: • By calling the City of Huntington Beach, Office of Business Development at(714) 536-5582 • Via email at Robert.Ramirez(&surfcity-hb.org • Via U.S. mail addressed to: City of Huntington Beach, Office of Business Development, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. 3. After the close of the 5-day public comment period, the City Council will consider approving the Substantial Amendment to the City's Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan. To follow recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the President's Coronavirus Guidelines for America, which include avoiding social gatherings and implementing social distancing, the City Council will not hold in-person public hearings, however the City may opt to hold virtual public hearings, which will be described in advance in the public notice. All substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan and all amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Council. A summary of comments or views along with a summary of any comment or view not accepted and the reasons, therefore, will be attached to the final Amended Consolidated Plan and/or Amended Annual Action Plan. 19 Page 435 ATTACHMENT #4 nirr`tt � ' Centerofthe southiand �pl1N TA J� �► A!v7CE PG1t."E TO LIVE � 1� •f,�,��co,�r�,c��,�a�{ � , COUNT`f GAL Ot 1 7 ���� COUM � �• 1989 of O O� 5A NTq 9 ' r 1 Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Table of Contents I. Cover Sheet II. Executive Summary....................................................................................3 III. Community Participation Process................................................................20 IV. Assessment of Past Goals and Actions.............................................................21 V. Fair Housing Analysis A. Demographic Summary.....................................................................43 B. General Issues i. Segregation/Integration..............................................................118 ii. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) .......159 iii. Disparities in Access to Opportunity...........................................167 iv. Disproportionate Housing Needs................................................198 C. Publicly Supported Housing Analysis...................................................239 D. Disability and Access Analysis............................................................266 E. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Analysis.......291 VI. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities...............................................................297 VII. Contributing Factors Appendix.....................................................................316 VIII. Publicly Supported Housing Appendix........................................................337 IX. Glossary ...............................................................................................355 2 437 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Orange County's Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice(Al) is a thorough examination of structural barriers to fair housing choice and access to opportunity for members of historically marginalized groups protected from discrimination by the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). The Al also outlines fair housing priorities and goals to overcome fair housing issues. In addition, the Al lays out meaningful strategies that can be implemented to achieve progress towards the County's obligation to affirmatively furthering fair housing. The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Lawyers' Committee), in consultation with Orange County jurisdictions and with input from a wide range of stakeholders through a community participation process,prepared this Al. To provide a foundation for the conclusions and recommendations presented in this Al, the following information was reviewed and analyzed: • Data from the U.S. Census Bureau,American Community Survey 2013-2017 and other sources about the demographic, housing, economic, and educational landscape of the County, nearby communities, and the broader Region; • Various County and city planning documents and ordinances; • Data reflecting housing discrimination complaints; • The input of a broad range of stakeholders that deal with the realities of the housing market and the lives of members of protected classes in Orange County. As required by federal regulations, the Al draws from the sources listed above to conduct an analysis of fair housing issues such as patterns of integration and segregation of members of protected classes, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty regionally, disparities in access to opportunity for protected classes, and disproportionate housing needs. The analysis also examines publicly supported housing in the County as well as fair housing issues for persons with disabilities. Private and public fair housing enforcement, outreach capacity, and resources are evaluated as well. The Al identifies contributing factors to fair housing issues and steps that should be taken to overcome these barriers. The Orange County Al is a collaborative effort between the following jurisdictions: Aliso Viejo, Anaheim,Buena Park, Costa Mesa,Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove,Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Niguel, La Habra, Lake Forest, La Palma, Mission Viejo, Orange, Rancho San Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Tustin, Westminster, and the County of Orange. Although this is a county-wide Al, there are jurisdiction-specific versions that include goals specific to each jurisdiction. Overview of Orange County According to U.S. Census data, the population of Orange County has changed considerably from 1990 to present day. The population has grown from just over 2.4 million in 1990 to nearly 3.2 million people today. The demographics of the County have undergone even more dramatic shifts over this time period: the white population has gone from 76.2% in 1990 to 57.8% in the 2010 Census, with corresponding increases in Hispanic (from 13.5% to 21.2%) and Asian (from 8.6% to 18.3%)populations in that same time period. These trends represent accelerations of the broader Los-Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area(the Region). In the Region, 3 438 white population percentage has declined from 45.9% percent to under 31.6%, with substantial increases in the percentages of Hispanic (from 34.7% to 44.4%) and Asian (from 10.2% to 16%) from the 1990 to 2010 Censuses. There are numerous ethnic enclaves of Hispanic, Vietnamese, Chinese and other groups throughout Orange County. These enclaves provide a sense of community and a social network that may help newcomers preserve their cultural identities. However, these active choices should not obscure the significant impact of structural barriers to fair housing choice and discrimination. Within both Orange County and the broader Region, most racial or ethnic minority groups experience higher rates of housing problems, including but not limited to severe housing cost burden, with monthly housing costs exceeding 50 percent of monthly income, than do non- Hispanic White households. In Orange County, Hispanic households are most likely to experience severe housing cost burden; in the Region, it is Black households. There are 194,569 households in Orange County experiencing housing cost burden, with monthly housing costs exceeding 30 percent of monthly income. 104,196 of these households are families. However, Orange County has only 429 Project-Based Section 8 units and 33 Other Multifamily units with more than one bedroom capable of housing these families. Housing Choice Vouchers are the most utilized form of publicly supported housing for families, with 2,286 multi-bedroom units accessed. Large family households are also disproportionately affected by housing problems as compared with non-family households. Some focus groups have communicated that regulations and cost issues can make Orange County too expensive for families. The high percentage of 0-1- bedroom units in publicly supported housing and the low percentage of households with children in publicly supported housing support this observation. The federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act provide Orange County residents with some protections from displacement and work to increase the supply of affordable housing. In addition,jurisdictions throughout Orange County have worked diligently to provide access to fair housing through anti-housing discrimination work, creating housing opportunities designed to enhance resident mobility,providing zoning flexibility where necessary, and working to reduce hate crimes. Even so, these protections and incentives are not enough to stem the loss of affordable housing and meet the housing needs of low- and moderate-income residents. Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues The Al includes a discussion and analysis of the following contributing factors to fair housing issues: 1. Access to financial services 2. Access for persons with disabilities to proficient schools 3. Access to publicly supported housing for persons with disabilities 4. Access to transportation for persons with disabilities 5. Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported housing 6. Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes 4 439 7. Availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation 8. Community opposition 9. Deteriorated and abandoned properties 10. Displacement of and/or lack of housing support for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking 11. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures 12. Impediments to mobility 13. Inaccessible public or private infrastructure 14. Inaccessible government facilities or services 15. Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs 16. Lack of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes 17. Lack of affordable in-home or community-based supportive services 18. Lack of affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive services 19. Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications 20. Lack of assistance for transitioning from institutional settings to integrated housing 21. Lack of community revitalization strategies 22. Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement 23. Lack of local public fair housing enforcement 24. Lack of local or regional cooperation 25. Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency 26. Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods 27. Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities 28. Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations 29. Lack of state or local fair housing laws 30. Land use and zoning laws 31. Lending discrimination 32. Location of accessible housing 33. Location of employers 34. Location of environmental health hazards 35. Location of proficient schools and school assignment policies 36. Location and type of affordable housing 37. Loss of affordable housing 38. Occupancy codes and restrictions 39. Private discrimination 40. Quality of affordable housing information programs 41. Regulatory barriers to providing housing and supportive services for persons with disabilities 42. Siting selection policies, practices, and decisions for publicly supported housing, including discretionary aspects of Qualified Allocation Plans and other programs 43. Source of income discrimination 44. State or local laws,policies,or practices that discourage individuals with disabilities from living in apartments, family homes, supportive housing and other integrated settings 45. Unresolved violations of fair housing or civil rights law. 5 440 Proposed Goals and Strategies To address the contributing factors described above, the Al plan proposes the following goals and actions: Regional Goals and Strategies Goal 1: Increase the supply of affordable housing in high opportunity areas. Strategies: 1. Explore the creation of a new countywide source of affordable housing. 2. Using best practices from other jurisdictions, explore policies and programs that increase the supply affordable housing, such as linkage fees, housing bonds, inclusionary housing, public land set-aside, community land trusts, transit-oriented development, and expedited permitting and review. 3. Explore providing low-interest loans to single-family homeowners and grants to homeowners with household incomes of up to 80% of the Area Median Income to develop accessory dwelling units with affordability restriction on their property. 4. Review existing zoning policies and explore zoning changes to facilitate the development of affordable housing. 5. Align zoning codes to conform to recent California affordable housing legislation. Goal 2: Prevent displacement of low- and moderate-income residents with protected characteristics, including Hispanic residents, Vietnamese residents, other seniors, and people with disabilities. Strategies: 1. Explore piloting a Right to Counsel Program to ensure legal representation for tenants in landlord-tenant proceedings, including those involving the application of new laws like A.B. 1482. Goal 3: Increase community integration for persons with disabilities. Strategies: 1. Conduct targeted outreach and provide tenant application assistance and support to persons with disabilities, including individuals transitioning from institutional settings and individuals who are at risk of institutionalization. As part of that assistance, maintain a database of housing that is accessible to persons with disabilities. 2. Consider adopting the accessibility standards adopted by the City of Los Angeles, which require at least 15 percent of all new units in city-supported Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects to be ADA-accessible with at least 4 percent of total units to be accessible for persons with hearing and/or vision disabilities. ' The term"high opportunity areas"generally means locations where there are economic and social factors and amenities that provide a positive impact on a person's life outcome.This is described in more detail in Section iii, Disparities in Access to Opportunity. 6 441 Goal 4: Ensure equal access to housing for persons with protected characteristics, who are disproportionately likely to be lower-income and to experience homelessness. Strategies: 1. Reduce barriers to accessing rental housing by exploring eliminating application fees for voucher holders and encouraging landlords to follow HUD's guidance on the use of criminal backgrounds in screening tenants. 2. Consider incorporating a fair housing equity analysis into the review of significant rezoning proposals and specific plans. Goal S: Expand access to opportunity for protected classes. Strategies: 1. Explore the voluntary adoption of Small Area Fair Market Rents or exception payment standards in order to increase access to higher opportunity areas for Housing Choice Voucher holders. 2. Continue implementing a mobility counseling program that informs Housing Choice Voucher holders about their residential options in higher opportunity areas and provides holistic supports to voucher holders seeking to move to higher opportunity areas. 3. Study and make recommendations to improve and expand Orange County's public transportation to ensure that members of protected classes can access jobs in employment centers in Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine. 4. Increase support for fair housing enforcement, education, and outreach. Individual Jurisdictions' Proposed Goals and Strategies City of Aliso Viejo 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. 7 442 City of Anaheim 1. Increase the supply of affordable housing through the following strategies: a. Explore creative land use and zoning policies that facilitate the development of affordable housing, examples include a housing overlay zone or religious institutions amendment. b. Review Anaheim's current Density Bonus and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinances to ensure compliance with state requirements. c. Support legislation that removes CEQA requirements for affordable housing. d. Identify and explore allocating city-owned sites that may be well suited for housing for which there are no other development plans. e. Continue to support tenant based rental assistance programs that facilitates additional affordable housing for homeless and low-income individuals. 2. Preserve the existing stock of affordable rental housing and rent stabilized housing through the following strategies: a. Strengthen and expand education and outreach of tenants and owner of affordable rental housing at risk of conversion to market rents. b. Extend affordability restrictions through loan extensions, workouts and buy-downs of affordability. c. Preserve at-risk housing through the issuance of Tax-Exempt Bond financing. d. Explore the development of a rental rehabilitation loan program. 3. Expand the access to fair housing services and other housing services through the following strategies: a. Dedicate eligible entitlement dollars (CDBG, HOME, etc.) and explore local, state and federal resources to expand fair housing services. b. Continue to support fair housing testing and investigation to look for evidence of differential treatment and disparate impact, including providing services to low income tenants reporting fair housing violations. c. Continue to support fair housing presentations, mass media communications, and multi- lingual literature distribution; conduct fair housing presentations at accessible locations and conduct fair housing presentations for housing providers. d. Explore alternative formats for fair housing education workshops such as pre-taped videos and/ or recordings. Such formats could serve persons with one or more than one job, families with you children and other who find it difficult to attend meetings in person. 4. Continue efforts to build complete communities through the following strategies: a. Maximize and secure funding from State of California's Cap and Trade Program (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund), to improve housing opportunities, increase economic investments and address environmental factors in disadvantaged communities. b. The City will continue to work with local transit agencies and other appropriate agencies to facilitate safe and efficient routes of transportation, including public transit, walking and biking. 8 443 c. Explore development of a policy to encourage developers to provide residents with incentives to use non-auto means of transportation, including locating new developments near public transportation and providing benefits such as bus passes. d. Prioritize workforce development resources in racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty to improve economic mobility. City of Buena Park 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. City of Costa Mesa 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. 9 444 City of Fountain Valley 1. Explore an inclusionary zoning requirement for all new housing developments that requires at least 10-15 percent of for-sale units be affordable to households with incomes 80 percent or below and rental units be affordable to households with incomes 60 percent or below. 2. Consider adopting an expedited permitting and review process for new developments with an affordable housing set-aside. City of Fullerton 1. Create a Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HOIZ). 2. Draft and Approve an Affordable Housing and Religious Institutions Amendment to the Municipal Code. 3. Work with the State to streamline or remove CEQA Requirements for Affordable Housing. 4. Require Affordable Housing in Surplus Property Sales. City of Garden Grove 1. Update Density Bonus Ordinance — Garden Grove will update the 2011 Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with current State law. The update will streamline the approval process, increase feasibility, and facilitate future housing development at all affordability levels. 2. Create Objective Residential Development Standards to allow for streamlined housing development in all residential zones. 3. Create Objective Development Standards for Supportive Housing. These standards would be for new construction of Supportive Housing. 4. Evaluate the creation of Objective Development Standards for Hotel/Motel/Office Conversion to Supportive Housing. S. Review and amend Garden Grove's current Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance to comply with State requirements and further increase housing supply. 6. Continue to invest in landlord and tenant counseling and mediation services, unlawful detainer assistance, housing discrimination services, homebuyer education and outreach, and local eviction prevention strategies. City of Huntington Beach 1. Modify the existing Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to increase the supply of affordable housing opportunities available to lower income persons and households. 10 445 a. Study the current methodology of setting the maximum sales price and down payment requirements of an affordable home for ownership. b. Study requirements for the provision of inclusionary units through on-site units, dedication of land, in-lieu fees, and off-site development. c. Study the in-lieu fee structure. d. Explore the provision of incentives for developments that exceed inclusionary requirements and/or provide extremely low-income units on site. Incentives can be through the provision of fee waivers and deferrals, financial assistance, regulatory relief, and flexible development standards. 2. Update the density bonus ordinance to be consistent with state law, 3. Expand the TBRA program to help tenants impacted by Covid-19. Currently, an eviction moratorium is in place to prevent evictions due to lack of non-payment of rent due to Covid- 19. This moratorium ends on May 31, 2020. The moratorium does not end the obligation to pay the rent eventually. On June 1, 2020, there most likely will be an increased need from persons to receive rental assistance for the rents due prior to May 31 and going forward. The City would work with its current service providers to help tenants impacted by Covid-19. City of Irvine 1. Ensure compliance with their HCD-certified Housing Element. 2. Update Density Bonus Ordinance—Irvine will update the Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with current State law. 3. Review and amend Irvine's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, as necessary, to increase its effectiveness. 4. Review and amend Irvine's current Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU) Ordinance to comply with State requirements and further increase housing supply. 5. Create Objective Development Standards for Supportive Housing. These standards would be for new construction of Supportive Housing. 6. Working with the City's fair housing services provider, continue to invest in local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families in Irvine. 7. Working with the City's fair housing services provider, continue to invest in landlord and tenant counseling and mediation services, unlawful detainer assistance, housing discrimination services, and homebuyer education and outreach. City of La Habra 1. Explore the creation of an inclusionary housing ordinance to increase the number of affordable housing units. 11 446 2. Advocate for increasing the minimum percentage of affordable units at Park La Habra Mobile Home and View Park Mobile Home Estates from 20 percent to 50 percent. City of Laguna Niguel 1. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability,procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. 2. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. b. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 3. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities. d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider. 4. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 5. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law. 6. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority, provide community education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities. 7. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families (homelessness prevention services). City of Lake Forest 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): 12 447 a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities. d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider. f. Regularly consult with the City's fair housing contractor on potential strategies for affirmatively furthering fair housing on an on-going basis. 3. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority: a. Provide community education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities. b. Explore bus route options to ensure neighborhoods with concentration of low-income or protected class populations have access to transportation services. 4. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families (homelessness prevention services). S. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 6. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law. City of Mission Viejo 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. 13 448 b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities. d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. e. Include testinglaudits within the scope of work with fair housing provider. 3. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority: a. Provide community education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities. b. Explore bus route options to ensure neighborhoods with concentration of low-income or protected class populations have access to transportation services. 4. Monitor FBI data to determine if any hate crimes are housing related and if there are actions that may be taken by the City's fair housing service provider to address potential discrimination linked to the bias motivations of hate crimes. S. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families (homelessness prevention services). 6. Seek funding through State programs (SB2/PLHA) to expand affordable housing and or homelessness prevention services. 7. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 8. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law. City of Orange 1. Continue to follow current State Density Bonus law and further its implementation through a Density Bonus ordinance update. 14 449 2. Prepare a Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance to provide opportunities for development rights transfers to accommodate higher density housing in transit and employment-rich areas of the city. 3. Continue providing financial assistance to the affordable housing projects. 4. Amend the City's Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to be consistent with State Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) and Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU) laws. 5. Facilitate the development of housing along the North Tustin corridor by the way of a specific plan or rezoning measures. 6. Continue providing CDBG funds to the Fair Housing Foundation to provide fair housing activities to the community. City of Rancho Santa Margarita 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities. d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider. 3. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority: a. Provide community education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities. b. Explore bus route options to ensure neighborhoods with concentration of low-income or protected class populations have access to transportation services. 15 450 4. Monitor FBI data to determine if any hate crimes are housing related and if there are actions that may be taken by the City's fair housing service provider to address potential discrimination linked to the bias motivations of hate crimes. 5. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families (homelessness prevention services). 6. Seek funding through State programs (SB2/PLHA) to expand affordable housing and or homelessness prevention services. 7. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 8. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law. City of San Clemente 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant- landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities. d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider. 3. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families (homelessness prevention services). 4. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 16 451 S. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law. 6. Offer a variety of housing opportunities to enhance mobility among residents of all races and ethnicities by facilitating affordable housing throughout the community through ])flexible development standards; 2) density bonuses; and 3) other zoning tools. 7. Review the type and effectiveness of current affordable housing development incentives, and amend/augment as may be necessary to increase the production of affordable housing units. City of San Juan Capistrano 1. Develop Strategies to Address Lack of Affordability and Insufficient Income a. Work with developers, and non-profit organizations to expand the affordable housing stock within San Juan Capistrano. b. Increase production of new affordable units and assistance towards the purchase and renovation of housing in existing neighborhoods. c. Seek housing program resources through the County of Orange Urban County CDBG Program, and others which may become available. 2. Increase Public Awareness of Fair Housing a. Increase fair housing education and outreach efforts. b. Investigate options for enforcement including local enforcement conducted by neighboring jurisdictions. 3. Develop Strategies to Address Poverty and Low-Incomes Among Minority Populations a. Expand job opportunities through encouragement of corporations relocating to the city, local corporations seeking to expand, assistance with small business loans, and other activities. b.. Support agencies that provide workforce development programs and continuing education courses to increase educational levels and job skills of residents. 4. Develop Strategies to Address Limited Resources to Assist Lower-Income, Elderly, and Indigent Homeowners Maintain their Homes and Stability in Neighborhoods a. Consider implementing a volunteer program for providing housing assistance to elderly and indigent property owners, including assistance in complying with municipal housing codes. b. Encourage involvement from volunteers, community organizations, religious organizations, and businesses as a means of supplementing available financial resources for housing repair and neighborhood cleanup. City of Santa Ana 1. Review and amend Santa Ana's inclusionary housing ordinance to increase its effectiveness. 2. Evaluate the creation of a motel conversion ordinance to increase the supply of permanent supportive housing similar to the City of Anaheim and Los Angeles. 17 452 3. Review Santa Ana's density bonus ordinance and explore adding a density bonus for transit- oriented development (TOD) similar to the City of Los Angeles. 4. Explore establishing a dedicated source of local funding for a Right to Counsel program for residents of Santa Ana to ensure that they have access to legal representation during eviction proceedings similar to the City of New York. 5. Continue to invest in local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families in Santa Ana. City of Tustin 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant- landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities. d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with.fair housing provider. 3. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 4. Utilize funding through State programs (SB2) to support affordable housing and/or homeless prevention services. S. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law. 18 453 The Al lays out a series of achievable action steps that will help jurisdictions in Orange County to not only meet its obligation to affirmatively fair housing but to continue to be a model for equity and inclusion in Orange County. 19 454 III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PROCESS 1. Describe outreach activities undertaken to encourage and broaden meaningful community participation in the Al process, including the types of outreach activities and dates ofpublic hearings or meetings. Identify media outlets used and include a description of efforts made to reach the public, including those representing populations that are typically underrepresented in the planning process such as persons who reside in areas identified as R/ECAPs,persons who are limited English proficient(LEP), and persons with disabilities. Briefly explain how these communications were designed to reach the broadest audience possible. For PHAs, identify your meetings with the Resident Advisory Board. In order to ensure that the analysis contained in an Al truly reflects conditions in a community and that the goals and strategies are targeted and feasible, the participation of a wide range of stakeholders is of critical importance. A broad array of outreach was conducted through community meetings, focus groups, and public hearings. In preparing this Al, the Lawyers' Committee reached out to tenants, landlords, homeowners, fair housing organizations, civil rights and advocacy organizations, legal services provers, social services providers, housing developers, and industry groups to hear directly about fair housing issues affecting residents of Orange County. Beginning in October, 2019, the Lawyers' Committee held meetings with individual stakeholders throughout the County. In January and February 2020, evening community meetings were held in Mission Viejo, Westminster/Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Fullerton. Also in February, the Lawyers' Committee held a focus group with a wide array of nonprofit organizations and government officials. Geographically specific community meetings were held across Orange County, including the South, West, Central, and North parts of the County. Additional outreach was conducted for members of protected classes, including the Latino and Vietnamese communities. All community meetings had translation services available if requested in Spanish and Vietnamese. In addition, all meetings were held in locations accessible to people with mobility issues. The Executive Summary of the Al will be translated into Spanish and Vietnamese. Public hearings and City Council meetings were held throughout the County during the Spring. Due to the prohibition of gatherings due to COVID, hearings and meetings were held remotely. There have been no written comments to date but any comments received will be either incorporated into the document or addressed as to why they were not incorporated in the Appendix. 20 455 IV. ASSESSMENT OF PAST GOALS, ACTIONS AND STRATEGIES a. Indicate what fair housing goals were selected by program participant(s) in recent Analyses of Impediments, Assessments of Fair Housing, or other relevant planning documents. City of Aliso Viejo (the City became an entitlement community in 2018) Housing Discrimination • The City of Aliso Viejo contracted with the Fair Housing Foundation and jointly participated in fair housing outreach and education to renters,homebuyers, lenders, and property managers. Unfair Lending • The City contracted with the Fair Housing Foundation to identify lenders and transmit findings to HUD and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Discriminatory Advertising • The City contracted with the Fair Housing Foundation to support efforts to identify online discriminatory advertising and request that Craigslist and the OC register publish fair housing and reasonable accommodation notices. City of Anaheim Housing Discrimination • The City allocated CDBG funds to the Fair Housing Foundation(FHF)to provide fair housing services to the Anaheim residents and operators of rental properties. These services include holding tenant and landlord workshops, counseling, and resolving any housing issues and allegations of discrimination Reasonable Accommodations • In June of 2018, the City's Planning and Building Department amended its fee schedule and removed the reasonable accommodations application fee. Zoning • Community Development and Planning staff will continue its review of AB 222 and AB 744 and plan to incorporate the necessary standards and provisions into the next zoning code update. City of Buena Park Housing Discrimination • The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 4 tenant, 4 landlord and 4 property manager training. • FHF participated in the Buena Park Collaborative, North Orange County Chamber of Conference, Annual Super Senior Saturday, Buena Park School District Annual Kinder Faire, and the inaugural Open House and Resource Fair. 21 456 • FHF addressed 602 "Housing" issues during the report period. The most common issues were notices, habitability, rent increases, security deposits, lease terms, and rights and responsibilities. Racial and Ethnic Segregation • FHF provided fair housing literature in both English and Spanish. • PSAs were aired on the City's cable station. • Participated in quarterly OCHA (PHA) Housing Advisory Committee meetings. • The City does not offer homebuyer assistance programs. Reasonable Accommodations • FHF provided fair housing related serves to 490 unduplicated households from tenants, landlords and managers, and property owners. • 33 fair housing allegations were received by FHF. Protected classes included race (8), familial status(1),and mental and physical disability(22). 22 allegations were resolved— 1 I cases were opened and 2 are pending. No evidence was found in 4 cases to sustain allegations; however, 4 cases were opened and ultimately resolved via conciliation. • FHF conducted 3 landlord and 3 certified property managers trainings. • FHF developed an "Accommodation & Modification 101 Workshop" for housing providers that covers the legal parameters that housing providers need to know in order to make an informed decision when addressing accommodation & modification requests. Unfair Lending • The City no longer offers homebuyer assistance. FHF utilizes the City's quarterly magazine to promote housing rehabilitation programs. The magazine is distributed to each housing unit city-wide. Density Bonus Incentives • The City's Zoning code was amended to comply with current state density bonus law during prior report period. City of Costa Mesa During the report period the City took the following actions in an effort to overcome the impediments to fair housing choice identified in the Al: Housing Discrimination • Fair housing services was provided to 902 Costa Mesa households dealing with general housing issues and allegations of discrimination.. Over 669 issues, disputes, and/or inquiries were addressed.The majority of general housing issues addressed by the FHF included notices, habitability issues, security deposits, and rent increases. • 65 housing discrimination inquiries were received by the FHF: 9 based on physical or mental disability, 8 related to race, 2 related to national origin, 2 related to gender, 1 related to sexual orientation, and 5 related to familial status. 45 were counseled/resolved, and 15 cases were opened. Investigations found no evidence of discrimination in 9 cases; 2 were inconclusive; 22 457 and in 4 cases the allegations were sustained and the investigation is pending for 2 cases and resolved for 2 cases. • The City worked closely with the FHF to provide certified fair housing training for housing industry realtors and property managers — 7 workshops were conducted during the report period. Additionally, 7 tenant and 7 landlord workshops were conducted in Costa Mesa. Racial and Ethnic Segregation • Literature related to fair housing were distributed at these events, at City Hall, community centers, and community events. Literature was provided to the community in English, Spanish and Vietnamese. City staff distributed large numbers of this literature in target neighborhoods in conjunction with other neighborhood improvement efforts. Reasonable Accommodations • FHF developed an "Accommodation & Modification 101 Workshop" for housing providers that covers the legal parameters that housing providers need to know in order to make an informed decision when addressing accommodation and modification requests. Unfair Lending • The City does not offer homebuyer assistance.Housing Rehab programs are marketed citywide in English and Spanish. Density Bonus Incentive • The City's Zone Codes are compliant with current State density bonus laws. City of Fountain Valley Housing Discrimination • Fair housing outreach and training, general counseling and referrals, and testing/audits provided by Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC). Racial and Ethnic Segregation • Fair housing services, education/outreach, and testing in areas of racial/ethnic concentrations provided by FHCOC. • Grants, rebates and loans are available to low-income, owner-occupied households for repair and rehabilitation through the City's Home Improvement Program. • The zoning code was updated in 2018 to remain consistent with the California density bonus law. • The city and FHCOC provide fair housing and neighborhood improvement program information in multiple'languages. • Housing rehabilitation programs are marketed to low income households which include areas of racial/ethnic concentration Reasonable Accommodations • Fair housing education and information on reasonable modifications/accommodations are provided to apartment managers and homeowners association by FHCOC. 23 458 Discriminatory Advertising • FHCOC periodically monitors local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. Unfair Lending • Housing rehabilitation programs are marketed to low income households which include high minority concentrations and limited English-speaking proficiency areas. Zoning • Fountain Valley's Zoning Code was updated in 2016 to treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use, subject to the same standards as other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Density Bonus Incentives • Fountain Valley's Zoning Code was updated in 2018 to continually remain consistent with State density bonus law. City of Fullerton Addressing cost burden: To relieve the cost of rent, the City operates a rental assistance program for seniors over 55. Programs have assisted seniors living in mobile homes (53 residents) and seniors renting residential units (58 residents). The program was expanded to assist senior veterans renting citywide. New construction: Compass Ross Apartments provides 46 affordable units ranging from one to 3 bedrooms in the Richman Park area. New construction: Ventana Apartments offers one and two-bedrooms units for low-income seniors. The facility is central to dining, retail and local entertainment. Several amenities are offered including a fitness center and social activities. Addressing affordable homeownership: The City in collaboration with Habitat for Humanity will provide 12 new housing units with affordability restrictions on the property. Addressing accessibility: Fullerton Heights Apartments were developed with 24 affordable/accessible unit for special needs residence with mental disabilities. Units range from one to three bedrooms. The units sit on top of 2,000 square feet of commercial use which is proposed to provide services such as food/coffee that will be easily accessible to the residents. In addition,the facility offers amenities such as laundry facilities,computer lab,and community areas including a garden and large kitchen area that encourages socialization amongst the tenants and their extended families. Accessibility to transit is within 1.2 miles offering bus and train service. Addressing fair housing/discrimination: All developers and landlords of affordable housing projects in the City are invited to workshops related to fair housing and must provide a Housing Plan to the City. The Plan states that all applications will be reviewed without bias and all 24 459 applicants will be treated equally. In addition, Fair Housing flyers are provided in multiple languages to the apartment sites. General fair housing related literature and workshop advertisement was available at City Hall, the Library, community centers, and community events. The lists below summarize accomplishments from July 1, 2015 — January 31, 2020. The accomplishments are summarized as follows: 1) the workshops provide by the Fair Housing Foundation and the number of participants at each workshop, 2) the types of clients and the number of clients in each category (totaling 1,128 unduplicated individuals), and 3) the types of cases and the number of cases in each category. WORKSHOPS Fullerton Agency Meetings: • Fullerton Agencies: 3,737 Fullerton Mobile Home Tenant Meetings: • Rancho La Paz Community Meeting: 100 Fullerton residents Workshops: Held at Fullerton Public Library • Tenant's Rights Workshop: 44 • Certificate Management Training: 70 • Landlord Rights Workshop: 32 • Tester Training: 6 • City Staff Tenant Landlord Training: 20 • Accommodations and Modifications 101 Workshop: 2 • Walk-In Clinic: 13 • Rental Counseling: 12 • Fair Housing Workshop: 10 CLIENTS • In-Place Tenant: 904 • Landlord/Management: 81 • Other: 58 • Property Owner: 61 • Rental Home Seeker: 14 • Community Organization: 5 • Realtor: 5 CASES • Familial Status: 3 • Mental Disability: 6 • Physical Disability: 2 • Race: 6 • Age: l • National Origin: 1 25 460 LAND USE—City amended SB 2 Zone and Density Bonus Incentives City of Garden Grove Housing Discrimination • In partnership with the Fair Housing Foundation,the City conducted multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants,landlords,property owners,realtors,and property management companies. Methods of outreach included workshops, informational booths at community events, presentations to community groups, staff trainings, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. • Conducted focused outreach and education to small property owners/landlords on fair housing, and race, reasonable accommodation and familial status issues in particular. Conducted property manager trainings on a regular basis, targeting managers of smaller properties, and promoted fair housing certificate training. • Provided general counseling and referrals to address tenant-landlord issues and provided periodic tenant-landlord walk-in clinics at City Hall and other community locations. Racial and Ethnic Segregation • Coordinated with the Fair Housing Foundation to focus fair housing services, education/outreach, and/or additional testing in identified areas of racial/ethnic concentrations. • Offered a variety of housing opportunities to enhance mobility among residents of all races and ethnicities. Facilitate the provision of affordable housing throughout the community through: 1) available financial assistance; 2) flexible development standards; 3) density bonuses; and 4) other zoning tools. • Promoted equal access to information on the availability of affordable housing by providing information in multiple languages, and through methods that have proven successful in outreaching to the community, particularly those hard-to-reach groups. • Affirmatively marketed first-time homebuyer and/or housing rehabilitation programs to low- and moderate-income areas, and areas of racial/ethnic concentration. • Worked collaboratively with local housing authorities to ensure affirmative fair marketing plans and de-concentration policies were implemented. Reasonable Accommodations • In partnership with the Fair Housing Foundation, continued to provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. Discriminatory Advertising • In partnership with the Fair Housing Foundation,periodically monitored local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. • Took steps to encourage the Orange County Register to publish a Fair Housing Notice and a "no pets" disclaimer that indicates rental housing owners must provide reasonable accommodations, including "service animals" and "companion animals" for disabled persons. 26 461 Hate Crimes • Continued to coordinate with various City and County housing,building and safety,health and sanitation, law enforcement and legal aid offices to offer support services for victims of hate crimes or other violent crimes—inclusive of housing resources. Unfair Lending • In partnership with the Fair Housing Foundation, identified potential issues regarding redlining;predatory lending and other illegal lending activities. In addition, the City reviewed agreements annually to make sure that increased and comprehensive services are being provided, and that education and outreach efforts are expanded and affirmatively marketed in low and moderate income and racial concentrated areas. • Collaborated with local lenders and supported lenders' efforts to work with community groups to help minority households purchase their homes. Ensured that minority groups have access and knowledge of City programs, supportive services, and provide for networking opportunities with these groups. • Coordinated with local lenders to expand outreach efforts to first time homebuyers in minority neighborhoods. • Affirmatively marketed first-time homebuyer and/or housing rehabilitation programs in neighborhoods with high denial rates, high minority population concentrations and limited English-speaking proficiency to help increase loan approval rates. Housing for Persons with Disabilities • The City has adopted formal policies and procedures in the Municipal Code to reasonably accommodate the housing needs of disabled residents. Zoning Regulations • The City has an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance that allows for the production in all residential zones. • Single-Room Occupancy Housing: the City has specific provisions for SROs in our Zoning Ordinances and has clarified in our Housing Elements how SROs are provided for under other zoning classifications. • Transitional/Supportive Housing: the City has ordinances and development standards that allow transitional and supportive housing in the manner prescribed by State law, regulated as a residential use and subject to the same permitting and standards as similar residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Density Bonus Incentives • The City is amending the Zoning Code to reflect current State density bonus law. City of Huntington Beach Housing Discrimination • The City's Code Enforcement staff provides fair housing information and referrals to tenants in the field. 27 462 Racial and Ethnic Segregation • The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance allows for developers to be eligible for reduced City fees if projects exceed the minimum (10%) inclusionary requirements on-site. • In early 2020, the City established an Affordable Housing Overlay within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan that allows for ministerial (by-right) project approval and other development incentives for projects providing a minimum of 20% of the total units affordable to lower income households on-site. • Since 2016, the City has approved four density bonus projects. • In fiscal year 2015/16, the City established a tenant based rental assistance program (TBRA); program assistance includes security deposit and rental assistance paid directly to the landlord as well as housing relocation and stabilization services, case managements, outreach, housing search and placement, legal services, and financial management/credit repair. Density Bonus Incentives • The City of Huntington Beach has not updated its zoning code to reflect current state regarding density bonus. However, practically speaking, the City has implemented the state law regarding density bonus. • Since 2016,the City has received four density bonus requests; all four projects were approved. All four projects were reviewed for compliance with state density bonus law (including the two that have not been incorporated into the City's zoning code). City of Irvine Housing Discrimination • The City provided general housing services to address tenant-landlord issues. • The City provided fair housing education services in Irvine, including informational booths at community events, overview presentations to community-based organizations, resident associations and government agencies and more detailed workshops tailored to specific audiences such as housing consumers or housing providers. • The City and its fair housing provider, Fair Housing Foundation, investigated all allegations of housing discrimination to determine if discrimination has occurred and continue advising complainants of their rights and options under the law. Discriminatory Advertising • The City monitored local newspapers and online media outlets periodically to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. When identified, contact the individual or firm and provide fair housing education with the goal of eliminating this practice. • The City, through its fair housing provider,provided fair housing education services in Irvine, including the Certificate Management Training Certificate Management training classes for property owners, managers, management companies and real estate professionals. Reasonable Accommodations • The City provided fair housing education workshops such as the "Accommodation and Modification 101 Workshop"to Irvine housing providers on an annual basis. • The City provided access to Certificate Management classes for rental property owners and managers from Irvine on an annual basis. 28 463 Hate Crimes • Continue to monitor FBI data to determine if there are actions that may be taken by the City or its fair housing service provider to address potential discrimination linked to the bias motivations of hate crimes. • Continue to coordinate with various City and County housing,building and safety, health and sanitation, law enforcement and legal aid offices to maintain a comprehensive referral list of support services for victims of hate crimes or other violent crimes — inclusive of housing resources. Unfair Lending • The City monitors Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data to determine if there are significant shifts in the approval rates for applicants of different race or ethnicities from year to year. • The City provided/participated in homebuyer workshops in Irvine or the Orange County region to educate potential homebuyers on their rights under the Fair Housing Act with respect to lenders and fair lending practices. City of Laguna Niguel Fair Housin2 Education • FHCOC regionally conducted/participated in 10 education and outreach activities in Laguna Niguel,reaching a culturally and ethnically diverse audience. • 85 residents were made aware of fair housing laws and counseling services. • 2 landlord and 3 tenant workshops on fair housing were held in Laguna Niguel. • 4 workshops were conducted for consumers and providers in Laguna Nigel. • The FHCOC produced and provided written fair housing related materials in English, Spanish and Vietnamese to the City of Laguna Niguel. Fair Housing Enforcement • FHOC staff received 10 allegations of housing discrimination and opened 3 cases involving Laguna Niguel. FHCOC also conducted 18 paired, on-site, systemic tests for discriminatory rental housing practices in Laguna Niguel. • Housing Dispute Evaluation & Resolution —FHOC assisted 367 unduplicated households involving 1,151 issues from Laguna Niguel. Reasonable Accommodations • 3 inquiries regarding reasonable accommodations and modifications were received by FHCOC that resulted in casework beyond basic counseling. Web-based Outreach • FHCOC's multi-language website currently has an on-line housing discrimination complaint- reporting tool that generates an email to FHCOC. It is also used for other, non-discrimination, housing-related issues. The City of Laguna Niguel has a link to the FHCOC website where residents can access this information. 29 464 Discriminatory Advertising • Orange County rentals listed on Craigslist were monitored by FHCOC for discriminatory content(as permitted by staffing limitations). Discriminatory advertisements were flagged and FHCOC responded to these ads in order to inform the poster of possible discriminatory content. FHCOC also brought these ads to the attention of Craigslist via abuse@craigslist.org, or in some cases, the ad was referred to FHCOC's investigators for possible enforcement action. Other on-line rental sites(e.g.,OC Register, LA Times)were sporadically monitored;however, the lack of a text search function made monitoring of other sites less efficient. Without exception, identified problematic postings indicated restrictions with regard to children under the age of 18 or improper preference for seniors or `older adults' for housing opportunities that did not appear qualify as housing for older persons (age 55 and over). City of La Habra Housing Discrimination • La Habra worked with the Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) and previously worked with Fair Housing Council of Orange County to provide education and outreach activities, trainings to owners and managers, general counseling and referrals, and tenant-landlord walk-in clinics. Racial and Ethnic Segregation • La Habra has a grant/loan program available for low-income residents to receive assistance in the rehabilitation of owner-occupied properties. • La Habra's Zone Codes allow for use of density bonus in order to encourage developers to include units with restricted rents or reduced sales prices for low and moderate-income households. • La Habra along with the Fair Housing Council of Orange County(2015) and the Fair Housing Foundation (2016-current) provides information in both English and Spanish. La Habra also provides bilingual pay to employees that speak other non-English languages. Finally,La Habra has a contract with Links Sign Language & Interpreting Service to provide translation service for languages in which bilingual staff cannot provide in house including American Sign Language. • La Habra participates in the Cities Advisory Committee hosted by Orange County Housing Authority to discuss housing issues and housing choice vouchers within the County. • Although La Habra does not have a down payment assistance program, residents are referred to NeighborWorks of Orange County for down payment assistance. • La Habra also hosted a homebuyer education workshop with NeighborWorks of Orange County to provide education and training to first-time homebuyers, lenders and realtors. These workshops are marketed to areas of racial/ethnic concentrations within La Habra. Reasonable Accommodations • La Habra worked with Fair Housing Council of Orange County and now the Fair Housing Foundation to conduct seminars on reasonable accommodation. n=during Fiscal Year 2015 to provide these services. During Fiscal Year 2016 until current, Fair Housing Foundation provides these services for La Habra. 30 465 Discriminatory Advertising • La Habra worked with both Fair Housing Council of Orange County and the Fair Housing Foundation to monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. Unfair Lending • La Habra worked with NeighborWorks of Orange County to market first-time homebuyers counseling and other programs. NeighborWorks also provides lender trainings so that lenders make loans available to minorities and limited English-speaking persons. Density Bonus Incentives • La Habra's Density Bonus Ordinance was updated in 2010, and per City Attorney, the City's Ordinance remains consistent with State density bonus law. City of Lake Forest Fair Housing Education • FHCOC conducted/participated in 78 education and outreach activities. Individuals were made aware of fair housing laws and services • 3 landlord and 5 tenant workshops on fair housing were held in Lake Forest. Fair Housing Enforcement • FHCOC received 11 allegations of housing discrimination and opened 4 cases involved Lake Forest. FHCOC also conducted 18 paired, on-site, systemic tests for discriminatory rental housing practices in Lake Forest. • Housing Dispute Evaluation & Resolution —FHCOC assisted 314 unduplicated households addressed 983 issues from Lake Forest. Reasonable Accommodations • 1 inquiry regarding reasonable accommodations and modifications was received by FHCOC. • 4 landlord & 6 tenant fair housing workshops were held in Lake Forest. Topics covered included information regarding reasonable modifications/accommodations. Web-based Outreach • FHCOC's multi-language website has an online housing discrimination complaint-reporting tool. The City has a link to the FHCOC website where residents can access this information. Monitoring Advertising • A limited number of Orange County rentals listed on Craigslist were monitored by FHCOC. Discriminatory ads were flagged and FHCOC informed the poster of possible discriminatory content. FHCOC also brought ads to the attention of Craigslist or referred the ad to FHCOC's investigators for possible action. Other on-line sites (OC Register, LA Times) were sporadically monitored. Problematic postings indicated restrictions regarding children under the age of 18 or improper preference for seniors for housing that did not appear qualified as housing for persons age 55 and over. 31 466 Unfair Lending • Monitor Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data—analysis of 2008 HMDA data was included in the 2010-2015 Regional Al. Although subsequent data was available, lack of resources prevented FHCOC from updating the analysis. Analyses of HMDA data from 2008 to 2013, and other mortgage lending practices, were included in the 2016 Multi-Jurisdictional Al, in which Lake Forest was a participant. Racial and Ethnic Segregation • FHCOC produced and disseminated written fair housing related materials in English, Spanish and Vietnamese to the City of Lake Forest. Materials were placed in public areas of City Hall. FHCOC also took specific outreach efforts to immigrant populations in low-income neighborhoods. • Under its Fair Housing Initiatives Program grant, FHCOC targeted fair housing services to the disabled, minority groups, and limited English proficiency immigrants. • Through its foreclosure prevention activities FHCOC assisted individuals with limited English proficiency. City of Mission Viejo During the report period the City took the following actions in an effort to overcome the impediments to fair housing choice identified in the Al: • The City's website provides links to the City's fair housing provider. • The City continued to collaborate with the Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) to ensure comprehensive fair housing outreach is carried out in the community and to affirmatively market services: o Fair housing services was provided to 292 Mission Viejo households dealing with general housing issues and allegations of discrimination. 0 10 housing discrimination inquiries were received by the FHF. 4 inquires alleged discrimination based on a physical disability, I based on a mental disability, 1 based on race, 3 based on national origin, and 1 based on gender discrimination. 8 cases were counseled and resolved, but 2 cases were opened. Upon further investigation, 2 case were closed due to a lack of evidence. With respect to general housing issues addressed by the FHF, the majority of housing issues related rights and responsibilities, notices, and habitability issues. o The City worked closely with the FHF to provide certified fair housing training for housing industry realtors and property managers — 6 workshops were conducted during the report period. Additionally, 10 tenant and 10 landlord workshops were conducted in Mission Viejo. Additionally, four Fair Housing Walk-in Clinics were held in the City during the report period. Literature related to fair housing were distributed at these events, at City Hall, community centers, and community events. Literature was provided to the community in English and Spanish. o Due to the loss of significant revenue (e.g., redevelopment) and continued reductions in HUD funding, the City did not have the opportunity to collaborate with local lenders to target marketing efforts and services in Low- and Moderate-Income areas of the City. o The consultant preparing the updated multi jurisdictional Al provided technical assistance to cities that had identified public sector impediments such as: 32 467 ❑ Family definition inconsistent with fair housing laws; ❑ Lack of a definition of disability; ❑ Lack of a reasonable accommodation procedure; ❑ Lack of zoning regulations for special needs housing; ❑ Lack of a fair housing discussion in zoning and planning documents. City of Orange Housing Discrimination • During FY 2015-19, the Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted multi-faceted fair housing outreach activities within the City of Orange to provide fair housing education to tenants, landlords, rental property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Each activity was promoted utilizing multiple marketing channels including social media, event flyer distribution, and press releases with the local cable channel. Activities included: o Conducted 8 Tenant Workshops (2-Hours each) to 20 attendees total. o Conducted 8 Landlord Workshops (2-Hours each) to 43 attendees total. o Staffed 10 Community Event Informational Booths (8-Hours total) making fair housing information available to 2,820 attendees at the 2015 Friendly Center Health and Resource Fair, 2016 Friendly Center Resource Fair, 2016 25th Anniversary Health Fair, 2016 Orange Senior Wellness Fair, 2017 Rideshare & Health Fair, 2017 Health and Wellness Fair, 2017 Friendly Center Community Resource Fair, 2018 CalOptima's Community Resource Fair, 2018 City of Orange Rideshare & Health Fair, and 2019 CalOptima Community Resource Fair. o Conducted 29 FHF 101 presentations to civic leaders and community organizations including the Heart to Heart Collaborative, West Orange Elementary English Learner Advisory Committee Meeting, Office of Assembly member Tom Daly, Friendly Center, CDBG Program Committee, Women's Transitional Living Center OC Senior Roundtable Networking Group, Fristers, OC Adult Protective Services, Vietnamese American Human Services Network, Heart to Heart, Patriots and Paws, Realtors Group, Orange Children & Parents Together(OCPT), Planned Parenthood, El Modena Family Resource Center, Santiago Canyon College - Student Services, Youth Centers of Orange, Orange Code Enforcement, Rehabilitation Institute of So Cal, Mariposa Center, and OCPT Head Start. There was a total of 457 attendees. o Distributed 26,094 pieces of Fair Housing Literature in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese during outreach activities and mass mailings. • To promote education opportunities to rental housing providers, FHF conducted focused outreach efforts such as mailings, presentations, and trainings to 608 small property owners/landlords, and 203 Property Management Companies in the City of Orange promoting our fair housing certificate training. Thus, FHF conducted 9 Certificate Management Trainings (4 Hours each)to 65 attendees, all successfully passing the post Fair Housing Exam. • FHF provided ongoing Landlord/Tenant Counseling, Mediation, and Assistance to 894 Households resulting in 1334 Landlord/Tenant Issues. • FHF counseled and screened 79 households for potential fair housing violations,. These included allegations of housing discrimination based on Disability-48, Race-19, Familial Status -5, Age—2, Arbitrary— 1,National Origin—2, and Gender-2. FHF opened 26 33 468 Bonafide Fair Housing Cases based on: Arbitrary— 1, Disability -8, Gender -1, Familial Status-3, National Origin -1, and Race-12. FHF conducted 17 Onsite Tests, 207 Property Surveys, collected 52 Witness Statements, 315 documents, and 71 photos. Of these cases, 8 Sustained Allegations were successfully conciliated, 4 Inconclusive cases were provide educational information and provided additional options to the client, such as filing with DFEH or small claims, 14 No Evidence cases were provided educational information and provided additional options to the client, such as filing with DFEH or small claims. County of Orange During the 2015-19 reporting period the County of Orange Urban County Jurisdiction took the following actions(on its own or in cooperation with regional partners and the Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC)) to overcome impediments to fair housing choice identified in the regional Al: Fair Housing Community Education — During 2015-19, the FHCOC regionally conducted or participated in 467 education and/or outreach activities.Regionally,over 9,550 people were served by these activities. Through its various regional outreach efforts FHCOC distributed over 82,130 pieces of literature on fair housing, its services and other housing-related topics. Additionally, throughout Orange County FHCOC held 32 training sessions for rental property owners/managers. FHCOC presented 16 fair housing seminars, 70 general fair housing workshops. Fair Housing Enforcement—On a regional basis,FHCOC staff received 363 allegations of housing discrimination and opened 179 cases where the allegations seemed sufficiently meritorious to warrant further investigation and/or action. FHCOC also conducted 362 systemic onsite tests, either paired or `sandwich', 51 tests occurring in the jurisdiction and 215 other testing activities. Housing Dispute Evaluation & Resolution — On a regional basis, activities provided by FHCOC included assisting 7,664 unduplicated households addressing 24,766 issues, disputes and/or inquires. City of Rancho Santa Margarita Fair Housing Outreach and Education • FHCOC held one education and outreach activity in Rancho Santa Margarita(RSM),reaching a culturally and ethnically diverse audience. Fair Housing Enforcement • FHCOC staff received 6 allegations of housing discrimination and opened 4 cases involved housing in RSM. FHCOC also conducted 6 paired, on-site, systemic tests for discriminatory rental housing practices in RSM. 34 469 Housing Dispute Evaluation &Resolution • Services provided by FHCOC included assisting approximately 188 unduplicated Rancho Santa Margarita households. Racial and Ethnic Segregation • Literature regarding fair housing was distributed in English, Spanish &Vietnamese. • FHCOC's website has an online housing discrimination complaint reporting tool that generates an email to FHCOC. It is also used for other, non-discrimination,housing-related issues. RSM has a link to the FHCOC website where residents can access this information. • The City does not offer homebuyer assistance programs. Housing rehabilitation programs are advertised citywide. • City attended quarterly meetings the OCHA to discuss a variety of housing issues and assisted housing policies—FHCOC staff also attends quarterly meetings. Reasonable Accommodations • On a regional basis, 53 inquiries regarding reasonable accommodations and modifications were received by FHCOC that resulted in casework beyond basic counseling, including 1 from RSM. 8 households received accommodations. FHCOC assisted those denied an accommodation by filing an administrative housing discrimination complaint with the HUD Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. None of these cases involved RSM residents or properties. • 1 fair housing workshop was held in RSM. Topics covered included information regarding reasonable modifications/accommodations. Web-based Outreach • FHCOC's multi-language website currently has an on-line housing discrimination complaint- reporting tool that generates an email to FHCOC. The City of Rancho Santa Margarita has a link to the FHCOC website where residents can access this information. Monitorin.g On-line Advertising • As permitted by staffing limitations, Orange County rentals listed on Craigslist were monitored by FHCOC for discriminatory content. Discriminatory advertisements were flagged and brought to the attention of Craigslist. Some ads were referred to FHCOC's investigators for possible enforcement action. Other on-line rental sites (e.g., OC Register, LA Times) were intermittently monitored. Without exception, problematic postings indicated restrictions regarding children under the age of 18 or improper preference for `older adults' for housing opportunities that did not appear qualify as housing for individuals age 55 plus. Unfair Lending • FHCOC reports that ongoing monitoring of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data continues to be infeasible due to limited resources. Analysis of updated HMDA data from 2008 to 2013, as well as other mortgage lending practices, was included part of the 16 Orange County Cities Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2015), in which the City of RSM was a participant. 35 470 • Presently, the City of RSM does not offer homebuyer assistance programs; however, program staff provides referrals to the Orange County Affordable Housing Clearinghouse and NeighborWorks Orange County. • FHCOC continued efforts to promote housing affordability within Orange County. It provided services and outreach to organizations involved in the creation and preservation of affordable housing. These groups included the Kennedy Commission, Mental Health Association of Orange County, AIDS Services Foundation, Affordable Housing Clearinghouse, Jamboree Housing Corporation, Orange County Congregations Community Organizations, and Orange County Community Housing Corporation. Density Bonus Incentives • City Planning staff has confirmed that current zoning code is consistent with current State density bonus law. City of San Clemente Housing Discrimination • The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) provided fair housing services to 261 San Clemente households, most of whom were Hispanic. Issues included housing discrimination, notices received, habitability issues, security deposit disputes, and lease terms. • 5 housing discrimination inquiries were received and investigated, 4 related to physical or mental disability discrimination and I related to marital status. 2 were resolved, 2 cases were opened and then resolved. • FHF provided 4 property management trainings, 4 landlord trainings, 3 tenant workshops, and 4 walk-in clinics. • FHF participated in I 1 community events. Racial and Ethnic Segregation_ • FHF provided fair housing literature in both English and Spanish. • PSAs were aired on the City's cable station. • Participated in quarterly OCHA (PHA) Housing Advisory Committee meetings. Reasonable Accommodations • FHF conducted 3 landlord and 3 certified property managers trainings. City of Santa Ana Housing Discrimination • In partnership with the Orange County Fair Housing Council, Inc., the City conducted multi- faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies on an annual basis. Methods of outreach included workshops, informational booths,presentations to civic leaders and community groups, staff trainings, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. o The City contracted with the Orange County Fair Housing Council for up to $60,000 per year from 2015-2019 to conduct this outreach. The funds came from the City's administrative funds for the implementation of the CDBG Program. 36 471 • The City conducted focused outreach to small property owners/landlords; conducted property manager trainings on an annual basis and promoted fair housing certificate training. o The City held an annual property manager training in February or March of each year. o The City sent information on fair housing to property owners and managers who participate in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. o In August of each year,the City provided an annual mandatory training on fair housing for all employees in the City's Housing Division in partnership with the Orange County Fair Housing Council. • The City provided tenant counseling and referrals to address specific tenant-landlord issues. o Fair Housing programs and resources were included in all voucher issuance briefings and reasonable accommodation tracking logs updated. Communication was maintained with the Orange County Fair Housing Council, Public Law Center, and Legal Aid, to ensure proper referrals for anyone alleging discrimination. o A new DVD on Fair Housing was implemented for all voucher issuance meetings. Racial and Ethnic Segregation • The City coordinated with the Orange County Fair Housing Council to focus fair housing services, education/outreach, and additional testing in areas of racial/ethnic concentrations. o In addition to its fair housing services funded by the City, the Orange County Fair Housing Council, engaged in additional work to affirmatively further fair housing through its HUD Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) enforcement and education and outreach grants. o The City provided an annual mandatory training on fair housing for all employees in the City's Housing Division in partnership with the Orange County Fair Housing Council. • The City offered a variety of housing opportunities to enhance mobility among residents of all races and ethnicities. The City facilitated the provision of affordable housing throughout the community through: 1) the provision of financial assistance; 2) approving flexible development standards; 3) approving density bonuses; and 4) other zoning tools. o In regards to the provision of financial assistance, the City provided rental assistance through the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Specifically: ■ The City administered over$30 million per year in funding from HUD for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. The City also administered additional funding and vouchers as discussed below. ■ In FY 2018, SAHA received an award of 75 HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Project-Based Vouchers (HUD-VASH PBVs) under PIH Notice 2016-11. Following the award, SAHA issued an RFP and awarded the 75 HUD-VASH PBVs to Jamboree Housing for the development of Santa Ana Veterans Village. The Santa Ana Veterans Village is the development of 75 permanent supportive housing units in the City of Santa Ana for homeless veterans. The project includes an investment of 75 HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH)Project-Based Vouchers from the Santa Ana Housing Authority and $477,345 in HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds. The 62,248 square foot development will provide 70 one-bedroom units and 6 two-bedroom units (of which one will be a manager's unit) serving HUD- VASH eligible residents earning at or below 30% of the Area Median Income. All residents will receive wrap-around supportive services from the Department of Veterans Affairs and Step Up on Second as the service provider. Following the 37 472 execution of the PBV HAP Contract with Jamboree for this project, the Annual Contributions Contract for SAHA was increased from 2,699 to 2,774. ■ On October 9, 2017, SAHA submitted a Registration of Interest for one hundred(100) HUD-VASH vouchers in response to PIH Notice 2017-17. In FY 2019, SAHA, received an award of 100 HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Project-Based Vouchers (HUD-VASH PBVs) under PIH Notice 2017-17 and an additional award of 105 HUD-VASH tenant-based vouchers under PIH Notice 2018-07. Following the award of HUD-VASH PBVs under PIH Notice 2017-17, SAHA issued an RFP and committed the 100 HUD-VASH PBVs to three affordable housing projects including: 8 HUD-VASH PBVs committed to National CORE for the development of the Legacy Square project which will include 93 total units of which 33 will be permanent supportive housing; 3 HUD-VASH PBVs committed to HomeAid Orange County for the development of the FX Residences project which will include 11 units of permanent supportive housing; and 89 HUD-VASH PBVs committed to Jamboree Housing for the rehabilitation of the North Harbor Village project to create 89 permanent supportive housing units for qualified and eligible homeless veterans. In September 2018, SAHA also received an award of 50 Mainstream Vouchers following a competitive application process under 2017 Mainstream Voucher Program NOFA FR-6100-N-43. ■ In November 2019, SAHA received an additional award of seventy (70) Mainstream Vouchers following a competitive application process under the Mainstream Voucher Program NOFA FR-6300-N-43. In November 2019, SAHA also received an award of twenty-five (25)Foster Youth to Independence Tenant-Protection Vouchers following a competitive application process under Notice PIH 2O19 -20. o In regards to financial assistance, flexible development standards, density bonuses; and other zoning tools, the City approved various forms of financial assistance (Housing Successor Agency, CDBG,HOME,Project-Based Vouchers, Inclusionary Housing Funds) and variances to development standards and density bonus agreements for affordable housing projects. • In addition, the City also approved a Density Bonus Agreement for each of the following affordable housing projects: o Villa Court Senior Apartments — a 418-unit affordable rental project at 2222 East First Street. o First Point I and II - a 552-unit affordable rental project at 2110, 2114, and 2020 East First Street o First American — a 220-unit residential project which will include 11 affordable units at 114 and 117 East Fifth Street. o A Density Bonus Agreement was also approved for the Legacy Square project mentioned above—a 92-unit affordable rental project at 609 North Spurgeon Street. • The City promoted equal access to information on the availability of affordable housing by providing information in multiple languages, and through methods that have proven successful in outreaching to the community, particularly those hard-to-reach groups. o The City provided this information in the office, on it's website and in informational materials provided to residents. • The City affirmatively marketed first-time homebuyer and/or housing rehabilitation programs to low- and moderate-income areas, and areas of racial/ethnic concentration. 38 473 o The City held a first-time homebuyer workshop on a quarterly basis and promoted the information widely to all residents in the City. • The City worked collaboratively with local housing authorities to ensure affirmative fair marketing plans and de-concentration policies are implemented. o The City convened a quarterly meeting of local housing authorities to discuss efforts and initiatives to reduce homelessness. Reasonable Accommodations • Through the Orange County Fair Housing Council, Inc., the City continued to provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of necessary reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. o The City held an annual property manager training in February or March of each year. o The City sent information on fair housing to property owners and managers who participate in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. o The City provided an annual mandatory training on fair housing for all employees in the City's Housing Division in partnership with the Orange County Fair Housing Council. o Through its HUD Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) grant Orange County Fair Housing Council actively assists disabled persons in requesting and obtaining reasonable accommodations or modifications. Discriminatory Advertising • Through a contract with the Orange County Fair Housing Council, the City periodically monitored local print publications and online platforms to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. When identified, the Orange County Fair Housing Council contacted the individual or firm and provided fair housing education or took appropriate enforcement action. Hate Crimes • The City monitored FBI data to determine if any hate crimes are housing-related and if there are actions that may be taken by the City. The Orange County Fair Housing Council was available to address any possible issues of housing discrimination linked to the bias motivations of hate crimes. • The City coordinated with various City and County housing, building and safety, health and sanitation, law enforcement and legal aid offices to maintain a comprehensive referral list of support services for victims of hate crimes or other violent crimes —inclusive of housing resources. o For FY 2016, the Santa Ana Housing Authority(SAHA): ■ Updated the definition of the Violence Against Women Act to include sexual assault. ■ Coordinated with the County of Orange Domestic Violence office for referrals and to ensure applicants and participants are informed on all available services. ■ Provided information on VAWA in regards to owner/tenant responsibilities and evictions to all program applicants and participants and also mailed to all owners. ■ SAHA's HCV Administrative Plan details restrictions on terminating assistance for victims of domestic violence, as well as guidelines on terminating assistance for perpetrators of domestic violence. ■ SAHA discussed VAWA with staff at least once annually. 39 474 o For FY 2017, FY 2018, FY 2019, and FY 2020, SAHA: ■ In accordance with the Violence against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013), SAHA implemented an Emergency Transfer Plan for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking. ■ Implemented HUD-5380, Notice of Occupancy Rights under the Violence Against Women Act, HUD-5382, Certification of Domestic Violence,Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking, and Alternate Documentation, and HUD-5383, Emergency Transfer Request for Certain Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking. ■ Coordinated with the County of Orange Domestic Violence office for referrals and to ensure applicants and participants are informed on all available services. ■ Provided information on VAWA in regards to owner/tenant responsibilities and evictions to all program applicants and participants; e-mailed the information to all owners. ■ SAHA trained staff on VAWA at least once annually. Staff also proactively provided information on VAWA to any program participant or applicant who may show any evidence that information on VAWA is needed. Unfair Lending • As resources permitted, the City monitored HMDA data annually using the 2013 HMDA analysis as a benchmark. • The City, through its contract with the Orange County Fair Housing Council, had access to resources to identify and/or address any potential issues regarding redlining,predatory lending and other illegal lending activities. Through HUD-funded enforcement activities, Orange County Fair Housing Council has engaged in regional paired pre-application testing to uncover possibly discriminatory mortgage lending practices. In addition, the city reviewed their agreements annually to make sure that increased and comprehensive services are being provided, and that education and outreach efforts are expanded and affirmatively marketed in low and moderate income and racial concentrated areas. • The City ensured that minority groups have access and knowledge of City programs, supportive services by providing information as widely as possible to the community in multiple languages. • The City coordinate with local lenders to expand outreach efforts to first time homebuyers in minority neighborhoods by providing quarterly workshops to first time homebuyers in partnership with NeighborWorks Orange County. • The City affirmatively marketed first-time homebuyer and/or housing rehabilitation programs in neighborhoods with high denial rates, high minority population concentrations and limited English-speaking proficiency to help increase loan approval rates by providing quarterly workshops to first time homebuyers in partnership with NeighborWorks Orange County and providing information as widely as possible to the community in multiple languages. Zoning Codes • The City complied with current State density bonus law even though the municipal code was not updated to reflect current State law for the following projects: o Villa Court Senior Apartments, 418-unit affordable rental project. o First Point I and II, a 552-unit affordable rental project. 40 475 o First American , a 220-unit residential project with 11 affordable units. o Legacy Square, a 92-unit affordable rental project. City of Tustin Housing Discrimination • Although the 2015-2020 Al documentation refers to the Fair Housing Council of OC to provide fair housing assistance, the City of Tustin contracts with the Fair Housing Foundation to provide such services.During the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year,the Fair Housing Foundation assisted the City of Tustin with combatting housing discrimination through managing twelve (12) allegation cases and one (1) discrimination case for Tustin residents, providing services to those individuals throughout the case management process. They also provided ample fair housing education and outreach to further prevent discrimination, assisting 127 Tustin landlords/tenants who were provided with either landlord/tenant counseling, mediation, UD assistance, and/or referral services during the last fiscal year. Overall, the Fair Housing Foundation's outreach efforts assisted 672 individuals within City of Tustin limits during the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year. Discriminatory Advertising • The City of Tustin partners with the Fair Housing Foundation to address issues such as discriminatory advertising. As allowed by resources, FHF reviews advertising for Orange County rentals and Los Angeles County rentals listed in media such as The Orange County Register, La Opinion, Los Angeles Sentinel, local weekly newspapers, Craigslist and The Penny Saver for discriminatory content. Potential discriminatory advertisements were referred for further investigation and possible enforcement action. Reasonable Accommodations • Similarly, the City of Tustin has actively contracted and engaged with the Fair Housing Foundation to provide educational services to owners and managers of apartment complexes on why this practice is unlawful. The Fair Housing Foundation partners with a wide variety of agencies, notably the Tustin Effective Apartment Managers (TEAM) group to provide resources and services directed to affirmatively furthering fair housing. The Fair Housing Foundation has also implemented the "Accommodation & Modification 101 Workshop" to continue strengthening the bonds between the Fair Housing Foundation and housing providers, and to continue to provide education on their fair housing rights. The housing providers who attended this workshop stated that they had a better understanding and a greater sense of knowledge and confidence in knowing the difference in identifying a reasonable an unreasonable accommodation or modification request. As a result of this workshop, housing providers have a better understanding of their responsibilities and disabled residents or rental home seekers will most likely benefit from having requests reviewed and evaluated in a fair manner. Hate Crimes • The Fair Housing Foundation has not received notification of any hate crimes within the City of Tustin during the recent reporting period. When the Fair Housing Foundation is contacted by a victim of a hate crime occurring at their place of residence, the Fair Housing Foundation 41 476 refers them to the O.C. Human Relations Commission, and assists with their fair housing complaint. The Fair Housing Foundation assists by counseling, completing an intake, opening a case, and investigating the allegation(s). Unfair Lending • As part of its outreach efforts the Fair Housing Foundation informs individuals and organizations of its services, which include housing counseling for individuals seeking to become ready for a home purchase. The Fair Housing Foundation participates in numerous education and/or outreach activities, reaching a culturally and ethnically diverse audience, in Cities of Costa Mesa,Mission Viejo, San Clemente,and Tustin)which they inform participants of fair housing laws and of their counseling services City of Westminster Education and Outreach Activities • Progress: The Fair Housing Foundation(FHF)provided a comprehensive,extensive and viable education and outreach program. The purpose of this program was to educate managers, tenants, landlords, owners,realtors and property management companies on fair housing laws, to promote media and consumer interest, and to secure grass roots involvement within the communities. FHF specifically aimed its outreach to persons and protected classes that are most likely to encounter housing discrimination. • The FHF developed new, dynamic, and more effective approaches to bringing fair housing information to residents; including brochures that focused on specific fair housing issues, including discrimination against people with disabilities, discrimination based on national origin, sexual orientation, discrimination against families with children, and sexual harassment. All of FHF's announcements and literature was available in various languages. Reasonable Accommodations — On a regional basis, 52 inquiries regarding reasonable accommodations and modifications were received by FHCOC that resulted in casework beyond basic counseling. Web-based Outreach - FHCOC's website currently has an on-line housing discrimination complaint-reporting tool that generates an email to FHCOC. Monitoring On-line Advertising — Orange County rentals listed on Craigslist were monitored by FHCOC for discriminatory content (as permitted by staffing limitations). Discriminatory advertisements were flagged and FHCOC responded to these ads in order to inform the poster of possible discriminatory content. Monitor Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data - Ongoing monitoring of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data continues to be infeasible due to limited resources at FHCOC. During 2015-19, FHCOC continued efforts to promote housing affordability within Orange County. These groups included the Kennedy Commission, Mental Health Association of Orange County,Aids Services Foundation,Affordable Housing Clearinghouse,Jamboree Housing Corporation, Orange County Community Housing Corporation, Innovative Housing Opportunities, and Orange County Congregations Community Organizations, among others. 42 477 V. FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS A. Demographic Summary This Demographic Summary provides an overview of data concerning race and ethnicity, sex, familial status, disability status, limited English proficiency,national origin,and age. The data included reflects the composition of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Region, Orange County itself, and thirty-four jurisdictions within it. 1. Describe demographic patterns in the jurisdiction and region, and describe trends overtime(since 1990). Orange County is located in Southern California, just south of Los Angeles, with some of the county touching the Pacific Ocean. The county has a plurality white population, with sizable Hispanic and Asian populations. Table 1.1: Demographics,Orange County (Oranounty,CA CDBG;'ESG) gqgm geC r x(Los Angeles Long Beach `' Jurisdiction :Analieim,CA`Re'`ion Race/Ethn>ci # % ' T# 0/40 White,Non-Hispanic 1,306,398 41.40% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 49,560 1.57% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 1,079,172 34.20% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Is.,Non- Hispanic 624,373 19.78% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 6,584 0.21% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 15,367 2.71% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 1,174 0.21% 30,960 0.24% Np NatlOnal Orl In ii,101";W e #1 country of origin Mexico 345,637 11.21% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Vietnam 146,672 4.75% Philippines 288,529 2.38% 43 country of origin Korea 65,579 2.13% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Philippines 53,707 1.74% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% China excl. Hong Kong #5 country of origin &Taiwan 33,226 1.01% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country oforigin India 31,063 1.01% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Iran 27,718 1.01% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% 48 country of origin Taiwan 22,918 0.90% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin El Salvador 17,785 0.58% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country oforigin Canada 14,179 0.46% India 79,608 0.66% Limited En lish Proficient = #1 LEP Language Spanish 30,862 5.69% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Korean 9,810 1.81% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Vietnamese 9,411 1.73% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Chinese 5,868 1.08% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Persian 2,230 0.41% Armenian 872 201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Tagalog 2,146 0.40% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% 43 478 #7 LEP Language Japanese 1,167 0.22% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Arabic 1,054 0.19% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Urdu 644 0.12% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Russian 587 0.11% Arabic 23,275 0.19% 'Disability-, Hearing difficulty 81,297 2.59% 81,297 2.59% Vision difficulty 51,196 1.63% 51,196 1.63% Cognitive difficulty 99,317 3.16% 99,317 3.16% Ambulatory difficulty 133,232 4.24% 133,232 4.24% Self-care difficulty 61,615 1.96% 61,615 1.96% Independent living difficulty 104,705 3.34% 104,705 3.34% ,,. �I Nd ni i:4, ii ': a lid h9 Sex. ' h Male 274,258 48.38% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 292,676 51.62% 6,500,403 50.67% '!1, Under 18 132,454 23.36% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 349,144 61.58% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 85,336 15.05% 1,415,376 11.03% Families with children 65,179 44.98% 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Orange County has a plurality non-Hispanic White population (41.40%), with large populations of Hispanics (34.20%) and non-Hispanic Asians (19.78%). Black residents comprise only 1.57% of the population, and the non-Hispanic Native American population is 0.21%.The percentage of multi-race non- Hispanic population is 2.71%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.21%. National Origin The most common country of origin within the County is Mexico, with 11.21% of the county population comprised of residents from Mexico.The remaining most countries of origin are,in order,Vietnam,Korea, Philippines, China excluding Hong Kong& Taiwan, India, Iran, Taiwan, El Salvador, and Canada. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in the County with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese, Persian, Tagalog, Japanese, Arabic,Urdu, and Russian. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by county residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive difficulty, hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex County residents are 49.33%male and 50.67% female. 44 479 Age The majority of county residents are between 18-64,with 61.58%of residents falling in this group. 23.36% of county residents are under 18, and 15.05% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 44.98% of the total county population. Table 1.2: Demo ra 3hic Trends,Orange County 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 333,978 76.15% 343,270 65.91% 327,498 57.77% Black,Non- Hispanic 5,751 1.31% 9,452 1.81% 11,226 1.98% Hispanic 59,040 13.46% 92,933 17.84% 119,893 21.15% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 37,583 8.57% 68,197 13.09% 103,614 18.28% Native American, Non-Hispanic 1,445 0.33% 3,462 0.66% 3,137 0.55% National Origin Foreign-born 69,203 15.77% 106,966 20.54% 127,864 22.55% LEP Limited English Proficiency 36,786 8.38% 59,765 11.48% 68,436 12.07% Sex Male 213,945 48.75% 251,328 48.27% 274,258 48.38% Female 224,946 51.25% 269,332 51.73% 292,676 51.62% Age Under 18 98,846 22.52% 132,717 25.49% 132,454 23.36% 18-64 281,911 64.23% 317,214 60.93% 349,144 61.58% 65+ 58,135 13.25% 70,729 13.58% 85,336 15.05% Family Type Families with children 51,109 44.18% 51,615 48.55% 65,179 44.98% 45 480 Table 2.1: Demographics,Aliso Viejo (Ahso V�e�o' Orange Count ` _ (L'os Angeles Long Beach tx "C Anaheim$ A :R xr` ,`Jurisdiction � - �. Race/Ethmci � s -#,phi�i Mi"' ��O # White,Non-Hispanic 30,503 60.17% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 856 1.69% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 8,932 17.62% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 7831 15.45% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non- Hispanic 218 0.43% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 2,274 4.49% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 77 0.15% 30,960 0.24% National'Orl In #1 country of origin Mexico 1,530 13.90% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% 42 country of origin Iran 1,308 11.89% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin Philippines 894 8.12% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Korea 870 7.91% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Vietnam 749 6.81% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin India 738 6.71% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China, 562 excluding China excl. Hong Kong Hong Kong& #7 country of origin and Taiwan 5.11% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Canada 290 2.64% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Taiwan 252 2.29% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country oforigin Peru 233 2.12% India 79,608 0.66% Linited'English Proficienc Spanish or 943 Spanish #1 LEP Language Creole 2.04% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Korean 545 1.18% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Persian 524 1.14% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Vietnamese 339 0.74% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% 45 LEP Language Tagalog 133 0.29% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Japanese 127 0.28% Ta alo 86,691 0.72% Other Asian 83 #7 LEP Language languages 0.18% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Russian 77 0.17% Japanese 32,457 0.27% French(incl. 69 Patois, #9 LEP Language Cajun) 0.15% Russian 28,358 0.23% Other Pacific 61 Island #10 LEP Language languages 0.13% Arabic 23,275 0.19% .lie i 41 b }�i i �I I�Iiii it n, �i� "B r•, Dlsablh ( nl G°k" q Hearing difficulty 914 1.8% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 503 1.0% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 1,140 2.4% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 1,148 2.4% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 669 1.4% 312,961 2.60% 46 481 Independent living difficulty 913 2.4% 496,105 4.13% --Sex,zw _ - Male 23,780 46.94% 6,328,43 449.33% Female 26,881 53.06% 6,500,403 50.67% Under 18 12,868 25.40% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 33,682 66.49% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 4,111 8.11% 1,415,376 11.03% Fa'inilial Status- �Families with children 13,010 69.7% 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Aliso Viejo has a majority White population (53.85%), with significant populations of Hispanic (17.62%) and Asian or Pacific Islander (15.45%) residents as well. Black and Native American populations are extremely low in the city, at 1.69% and 0.43% respectively. National Origin The most common countries of origin for foreign-born residents in the city are Mexico,at 13.90%and Iran, at 11.89%. The remaining most common countries for foreign-born residents, in order, are the Philippines, Korea,Vietnam, India, China excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan, Canada, Taiwan, and Peru. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Aliso Viejo with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Spanish or Spanish Creole. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Korean, Persian, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Japanese, other Asian Languages, Russian, French, and Other Pacific Island Languages. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Aliso Viejo residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, cognitive difficulty, independent living difficulty,hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex Aliso Viejo residents are 46.94% male and 53.06% female. Age The majority of Aliso Viejo residents are between 18-64, with 66.49% of residents falling in this group. 25.40% of city residents are under 18, and 8.11% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 69.7% of Aliso Viejo's population. 47 482 Table 3.1: Demographics,Anaheim ;F (Anaheim,CA'CDBG,HOME, {Los Angeles—Long Beach ESG)Jurisdiction faa* ! Anaheim,CA Re 'ion Race/Ethnici # T 9# % White,Non-Hispanic 87,991 25.21% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 7,843 2.25% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 187,931 53.85% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 57,829 16.57% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 401 0.11% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 6,137 1.82% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 1 623 1 0.18% 30,960 0.24% National #1 country oforigin Mexico 68,225 19.55% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Vietnam 13,233 3.79% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin Philippines 8,968 2.57% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Korea 5,674 1.63% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin India 2,725 0.78% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Guatemala 2,674 0.77% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin El Salvador 2,646 0.76% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% China excl. Hong Kong #8 country of origin &Taiwan 1,788 0.51% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Iran 1,313 0.38% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country oforigin Taiwan 1,001 0.29% India 79,608 0.66% Limiied n-glish--.-P- roficiency. c #1 LEP Language Spanish 63,760 20.31% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Vietnamese 7,273 2.32% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Korean 4,117 1.31% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Tagalog 2,591 0.83% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Chinese 2,390 0.76% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Arabic 1,276 0.41% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% 47 LEP Language Persian 644 0.21% Persian 41,051 0.34% Other Indic 48 LEP Language Language 533 0.17% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Gujarati 481 0.15% Russian 28,358 0.23% Other Indo- European #10 LEP Language Language 1 479 1 0.15% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Disabili .,, .' Hearing difficulty 7,308 2.11% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 4,967 1.43% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 11,360 3.27% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 15,684 4.52% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 7,324 2.11% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 12,332 3.55% 496,105 4.13% wSex Male 168,317 49.85% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 169,326 50.15% 6,500,403 50.67% 48 483 A e Under 18 92,481 27.39% 92,481 27.39% 18-64 213,574 63.25% 213,574 63.25% 65+ 31,589 9.36% 31,589 9.36% _ ' OP' i. Familial Status = µ, Families with children 38,282 51.43% 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Anaheim has a majority Hispanic population (53.85%), with large populations of non-Hispanic Whites (25.21%) and non-Hispanic Asian residents (16.57%). This represents a much larger Hispanic population than the county as a whole (34.20%). Black residents comprise 2.25% of the population, and the non- Hispanic Native American population is 0.11%. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 1.82%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.18%. National Origin The most common country of origin for those in Anaheim is Mexico, with 19.55% of the city population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin are, in order, Vietnam,Philippines,Korea,India, Guatemala,El Salvador, China excluding Hong Kong&Taiwan,Iran, and Taiwan. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Anaheim with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Vietnamese, Korean, Tagalog, Chinese, Arabic,Persian, other Indic Languages, Gujarati, and Other Indo-European Languages. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Anaheim residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive difficulty, self-care difficulty,hearing difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex Anaheim residents are 49.85%male and 50.15% female. Age The majority of Anaheim residents are between 18-64, with 63.25% of residents falling in this group. 27.39% of city residents are under 18, and 9.36% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 51.43% of Anaheim's population. 49 484 Table 3.2: Demo ra ihic Trends,Anaheim 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend- Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 151,166 56.06% 117,551 35.85% 93,266 27.62% Black,Non- Hispanic 6,098 2.26% 8,791 2.68% 9,222 2.73% Hispanic 86,359 32.03% 153,420 46.78% 177,540 52.58% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 24,457 9.07% 43,642 13.31% 55,306 16.38% Native American, Non-Hispanic 975 0.36% 2,007 0.61% 1,532 0.45% National Origin Foreign-born 76,795 28.49% 123,353 37.62% 127,512 37.77% LEP Limited English Proficiency 56,117 20.82% 93,273 28.45% 92,680 27.45% Sex Male 136,823 50.75% 164,072 50.04% 168,317 49.85% Female 132,766 49.25% 163,809 49.96% 169,326 50.15% Age Under 18 70,689 26.22% 101,574 30.98% 92,481 27.39% 18-64 176,977 65.65% 199,651 60.89% 213,574 63.25% 65+ 21,923 8.13% 26,656 8.13% 31,589 9.36% Family Type Families with children 32,321 50.08% 37,351 57.02% 38,282 51.43% Table 4.1: Demographics,Buena Park Pr� ��"h' (Buena Park;CA��CDBG) Angeles—Long Beach;— ., � ,J u",r .. v,.urisdiction� Anaheim" Re ion Race/Ethmci # " `""""' % White,Non-Hispanic 20,670 24.90% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 2,685 3.23% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 33,180 39.97% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 24,447 29.45% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 201 0.24% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 1,794 2.24% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 135 0.17% 30,960 0.24% 50 485 National ii In V ,t OIiP ti• m 9r'x$ #1 country of origin Mexico 9,682 11.66% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Korea 6,168 7.43% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin Philippines 4,998 6.02% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin India 1,585 1.91% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Vietnam 1,163 1.40% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Peru 623 0.75% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Thailand 499 0.60% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin El Salvador 1 436 1 0.53% 1 Iran 1 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Taiwan 369 0.44% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Afghanistan 368 0.44% India 79,608 0.66% Limited En hsli4Proficienc _ '4�� _ "' ,�. ,� #1 LEP Language Spanish 11,829 15.49% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Korean 6,120 8.01% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Tagalog 1,848 2.42% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Chinese 749 0.98% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Vietnamese 499 0.65% Armenian 87,201 0.72% Other Indic #6 LEP Language Language 410 0.54% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Thai 409 0.54% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Gujarati 380 0.50% Japanese 32,457 0.27% Other Pacific Island #9 LEP Language Language 276 0.36% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Urdu 213 0.28% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Q11,1. ,1 ii� " ii��l��l�hi iflh i Hearing difficulty 2,403 2.90% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 1,387 1.68% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 2,290 2.77% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 4,242 5.13% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 1,843 2.23% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 2,793 3.38% 496,105 4.13% ex _ i Male 39,425 49.25% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 40,622 1 50.75% 6,500,403 50.67% � i�. P i^r. rail-1� - �� i .I �i�r i A e t is Iili llil 1 Under 18 20,320 25.39% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 51,322 64.11% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 8,404 10.50% 1,415,376 11.03% -Familial=Status_ f _ Families with children 8,916 46.83% 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Buena Park has a plurality Hispanic population (39.97%), with large populations of non-Hispanic Asian residents(29.45%) and non-Hispanic Whites(24.90%). Black residents comprise 3.23% of the population, and non-Hispanic Native American population is 0.24%. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 2.24%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.17%. 51 486 National Origin The most common country of origin for Buena Park residents is Mexico,with 11.66%of the city population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin are,in order,Korea, Philippines, India, Vietnam, Peru,Thailand, El Salvador,Taiwan, and Afghanistan. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Buena Park with Limited English Proficiency(LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Korean, Tagalog, Chinese,Vietnamese, Other Indic Languages, Thai, Gujarati, Other Pacific Island Languages, and Urdu. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Buena Park residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, hearing difficulty, cognitive difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex Buena Park residents are 49.25%male and 50.75% female. Age The majority of Buena Park residents are between 18-64, with 64.11% of residents falling in this group. 25.39% of city residents are under 18, and 10.50% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 46.83% of Buena Park's population. Table 4.2: Demographic Trends,Buena Park 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # ' % # % White,Non- Hispanic 39,286 58.15% 29,077 37.27% 21,298 26.61% Black,Non- Hispanic 1,774 2.63% 3,290 4.22% 3,272 4.09% Hispanic 16,909 25.03% 26,955 34.55% 32,288 40.34% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 9,116 13.49% 17,392 22.29% 1 22,574 28.20% Native American, Non-Hispanic 327 0.48% 642 0.82% 431 0.54% National Origin Foreign-born 15,358 22.79% 26,072 33.42% 29,903 37.36% 52 487 LEP Limited English Proficiency 9,978 14.80% 17,635 22.61% 20,822 26.01% Sex Male 33,549 49.78% 38,549 49.42% 39,425 49.25% Female 33,852 50.22% 39,460 50.58% 40,622 50.75% Age Under 18 17,690 26.25% 23,458 30.07% 20,320 25.39% 18-64 44,385 65.85% 47,533 60.93% 51,322 64.11% 65+ 5,325 7.90% 7,018 9.00% 8,404 10.50% Family Ty e Families with children 8,496 49.42% 8,540 53.86% 8,916 46.83% Table 5.1: Demographics,Costa Mesa (Costa,Mesa CA CDBG,HOME) (Los Angeles Long:Beach r_ ..tMJunsihction , , Anaheim;�CA Re Race/Ethnlcl 1 air: % # White,Non-Hispanic 55,764 49.38% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 1,790 1.59% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 41,201 36.48% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 10,613 9.40% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 208 0.18% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 2,725 2.48% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 246 0.22% 30,960 0.24% National Ori in #1 country of origin Mexico 14,995 13.28% Mexico 14,995 13.28% 42 country of origin El Salvador 1,418 1.26% El Salvador 1,418 1.26% #3 country of origin Vietnam 1,351 1.20% Vietnam 1,351 1.20% #4 country of origin Philippines 1,219 1.08% Philippines 1,219 1.08% #5 country of origin Japan 954 0.84% Japan 954 0.84% #6 country of origin Guatemala 684 0.61% Guatemala 684 0.61% #7 country of origin Iran 620 0.55% Iran 620 0.55% #8 country of origin Canada 566 0.50% Canada 566 0.50% #9 country of origin India 501 0.44% India 501 0.44% #10 country of origin Korea 477 0.42% Korea 477 0.42% Limiteil.En lish;ProFicienc #1 LEP Language Spanish 12,486 12.05% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Vietnamese 835 0.81% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Japanese 444 0.43% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Chinese 292 0.28% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Tagalog 205 0.20% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Korean 184 0.18% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% 53 488 Other Pacific Island #7 LEP Language Language 122 0.12% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Cambodian 107 0.10% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Arabic 97 0.09% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language German 82 0.08% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Disabili - Hearing difficulty 2,462 2.19% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 1,967 1.75% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 3,899 3.47% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 4,401 3.91% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 1,737 1.54% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 3,278 2.91% 1 496,105 4.13% Sex Male 55,886 1 50.87% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 53,971 49.13% 6,500,403 F 50.67% Under 18 23,729 21.6o%T 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 75,989 69.17% 1 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 10,139 9.23% 1,415,376 11.03% Ta'inilial Status r ... Families with children 11,152 48.03% 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Costa Mesa has a near-majority White population(49.38%), with a large population of Hispanic residents (36.48%) and a sizable population of non-Hispanic Asian residents (9.40%). Black residents comprise 1.59%of the population,and non-Hispanic Native American population is 0.18%.The percentage of multi- race non-Hispanic population is 2.48%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.22%. National Origin The most common country of origin for Costa Mesa residents is Mexico,with 13.28%of the city population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin are, in order, El Salvador, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Guatemala, Iran, Canada, India, and Korea. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Costa Mesa with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, Tagalog, Korean, Other Pacific Island Languages, Cambodian,Arabic, and German. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Costa Mesa residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, cognitive difficulty, independent living difficulty,hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, and self-care difficulty. Sex Costa Mesa residents are 50.87%male and 49.13% female. 54 489 Age The majority of Costa Mesa residents are between 18-64, with 69.17% of residents falling in this group. 21.60% of city residents are under 18, and 9.23% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 48.03% of Costa Mesa's population. Table 5.2: Demographic Trends,Costa Mesa 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 70,120 72.26% 62,285 56.96% 56,901 51.80% Black,Non- Hispanic 1,142 1.18% 1,653 1.51% 1,879 1.71% Hispanic 19,300 19.89% 34,569 31.61% 39,405 35.87% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 6,024 6.21% 9,204 8.42% 10,680 9.72% Native American, Non-Hispanic 331 0.34% 771 0.71% 673 0.61% National Origin Foreign-born 20,844 21.50% 31,702 28.98% 29,598 26.94% LEP Limited English Proficiency 12,652 13.05% 21,813 19.94% 17,533 15.96% Sex Male 49,424 50.97% 55,859 51.07% 55,886 50.87% Female 47,542 49.03% 1 53,518 48.93% 53,971 49.13% Age Under 18 18,841 19.43% 25,930 23.71% 23,729 21.60% 18-64 70,221 72.42% 74,185 67.83% 75,989 69.17% 65+ 7,905 8.15% 9,261 8.47% 10,139 9.23% Family Type Families with children 9,631 43.63% 10,809 50.61% 11,152 48.03% 55 490 Table 6.1: Demographics,Fountain Valle (Fountain Valley, -A,--CDBG) (Los Angeles .Long Beach'' �� i A''heiin,,CA Re"done a ! iE Jurisdictionti H �w� i, ,, 'Rice/Ethnics White,Non-Hispanic 26,433 46.67% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 256 0.45% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 9418 16.63% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 18,565 32.78% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 69 0.12% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 1,601 2.88% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 113 0.20% 30,960 0.24% SL #1 country of origin Vietnam 7,556 13.34% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Mexico 1,490 2.63% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country oforigin Taiwan 696 1.23% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Korea 566 1.00% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Philippines 521 0.92% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Japan 485 0.86% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Egypt 454 0.80% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% China, excl. Hong Kong #8 country of origin and Taiwan 408 0.72% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin India 402 0.71% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Canada 341 0.60% India 79,608 0.66% Limited En lish Proficienc #1 LEP Language Vietnamese 4,989 9.32% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Chinese 1,337 2.50% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Spanish 1,251 2.34% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Korean 361 0.67% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Japanese 225 0.42% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Arabic 203 0.38% Ta alog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Tagalog 182 0.34% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Persian ill 0.21% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Armenian 78 0.15% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language German 71 0.13% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Disabili Hearing difficulty 1,842 3.26% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 685 1.21% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 2,394 4.24% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 1 3,093 5.48% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 1,266 2.24% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 2,261 1 4.01% 1 496,105 4.13% �i SCX Male 27,076 48.76% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 28,451 51.24% 6,500,403 50.67% 42 Under 18 11,794 21.24% 3,138,867 24.47% 56 491 18-64 34,068 1 61.35% 1 8,274,5941 64.56% 65+ 9,664 17.40% 1,415,376 11.03% IP Familial:Status Families with children 5,656 39.90% 1 1,388,594—T 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Fountain Valley has a near-majority White population (46.67%), with a large population of non-Hispanic Asian residents (32.78%) and a sizable population of Hispanic residents (16.63%). This represents a large increase in the percentage of non-Hispanic Asian residents as compared to Orange County overall(19.78%) and a large decrease in the percentage of Hispanic residents as compared to the County (34.20%). Black residents comprise 1.57% of the population, and non-Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.21% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 2.71%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.21%. National Origin The most common country of origin for Fountain Valley residents is Mexico, with 11.21% of the city population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin are, in order, Vietnam, Korea, Philippines, China (excluding Hong Kong & Taiwan), India, Iran, Taiwan, El Salvador, and Canada. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Fountain Valley with Limited English Proficiency(LEP) is Vietnamese—different than the County's most prominent LEP language (Spanish). The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are,in order, Chinese, Spanish,Korean,Japanese,Arabic, Tagalog, Persian,Armenian, and German. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Fountain Valley residents is ambulatory difficulty.The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, cognitive difficulty, independent living difficulty,hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex Fountain Valley residents are 48.76%male and 51.24% female. Age The majority of Fountain Valley residents are between 18-64,with 61.35%of residents falling in this group. 21.24% of city residents are under 18, and 17.40% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 39.90% of Fountain Valley's population. 57 492 Table 6.2: Demographic Trends,Fountain Valle 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 38,801 71.93% 31,386 57.39% 26,642 47.98% Black,Non- Hispanic 508 0.94% 731 1.34% 692 1.25% Hispanic 4,884 9.05% 6,490 11.87% 8,071 14.54% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 9,405 17.43% 15,167 1 27.73% 19,632 35.36% Native American, Non-Hispanic 257 0.48% 434 0.79% 350 0.63% National Origin Foreign-born 10,915 20.20% 15,516 28.37% 16,514 29.74% LEP Limited English Proficiency 5,757 10.65% 9,813 17.94% 1 9,881 17.80% Sex Male 26,814 49.63% 26,709 48.84% 27,076 48.76% Female 27,215 50.37% 27,980 51.16% 28,451 51.24% Age Under 18 12,767 23.63% 13,344 24.40% 11,794 21.24% aaaaal8-64 37,304 69.04% 34,958 63.92% 34,068 61.35% 65+ 3,958 7.33% 6,387 11.68% 9,664 17.40% Family Type Families with children 6,674 47.04% 6,185 43.95% 5,656 39.90% Table 7.1: Demographics,Fullerton m (Fullei ton,CA CDB`G,HOME) (Los Angeles--Leong Beach -. )(llilsdiction14� naheim,CEA :Re"ion RacelEthnlcl �� td��ri xti r��# g� i ��ili ii,I /O" # �i�i�fl White,Non-Hispanic 46145 32.97% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 3800 2.71% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 50957 36.40% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 34692 24.78% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 203 0.15% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 2,959 2.18% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 232 0.17% 30,960 1 0.24% 58 493 it �I r�� ilI ! Nat10IIa1 11 ID,tr, (���il i� ����pa 1;11 q' 'TJi�j #1 country of origin Mexico 14,379 10.27% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Korea 11,208 8.01% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin Philippines 2,344 1.67% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin India 1,993 1.42% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% China excl. Hong Kong #5 country of origin &Taiwan 1,836 1.31% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Vietnam 1,475 1.05% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Taiwan 1,105 0.79% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin El Salvador 629 0.45% 1 Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Canada 494 0.35% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country ofori in Japan 473 0.34% India 79,608 0.66% Limited kn` lisli Proficienc = ,' . #1 LEP Language Spanish 13,340 10.42% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Korean 7,394 5.78% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Chinese 2,134 1.67% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Vietnamese 828 0.65% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Japanese 375 0.29% Armenian 87,201 0.72% 46 LEP Language Tagalog 372 0.29% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Gujarati 351 0.27% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Arabic 228 0.18% Japanese 32,457 0.27% Other Asian #9 LEP Language Language 227 0.18% Russian 28,358 0.23% Other Indo- European #10 LEP Language Language 204 0.16% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Disability. Hearing difficulty 3,344 2.40% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 2,406 1.73% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 4,478 3.22% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 6,425 4.62% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 2,683 1.9306 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 1 4,992 3.59% 496,105 4.13% Sex _ "F = _ Male 66,653 49.10% 66,653 49.10% Female 69,094 50.90% 69,094 50.90% A e Under 18 31,953 23.54% 3,138,867 24.47%0 18-64 87,901 64.75% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 15,893 11.71% 1,415,376 11.03% :.Faruhal Status . " Families with children 14,582 1 46.37% 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Fullerton has a plurality Hispanic population (36.40%), with a large population of Whites (32.97%) and non-Hispanic Asian residents (24.78%). Black residents comprise 2.71% of the population, and non- 59 494 Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.15% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 2.18%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.17%. National Origin The most common country of origin for Fullerton residents is Mexico, with 10.27% of the city population comprised of residents from Mexico.The remaining most common countries of origin are, in order,Korea, Philippines, India, China(excluding Hong Kong & Taiwan), Vietnam, Taiwan, El Salvador, Canada, and Japan. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Fullerton with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Tagalog, Gujarati, Arabic, Other Asian Languages, and Other Indo-European Languages. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Fullerton residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive difficulty, hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex Fullerton residents are 49.10%male and 50.90% female. Age The majority of Fullerton residents are between 18-64, with 64.75% of residents falling in this group. 23.54% of city residents are under 18, and 11.71%are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 46.37% of Fullerton's population. Table 7.2: Demo ra 3hic Trends,Fullerton 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 73,647 65.17% 62,021 49.24% 52,356 38.57% Black,Non- Hispanic 2,273 2.01% 3,060 2.43% 3,330 2.45% Hispanic 23,894 21.14% 38,323 30.43% 47,235 34.80% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 12,608 11.16% 20,690 16.43% 31,810 23.43% Native American, Non-Hispanic 364 0.32% 927 0.74% 707 0.52% 60 495 National Origin Foreign-born 25,948 22.98% 35,894 28.49% 39,906 29.40% LEP Limited English Proficiency 16,188 14.33% 24,576 19.50% 25,536 18.81% Sex Male 56,379 49.92% 62,453 49.57% 66,653 49.10% Female 56,554 50.08% 63,542 50.43% 69,094 50.90% Age Under 18 25,569 22.64% 32,955 26.16% 31,953 23.54% 18-64 75,660 67.00% 78,816 62.55% 87,901 64.75% 65+ 11,703 10.36% 14,224 11.29% 15,893 11.71% Family Type Families with children 12,505 44.91% 11,097 48.22% 14,582 46.37% Table 8.1: Demo ra hics,Garden Grove (Garden Grovel CA C)BG,HOME;; y(Los Angeles`—Long Beach= �. ESG 'Jurisdiction Anaheim,CA Region "Race/Ethnici # White,Non-Hispanic 36,168 20.69% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 1,607 0.92% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 63,059 36.07% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 69,872 39.97% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 514 0.29% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 2,881 1.66% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 235 0.14% 30,960 0.24% National Origin n #1 country of origin Vietnam 39,624 22.67% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Mexico 21,168 12.11% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin Korea 3,408 1.95% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Philippines 2,743 1.57% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin El Salvador 1,169 0.67% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Guatemala 780 0.45% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Peru 650 0.37% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% China excl. Hong Kong #8 country of origin &Taiwan 594 0.34% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Cambodia 466 0.27% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Egypt 406 0.23% India 79,608 0.66% 61 496 Limited-En`lish;Proficienc = _ � _ #1 LEP Language Vietnamese 28,226 17.39% Spanish 2,033,088 16.790 #2 LEP Language Spanish 19,752 12.17% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Korean 2,897 1.78% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Chinese 1,795 1.11% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Tagalog 380 0.23% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Cambodian 294 0.18% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% Other Pacific Island #7 LEP Language Language 288 0.18% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Arabic 256 0.16% Ja anew 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Japanese 237 0.15% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Hmong 162 0.10% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Disabili ` Hearing difficulty 5,132 2.95% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 3,044 1.75% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 6,805 3.91% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 8,226 4.73% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 3,996 2.30% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 7,328 4.21% 496,105 4.13% Sex Male 86,373 49.85% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 86,888 50.15% 6,500,403 50.67% Under 18 44,233 25.53% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 110,100 63.55% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 18,928 10.92% 1,415,376 11.03% Fanulial`Status- Families with children 18,046 47.97% 1,388,564 47.84 0 Race and Ethnicity Garden Grove has a plurality non-Hispanic Asian population(39.97%),with a large population of Hispanics (36.07%) and Whites (20.69%). This represents a large increase in the percentage of non-Hispanic Asian residents as compared to Orange County overall (19.78%). Black residents comprise 0.92% of the population, and non-Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.29% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 1.66%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.14%. National Origin The most common country of origin for Garden Grove residents is Vietnam, with 22.67% of the city population comprised of residents from Vietnam. This is distinct from the most common country of origin for Orange County overall (Mexico). The remaining most common countries of origin in Garden Grove are, in order, Mexico, Korea, Philippines, El Salvador, Guatemala, Peru, China(excluding Hong Kong & Taiwan), Cambodia, and Egypt. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Garden Grove with Limited English Proficiency(LEP) is Vietnamese. This is distinct from the most common LEP language in the broader county(Spanish). The 62 497 remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Tagalog, Cambodian, Other Pacific Island Languages, Arabic, Japanese, and Hmong. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Garden Grove residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive difficulty,hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex Garden Grove residents are 49.85%male and 50.15% female. Age The majority of Garden Grove residents are between 18-64, with 63.55% of residents falling in this group. 25.53% of city residents are under 18, and 10.92% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 47.97% of Garden Grove's population. Table 8.2: Demographic Trends,Garden Grove 1990 Trend 2000'Trend 2010'Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 79,750 54.42% 54,141 32.25% 38,900 22.45% Black,Non- Hispanic 2,145 1.46% 2,474 1.47% 2,376 1.37% Hispanic 34,492 23.54% 55,487 33.06% 64,694 37.34% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 29,209 19.93% 53,793 32.05% 66,272 38.25% Native American, Non-Hispanic 631 0.43% 1,107 0.66% 725 0.42% National Origin Foreign-born 44,669 30.48% 72,339 43.10% 74,749 43.14% LEP Limited English Proficiency 32,715 22.32% 57,735 34.40% 56,658 32.70% Sex Male 74,265 50.67% 84,033 50.06% 86,373 49.85% Female 72,300 49.33% 83,818 1 49.94% 86,888 50.15% 63 498 Age Under 18 38,170 26.04% 48,566 28.93% 44,233 25.53% 18-64 95,383 65.08% 103,249 61.51% 110,100 63.55% 65+ 13,013 8.88% 16,038 9.55% 18,928 10.92% Family Type Families with children 17,177 48.90% 19,501 53.21% 18,046 47.97% Table 9.1: Demo ra hics,Huntington Beach (HunfmgtonrBeach,CA CD,BG, (Los Angeles—Long Beach HOME Jurisdicfion Anaheim;CA Re ion Race/Ethmci # /O-t L # White,Non-Hispanic 126,453 63.10% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 2,510 1.25% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 38,773 19.35% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 24,069 12.01% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 721 0.36% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 6,008 3.15% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 1 392 0.21% 30,960 0.24% NatlalOrl III Wmu �� � w on #1 country of origin Mexico 7,734 3.86% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Vietnam 5,826 2.91% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country oforigin Philippines 2,006 1.00% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Canada 1,248 0.62% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country oforigin Egypt 1,159 0.58% Korea 224,370 1.85% China excl. Hong Kong #6 country of origin and Taiwan 1,140 0.57% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country oforigin Japan 1,135 0.57% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Korea 1,061 0.53% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin India 664 0.33% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Taiwan 638 0.32% India 79,608 0.66% Limited li41'kroencPYT MIRE" ii fici #1 LEP Language Spanish 7,526 4.10% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Vietnamese 2,822 1.54% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Chinese 1,518 0.83% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Korean 741 0.40% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Arabic 730 0.40% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Japanese 533 0.29% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Tagalog 270 0.15% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Portuguese 206 0.11% Japanese 32,457 0.27% Other Indo- European #9 LEP Language Language 200 0.11% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Thai 150 0.08% Arabic 23,275 0.19% 64 499 Di'sabili Hearing difficulty 5,818 2.91% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 3,392 1.70% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 7,239 3.62% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 9,226 4.610o 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 3,952 1.98% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 1 6,816 3.41% 496,105 4.13% r Sex = - Male 94,733 49.60% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 96,243 1 50.40% 6,500,403 50.67% _ - :5 Under 18 39,353 20.61% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 124,400 65.14% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 27,224 14.26% 1,415,376 11.03% �Familial Status Families with children 20,083 41.45% 1,388,564 1 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Huntington Beach has a majority White population(63.10%)and sizable populations of Hispanics(19.35%) and non-Hispanic Asians(12.01%).This represents a large increase in the percentage of White residents as compared to Orange County overall(41.40%). Black residents comprise 1.25%of the population, and non- Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.36% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 3.15%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.21%. National Origin The most common country of origin for Huntington Beach residents is Mexico, with 3.86% of the city population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in Huntington Beach are, in order, Vietnam, Philippines, Canada, Egypt, China (excluding Hong Kong & Taiwan),Japan,Korea, India, and Taiwan. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Huntington Beach with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Vietnamese, Chinese,Korean,Arabic, Japanese, Tagalog, Portuguese, Other Indo-European Languages, and Thai. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Huntington Beach residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are,in order of prevalence,cognitive difficulty,independent living difficulty,hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex Huntington Beach residents are 49.60%male and 50.40% female. 65 500 Age The majority of Huntington Beach residents are between 18-64, with 65.14% of residents falling in this group. 20.61% of city residents are under 18, and 14.26% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 41.45% of Huntington Beach's population. Table 9.2: Demo ra hic Trends,Huntin ton Beach 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 144,453 79.16% 137,054 71.80% 127,955 67.00% Black,Non- Hispanic 1,602 0.88% 1,905 1.00% 2,377 1.24% Hispanic 20,522 11.25% 27,945 14.64% 32,552 17.05% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 14,732 8.07% 20,786 1 10.89% 25,886 13.55% Native American, Non-Hispanic 898 0.49% 1,925 1.01% 1,669 0.87% National Origin Foreign-born 27,066 14.84% 32,414 16.99% 30,902 16.18% LEP Limited English Proficiency 13,562 7.43% 18,168 9.52% 15,869 8.31% Sex Male 91,952 50.40% 95,767 50.18% 94,733 49.60% Female 90,486 49.60% 95,063 49.82% 96,243 50.40% Age Under 18 37,779 20.71% 43,525 22.81% 39,353 20.61% 18-64 129,499 70.98% 127,288 66.70% 124,400 65.14% 65+ 15,160 8.31% 20,017 10.49% 27,224 14.26% Family Type Families with children 20,283 43.80% 19,930 44.46% 20,083 41.45% 66 501 Table 10.1: Demographics,Irvine . ,,a (Irvm6, CDBG,HOME) ,. (Los Angeles-Long Beach d Anaheun- Re ,nrisdiction ,� Race/Ethnici # u <3 White,Non-Hispanic 107,202 41.73% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 4,714 1.84% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 25,025 9.74% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 107,337 41.79% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 221 0.09% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 9,526 4.50% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 544 0.26% 30,960 0.24% Naiional Ori in P #1 country of origin Korea 14,066 5.48% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% China excl. Hong Kong #2 country of origin &Taiwan 13,021 5.07% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin India 9,749 3.80% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Iran 9,518 3.71% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Taiwan 8,648 3.37% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Vietnam 4,945 1.93% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Philippines 4,792 1.87% Taiwan 174,424 1.44%' #8 country of origin Japan 4,752 1.85% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Mexico 2,956 1.15% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Hong Kong 1,977 0.77% India 79,608 0.66% Limited:En lish Proficient #1 LEP Language Chinese 8,033 3.83% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Korean 6,701 3.19% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Persian 3,404 1.62% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Spanish 2,522 1.20% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Vietnamese 2,033 0.97% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Japanese 1,947 0.93% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Arabic 875 0.42% Persian 41,051 0.34% Other Indic #8 LEP Language Language 715 0.34% Japanese 32,457 0.27% Other Asian #9 LEP Language Language 578 0.28% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Russian 545 0.26% Arabic 23,275 0.19% DlSablh I'ti i�� ii Vk Hearing difficulty 4,154 1.62% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 2,032 0.79% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 5,481 2.14% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 6,719 2.62% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 3,527 1.37% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 5,713 1 2.23% 1 496,105 4.13% Seg _ = • Male 103,034 48.71% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 108,498 51.29% 6,500,403 50.67% 67 502 A e 24 , MAN Y N Under 18 45,857 21.68% 45,857 21.68% 18-64 146,753 69.38% 146,753 69.38% 65+ 18,922 8.95% 18,922 8.95% Familial"Statlls „ i t !,i liililllyia � � drjli"jl' Families with children 25,573 49.80% 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Irvine has a plurality non-Hispanic Asian population (41.79%) with a large population of White residents (41.73%) and a relatively small population of Hispanic residents (9.74%) as compared to the county(over 34%). Black residents comprise 1.84% of the population, and non-Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.09% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 4.50%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.26%. National Origin The most common country of origin for Irvine residents is Korea, with 5.48% of the city population comprised of residents from Korea. This is distinct from the County, for which the most common country of origin is Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in Irvine are, in order, China (excluding Hong Kong & Tibet), India, Iran, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Mexico, and Hong Kong. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Irvine with Limited English Proficiency(LEP)is Chinese — distinct from the most common language spoken by those with LEP in the County (Spanish). The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are,in order,Korean,Persian, Spanish,Vietnamese, Japanese, Arabic, Other Indic Languages, Other Asian Languages, and Russian. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Irvine residents is ambulatory difficulty.The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive difficulty, hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex Irvine residents are 48.71%male and 51.29% female. Age The majority of Irvine residents are between 18-64, with 69.38% of residents falling in this group. 21.68% of city residents are under 18, and 8.95%are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 49.80% of Irvine's population. 68 503 Table 10.2: Demo ra bic Trends,Irvine 1990 Trend 2000'Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % . # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 92,181 73.19% 85,972 57.41% 96,467 45.60% Black,Non- Hispanic 3,263 2.59% 2,573 1.72% 4,514 2.13% Hispanic 9,685 7.69% 12,271 8.19% 20,401 9.64% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 20,256 16.08% 46,268 30.90% 88,674 41.92% Native American, Non-Hispanic 316 0.25% 618 0.41% 755 0.36% National Origin Foreign-born 26,301 20.88% 47,114 31.46% 67,886 32.09% LEP Limited English Proficiency 11,047 8.77% 21,335 14.25% 28,611 13.53% Sex Male 62,975 50.00% 73,019 48.77% 103,034 48.71% Female 62,976 50.00% 76,715 51.23% 108,498 51.29% Age Under 18 30,335 24.08% 36,552 24.41% 45,857 21.68% 18-64 88,663 70.40% 102,353 68.36% 146,753 69.38% 65+ 6,952 5.52% 10,830 7.23% 18,922 8.95% Family Type Families with children 17,137 55.14% 16,168 52.72% 25,573 49.80% Table 11.1: Demographics,La Habra (Los Angeles,—Long Beach— h (La Hab ra,CA!CDBG)Jurisdiction' 'rAnaheim;..CA Re ion . r ��� - '� k�i i�� �Ali( �'4 m=¢. i ;j ii�q� • : :. Race/Et6nici i� #����,� . %�: ��.,����' # White,Non-Hispanic 15,817 25.53% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 676 1.09% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 36,975 59.67% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 7,514 12.13% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 96 0.15% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 969 1.610 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 90 0.15% 30,960 0.24% 69 504 WK National Ori in #1 country oforigin Mexico 10,133 16.35% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Korea 2,248 3.63% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin . Philippines 1,379 2.23% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Guatemala 365 0.59% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% China excl. Hong Kong #5 country of origin and Taiwan 334 0.54% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Indonesia 263 0.42% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin India 233 0.38% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin El Salvador 1 228 0.37% Iran 133,596 1.10% 49 country of origin Taiwan 220 0.36% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country oforigin Nicaragua 199 0.32% India 79,608 0.66% Limited'E"n`lish Proficienc „. r.. #1 LEP Language Spanish 11,038 19.59% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Korean 1,241 2.20% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Chinese 245 0.43% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Ta alo 156 0.28% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Vietnamese 105 0.19% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Persian 102 0.18% Ta alo 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Hindi 98 0.17% Persian 41,051 0.34% Other Pacific Island #8 LEP Language Language 41 0.07% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Russian 41 0.07% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Arabic 38 0.07% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Disabili Hearing difficulty 1,803 2.92% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 1,044 1.69% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 2,272 3.68% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 3,659 5.93% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 1,530 2.48% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 21354 3.81% 496,105 4.13% Sex Male 29,680 49.24% 1 6,328,434 49.33% Female 30,594 50.76% 6,500,403 50.67% A e _ ;.H Under 18 16,021 26.58% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 37,554 62.31% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 6,700 11.12% 1,415,376 11.03% Fa'r►u11a1+,StatUS M Mii�ii �r�fl,: Families with children 6,885 47.85% 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity La Habra is majority Hispanic (59.67%) with a large population of Whites (25.53%) and non-Hispanic Asian residents (12.13%). This is a significantly larger Hispanic population percentage than the County as a whole(34.20%). Black residents comprise 1.09% of the population, and non-Hispanic Native Americans 70 505 comprise 0.15%of the population.The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 1.61%,and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.15%. National Origin The most common country of origin for La Habra residents is Mexico, with 16.35% of the city population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in La Habra are, in order,Korea,Philippines,Guatemala,China(excluding Hong Kong&Tibet),Indonesia,India,El Salvador, Taiwan, and Nicaragua. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in La Habra with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Korean, Chinese, Tagalog,Vietnamese,Persian,Hindi, Other Pacific Island Languages, Russian, and Arabic. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by La Habra residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive difficulty,hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex La Habra residents are 49.24%male and 50.76%female. Age The majority of La Habra residents are between 18-64, with 62.31% of residents falling in this group. 26.58% of city residents are under 18, and 11.12% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 47.85% of La Habra's population. Table 11.2: Demo ra hic Trends,La Habra 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # %o" #' % White,Non- Hispanic 31,691 60.04% 24,513 41.17% 18,331 30.41% Black,Non- Hispanic 422 0.80% 941 1.58% 995 1.65% Hispanic 17,408 32.98% 28,525 47.91% 33,528 55.63% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 2,959 1 5.61% 4,782 1 8.03% 1 6,943 11.52% Native American, Non-Hispanic 201 rO.38% 374 0.63% 325 0.54% 71 506 National Origin Foreign-born 10,852 20.55% 16,382 27.53% 17,238 28.60% LEP Limited English Proficiency 7,693 14.57% 12,530 21.06% 13,172 21.85% Sex Male 26,272 49.75% 29,148 48.99% 29,680 49.24% Female 26,539 50.25% 30,349 51.01% 30,594 50.76% Age Under 18 13,363 25.30% 17,662 29.69% 16,021 26.58% 18-64 33,885 64.16% 35,363 59.44% 37,554 62.31% 65+ 5,563 10.53% 6,472 10.88% 6,700 11.12% Family Type Families with children 6,424 47.32% 6,353 54.73% 6,885 47.85% Table 12.1: Demographics,La Palma (La Palma,,Orange-County) (Los Angeles Long Jurisdiction' Analeim,'CA Region Race/Ethnici # % # White,Non-Hispanic 4,179 26.43% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 833 5.27% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 2,781 17.59% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 7398 46.78% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 83 0.52% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 529 3.35% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 11 0.07% 30,960 0.24% Nationali0ri in r - - #1 country of origin Korea 1,292 24.53% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin India 803 15.25% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin Philippines 592 11.24% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Mexico 532 10.10% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Vietnam 499 9.47% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Taiwan 430 8.16% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China, 191 excluding China excl. Hong Kong Hong Kong& #7 country of origin and Taiwan 3.63% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Pakistan 152 2.89% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Cambodia 67 1.27% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Romania 63 1.20% India 79,608 0.66% 72 507 Limited En fish Proficient = #1 LEP Language Korean 1,115 7.42% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% Spanish or 675 Spanish #2 LEP Language Creole 4.49% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Chinese 490 3.26% Korean 156,343 1.29% African 191 #4 LEP Language languages 1.27% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Tagalog 161 1.07% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Vietnamese 109 0.73% Ta alo 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Gujarati 90 0.60% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Japanese 78 0.52% Japanese 32,457 0.27% 49 LEP Language Arabic 74 0.49% Russian 28,358 0.23% Other Indic 69 #10 LEP Language languages 0.46% Arabic 23,275 0.19% a - Disabili 9� Hearing difficulty 421 2.7% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 262 1.7% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 476 3.1% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 825 5.4% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 496 3.3% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 547 4.2% 496,105 4.13% Sex- Male 7,673 48.54% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 8,135 51.46% 6,500,403 50.67% Under 18 2,866 18.130o 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 10,101 63.90% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 2,841 17.97% 1,415,376 11.030/, Familial Status; sa Families with children 3,999 81.5%o 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity La Palma has a high Asian or Pacific Islander population at 46.78%of the population.White residents make up 26.43% of the population, Hispanic residents are 17.59%, Black residents are 5.27%, and Native Americans are 0.52%. National Origin The most common countries of origin for foreign-born residents in the city are Korea,at 24.53%,and India, at 15.25%. The remaining most common countries for foreign-born residents, in order, are the Philippines, Mexico, Vietnam, Taiwan, China excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan, Pakistan, Cambodia, and Romania. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in La Palma with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Korean. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Spanish or Spanish Creole, Chinese, African languages, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Guajarati, Japanese, Arabic, and Other Indic Languages. 73 508 Disability The most common type of disability experienced by La Palma residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, self-care difficulty, cognitive difficulty, hearing difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex La Palma residents are 48.54%male and 51.46% female. Age The majority of La Palma residents are between 18-64, with 63.90% of residents falling in this group. 18.13% of city residents are under 18, and 17.97% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 81.5% of La Palma's population. Table 13.1: Demographics,La una Niguel _ (Laguna"Niguel,.GA CDBG) - (Los`Angeles Long«€Beach�� Jurisdiction, = = Anaheim;-CA .Re° ions r 7-Race .4i White Non-Hispanic 43,496 66.48/0° 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 1,238 1.89% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 11,021 16.84% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 6,613 10.11% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 74 0.11% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 2,176 3.42% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 119 0.19% 30,960 0.24% NatlOIIal OPl NN, #1 country of origin Iran 2,065 3.16% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Mexico 1,785 2.73% Philippines 288,529 2.38% China excl. Hong Kong #3 country of origin &Taiwan 865 1.32% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Philippines 786 1.20% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin El Salvador 693 1.06% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Taiwan 629 0.96% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Canada 583 0.89% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Korea 1 438 1 0.67% 1 Iran 133,596 1.10% 49 country of origin Egypt 407 0.62% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country oforigin Germany 320 0.49% India 79,608 0.66% Limited Eii lish Proficienc �« - #1 LEP Language Spanish 2,022 3.36% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Persian 994 1.65% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Chinese 503 0.84% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Vietnamese 194 0.32% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% 74 509 #5 LEP Language Korean 185 0.31% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language French 145 0.24% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Japanese 79 0.13% Persian 41,051 0.34% Other Slavic #8 LEP Language Language 70 0.12% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Tagalog 59 0.10% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Russian 57 0.09% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Hearing difficulty 1,815 2.78% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 807 1.23% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 1,965 3.00% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 1,943 2.97% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 938 1.43% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 1,910 2.92% 1 496,105 4.13% Male 30,893 48.50% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 32,803 51.50% 6,500,403 50.67% Under 18 14,428 22.65% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 41,100 64.53% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 8,168 12.82% 1,415,376 11.03% Y.Famili 'I Status ''.n "O Families with children 7,796 44.73% 7 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Laguna Niguel is majority White (66.48%) with sizable minority populations of Hispanics (16.84%) and non-Hispanic Asian residents (10.11%) This is a significantly larger White population than the county as a whole (41.40%). Black residents comprise 1.89% of the population, and non-Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.11%of the population.The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 3.42%,and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.19%. National Origin The most common country of origin for Laguna Niguel residents is Iran,with 3.16% of the city population comprised of residents from Iran. This is distinct from the most common country of origin for county residents overall(Mexico).The remaining most common countries of origin in Laguna Niguel are,in order, Mexico,China(excluding Hong Kong&Taiwan),Philippines,El Salvador,Taiwan,Canada,Korea,Egypt, and Germany. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Laguna Niguel with Limited English Proficiency(LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Persian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, French,Japanese, Other Slavic Languages, Tagalog, and Russian. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Laguna Niguel residents is cognitive difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, ambulatory difficulty, independent living difficulty, hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. 75 510 Sex Laguna Niguel residents are 48.50%male and 51.50%female. Age The majority of Laguna Niguel residents are between 18-64,with 64.53% of residents falling in this group. 22.65% of city residents are under 18, and 12.82% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 44.73% of Laguna Niguel's population. Table 13.2: Demo ra hic Trends,Laguna Ni uel 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 37,998 83.58% 49,243 77.33% 46,192 72.52% Black,Non- Hispanic 517 1.14% 936 1.47% 966 1.52% Hispanic 3,422 7.53% 6,591 10.35% 8,842 13.88% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 3,364 7.40% 5,875 9.23% 7,203 11.31% Native American, Non-Hispanic 93 0.20% 310 0.49% 331 0.52% National Origin Foreign-born 6,198 13.60% 11,286 17.67% 13,355 20.97% LEP Limited English Proficiency 2,169 4.76% 4,238 6.64% 4,317 6.78% Sex Male 22,303 48.94% 31,200 48.85% 30,893 48.50% Female 23,269 51.06% 32,665 51.15% 32,803 51.50% Age Under 18 10,922 23.97% 17,408 27.26% 14,428 22.65% 18-64 31,371 68.84% 41,029 64.24% 41,100 64.53% 65+ 3,280 7.20% 5,429 8.50% 8,168 12.82% Family Type Families with children 6,218 48.60% 7,957 53.94% 7,796 44.73% 76 511 Table 14.1: Demographics,Lake Forest (Lake Forest,CA CDBG) (LosAngeles;=Long Beach `. JurisdictionAnaheini�CAJ Re`ion Race/Ethnici ., # s % .# Polo' White,Non-Hispanic 44,160 53.98% 44160 53.98% Black,Non-Hispanic 1,476 1.80% 1476 1.80% Hispanic 20,057 24.52% 20057 24.52% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 12,740 15.57% 12740 15.57% Native American,Non-His . 361 0.44% 361 0.44% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 2,393 3.09% 2,393 3.09% Other,Non-Hispanic 184 0.24% 184 1 0.24% `National Origin #1 country of origin Mexico 4,765 5.82% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Philippines 2,714 3.32% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin Vietnam 1,117 1.37% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin India 1,055 1.29% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Iran 753 0.92% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Korea 739 0.90% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin El Salvador 704 0.86% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% China excl. Hong Kong #8 country of origin and Taiwan 576 0.70% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Canada 509 0.62% 1 Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 count of origin Guatemala 485 0.59% India 79,608 0.66% Limited English Proficient `N;' , #1 LEP Language Spanish 5,074 6.89% Spanish 5,074 6.89% #2 LEP Language Vietnamese 684 0.93% Vietnamese 684 0.93% #3 LEP Language Chinese 483 0.66% Chinese 483 0.66% #4 LEP Language Tagalog 428 0.58% Tagalog 428 0.58% 45 LEP Language Korean 396 0.54% Korean 396 0.54% #6 LEP Language Persian 385 0.52% Persian 385 0.52% #7 LEP Language Japanese 236 0.32% Japanese 236 0.32% Other Pacific Other Pacific Island Island #8 LEP Language Language 205 0.28% Language 205 0.28% #9 LEP Language Arabic 145 0.20% Arabic 145 0.20% Scandinavian Scandinavian #l0 LEP Language Lan ua e 96 0.13% Language 96 0.13% Dlsab>ili �i, Hearing difficulty 2,141 2.62% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 715 0.88% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 2,001 2.45% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 2,705 3.31% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 1,371 1.68% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 2,451 3.00% 496,105 4.13% Male 1 38,359 49.58% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 39,011 50.42% 6,500,403 50.67% 77 512 A e Under 18 19,017 24.58% 19,017 24.58% 18-64 51,306 66.31% 51,306 66.31% 65+ 7,047 9.11% 7,047 9.11% FanulialStatus Families with child ren 9,581 1 48.85% 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Lake Forest is majority White(53.98%)with sizable minority populations of Hispanics(24.52%)and non- Hispanic Asian residents(15.57%)This is a moderately larger White population than the county as a whole (41.40%).Black residents comprise 1.80%of the population,and non-Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.44% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 3.09%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.24%. National Origin The most common country of origin for Lake Forest residents is Mexico,with 5.82% of the city population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in Lake Forest are, in order, Philippines, Vietnam, India, Iran, Korea, El Salvador, China (excluding Hong Kong & Taiwan), Canada, and Guatemala. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Lake Forest with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Vietnamese, Chinese, Tagalog,Korean,Persian,Japanese,Other Pacific Island Languages,Arabic,and Scandinavian Languages. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Lake Forest residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, hearing difficulty, cognitive difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex Lake Forest residents are 49.58%male and 50.42% female. Age The majority of Lake Forest residents are between 18-64, with 66.31% of residents falling in this group. 24.58% of city residents are under 18, and 9.11% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 48.85% of Lake Forest's population. 78 513 Table 14.2: Demo ra hic Trends,Lake Forest 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 42,174 78.97% 50,433 67.52% 43,702 56.48% Black,Non- Hispanic 908 1.70% 1,596 2.14% 1,566 2.02% Hispanic 5,491 10.28% 12,968 17.36% 19,165 24.77% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 4,560 8.54% 8,665 1 11.60% 12,232 15.81% Native American, Non-Hispanic 178 0.33% 451 0.60% 481 0.62% National Origin Foreign-born 7,305 13.69% 14,986 20.06% 17,450 22.55% LEP Limited English Proficiency 3,511 6.58% 7,915 10.59% 8,219 10.62% Sex Male 26,304 49.29% 36,511 48.87% 38,359 49.58% Female 27,061 50.71% 38,202 51.13% 39,011 50.42% Age Under 18 13,865 25.98% 21,344 28.57% 19,017 24.58% 18-64 35,856 67.19% 47,998 64.24% 51,306 66.31% 65+ 3,643 6.83% 5,372 7.19% 7,047 9.11% Family Ty e Families with children 7,705 53.68% 10,230 56.68% 9,581 48.85% Table 15.1: Demographics,Mission Viejo (Mission Viejo,CA CDBG) a(Los Angeles-Long Beach=' Jurisdiction Anaheim'CA .Re ion .Race/Ethnicity %`, # j-% } White,Non-Hispanic 64,552 66.87% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 1,312 1.36% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 16,350 16.94% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 10,253 10.62% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 201 0.21% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 3,108 3.36% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 185 0.20% 30,960 1 0.24% 79 514 National Ori m #1 country oforigin Mexico 3,664 3.80% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Iran 2,599 2.69% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country oforigin Philippines 1,653 1.71% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Vietnam 972 1.01% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% China excl. Hong Kong #5 country oforigin &Taiwan 690 0.71% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Korea 640 0.66% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Taiwan 581 0.60% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Canada 562 0.58% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin India 374 0.39% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country oforigin El Salvador 341 0.35% India 79,608 0.66% Limit0O En lisp PrOPCienC #1 LEP Language Spanish 2,626 2.93% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Persian 1,187 1.33% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Chinese 635 0.71% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Vietnamese 408 0.46% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Arabic 264 0.30% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Korean 196 0.22% Ta alo 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Japanese 184 0.21% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Tagalog 112 0.13% Japanese 32,457 0.27% Other Pacific Island #9 LEP Language Language 95 0.11% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Russian 78 0.09% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Disabili ; Hearing difficult 3,325 3.46% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 1,719 1.79% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficult 3,474 3.61% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 5,015 5.22% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 2,574 2.68% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 3,937 4.10% 496,105 4.13% Sex Male 45,368 49.01% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 47,192 50.99% 6,500,403 50.67% Age Under 18 21,375 23.090o 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 58,357 63.05% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 12,828 13.86% 1,415,376 11.03% Famlhal StatUS Families with children 10,884 44.01% 1,388,564 47.84% 80 515 Race and Ethnicity Mission Viejo is majority White (66.87%) with sizable minority populations of Hispanics (16.94%) and non-Hispanic Asian residents (10.62%) This is a significantly larger White population than the county as a whole (41.40%). Black residents comprise 1.36% of the population, and non-Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.21%of the population.The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 3.36%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.20%. National Origin The most common country of origin for Mission Viejo residents is Mexico, with 3.80% of the city population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in Mission Viejo are, in order, Iran, Philippines, Vietnam, China (excluding Hong Kong & Taiwan), Korea, Taiwan, Canada, India, and El Salvador. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Mission Viejo with Limited English Proficiency(LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Persian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabic,Korean, Japanese, Tagalog, Other Pacific Island Languages, and Russian. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Mission Viejo residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive difficulty,hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex Mission Viejo residents are 49.01%male and 50.99% female. Age The majority of Mission Viejo residents are between 18-64,with 63.05% of residents falling in this group. 23.09% of city residents are under 18, and 13.86% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 44.01% of Mission Viejo's population. Table 15.2: Demographic Trends,Mission Viejo 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 67,490 83.86% 69,945 75.84% 63,297 6838% Black,Non- Hispanic 759 0.94% 1,331 1.44% 1,638 1.77% Hispanic 6,583 8.18% 11,246 12.19% 16,286 17.60% 81 516 Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 5,327 6.62% 8,512 9.23% 10,597 11.45% Native American, Non-Hispanic 198 0.25% 507 0.55% 475 0.51% National Origin Foreign-born 10,815 13.44% 15,120 16.39% 16,427 17.75% LEP Limited English Proficiency 4,189 5.21% 6,072 6.58% 6,250 6.75% Sex Male 39,987 49.69% 44,952 48.73% 45,368 49.01% Female 40,480 50.31% 47,294 51.27% 47,192 50.99% Age Under 18 22,602 28.09% 26,099 28.29% 21,375 23.09% 18-64 51,800 64.37% 56,701 61.47% 58,357 63.05% 65+ 6,065 7.54% 9,446 10.24% 12,828 13.86% Family Type Families with children 11,971 53.71% 11,488 51.77% 10,884 44.01% Table 17.1: Demographics, range(City) (Orange,CA CDBG;HOME) (Los Angeles-'Long Beach t Junsdic6on " Anaheim, ;Re ion, �rz Race/Ethnici # _ % White,Non-Hispanic 63,146 45.01% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 2,025 1.44% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 55,293 39.41% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 16,243 11.58% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 292 0.21% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 2,692 1.92% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 258 0.18% 30,960 0.24% NationaPOri ql #1 country of origin Mexico 16,969 12.10% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Vietnam 2,596 1.85% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country oforigin Philippines 2,298 1.64% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Korea 1,039 0.74% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin India 986 0.70% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Guatemala 758 0.54% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 countryof origin Taiwan 682 0.49% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% 82 517 #8 country of origin Iran 640 0.46% Iran 133,596 1.10% China excl. Hong Kong 49 country of origin and Taiwan 558 0.40% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin El Salvador 526 0.37% India 79,608 0.66% Limited En lish Proficienc �� . H,;.� .��!�� �ii'��� ; #1 LEP Language Spanish 18,642 14.45% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Vietnamese 2,048 1.59% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Korean 1,149 0.89% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Chinese 779 0.60% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Tagalog 313 0.24% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Arabic 264 0.20% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Japanese 205 0.16% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Gujarati 193 0.15% Ja anese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Cambodian 192 0.15% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Persian 185 0.14% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Hearing difficulty 2,921 2.14% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 1,841 1.35% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 4,106 3.01% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 5,357 3.93% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 2,762 2.02% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 4,334 3.18% 496,105 4.13% Male 68,542 50.29% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 67,753 49.71% 6,500,403 50.67% Under 18 31,745 23.29% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 89,676 65.80% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 14,874 10.91% 1,415,376 11.03% Familial Status _ o-. Families with children 14,250 45.66% 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Orange has a plurality of White residents (45.01%) with significant minority populations of Hispanics (39.41%) and non-Hispanic Asian residents (11.58%). Black residents comprise 1.44% of the population, and non-Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.21% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non- Hispanic population is 1.92%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.18%. National Origin The most common country of origin for Orange residents is Mexico, with 12.10% of the city population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in Orange are, in order, Vietnam, Philippines, Korea, India, Guatemala, Taiwan, Iran, China (excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan), and El Salvador. 83 518 Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Orange with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese, Tagalog, Arabic, Japanese, Gujarati, Cambodian, and Persian. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Orange residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive difficulty, hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex Orange residents are 50.29%male and 49.71% female. Age The majority of Orange residents are between 18-64,with 65.80%of residents falling in this group.23.29% of city residents are under 18, and 10.91% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 45.66% of Orange's population. Table 17.2: Demographic Trends,Oran e (City) 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 76,480 67.86% 71,105 54.48% 63,698 46.74% Black,Non- Hispanic 1,411 1.25% 2,258 1.73% 2,478 1.82% Hispanic 26,031 23.10% 42,446 32.52% 52,480 38.50% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 8,193 7.27% 13,081 10.02% 16,512 12.11% Native American, Non-Hispanic 421 0.37% 840 0.64% 793 0.58% National Origin Foreign-born 22,772 20.22% 33,137 25.40% 35,300 25.90% LEP Limited English Proficiency 15,638 13.88% 22,812 17.49% 24,965 18.32% Sex Male 56,489 50.15% 64,927 49.77% 68,542 50.29% 84 519 Female 56,148 49.85% 65,535 50.23% 67,753 49.71% Age Under 18 27,188 24.14% 35,677 27.35% 31,745 23.29% 18-64 75,361 66.91% 81,767 1 62.67% 89,676 65.80% 65+ 10,089 8.96% 13,018 9.98% 14,874 10.91% Family Type 76,480 67.86% 71,105 54.48% 63,698 46.74% Families with children 1,411 1.25% 2,258 1.73% 2,478 1.82% Table 18.1: Demographics,Rancho Santa Margarita (Rancho Santa iVlargarita,CA' (Los An "Long Beacli_= CDBG''Jurisdiction,.' Anaheim;=CA Region Racie/kthnj icity White,Non-Hispanic 31,096 63.36% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 1,210 2.47% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 9,604 19.57% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 5,137 10.47% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 0 0.00% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 1,604 3.31% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 97 0.20% 30,960 1 0.24% Ni tional Origin #1 country of origin Mexico 1,379 2.81% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Philippines 901 1.84% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin El Salvador 475 0.97% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Iran 446 0.91% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% China excl. Hong Kong #5 country of origin and Taiwan 439 0.89% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin India 356 0.73% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Vietnam 345 0.70% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% 48 country of origin German 263 0.54% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Korea 232 0.47% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Argentina 208 0.42% India 79,608 0.66% Limifed-En lish Proticienc _ #1 LEP Language Spanish 2,183 4.80% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Vietnamese 224 0.49% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Korean 223 0.49% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Arabic 192 0.42% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Tagalog 190 0.42% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Persian 187 0.41% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Chinese 155 0.34% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Japanese 87 0.19% Japanese 32,457 0.27% Other Slavic #9 LEP Language Language 54 0.12% Russian 28,358 0.23% 85 520 #10 LEP Language German 42 0.09% 1 Arabic 23,275 0.19% Hearing difficulty 677 1.38% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 442 0.90% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 838 1.71% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 1,108 2.26% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 477 0.97% 312,961 2.60% independent living difficulty 715 1.46% 496,105 4.13% V, Male 23,681 48.81% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 24,839 51.19% 6,500,403 50.67% Under 18 13,719 28.27% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 31,402 64.72% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 3,399 7.01% 1,415,376 11.03% Famihal,StatUS' Families with children 7,256 56.76% 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Rancho Santa Margarita is majority White (63.36%) with significant minority populations of Hispanics (19.57%) and non-Hispanic Asian residents (10.47%). This is a significantly larger White population than the county as a whole (41.40%). Black residents comprise 2.47% of the population, and non-Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 3.31%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.20%. National Origin The most common country of origin for Rancho Santa Margarita residents is Mexico, with 2.81% of the city population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in Rancho Santa Margarita are, in order, Philippines, El Salvador, Iran, China (excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan),India, Vietnam, Germany, Korea, and Argentina. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Rancho Santa Margarita with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Vietnamese, Korean, Arabic, Tagalog, Persian, Chinese, Japanese, Other Slavic Languages, and German. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Rancho Santa Margarita residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, cognitive difficulty, independent living difficulty,hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex Rancho Santa Margarita residents are 48.81%male and 51.19% female. 86 521 Age The majority of Rancho Santa Margarita residents are between 18-64, with 64.72% of residents falling in this group. 28.27% of city residents are under 18, and 7.01% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 56.76% of Rancho Santa Margarita's population. Table 18.2: Demo ra hic Trends,Rancho Santa Mar arita 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 9,721 80.59% 35,728 74.82% 32,644 67.28% Black,Non- Hispanic 147 1.22% 1,014 2.12% 1,111 2.29% Hispanic 1,183 9.81% 6,019 12.60% 8,850 18.24% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 932 7.73% 4,350 9.11% 5,521 11.38% Native American, Non-Hispanic 43 0.36% 325 0.68% 270 0.56% National Origin Foreign-born 1,753 14.49% 6,404 13.40% 7,746 15.97% LEP Limited English Proficiency 653 5.40% 2,595 5.43% 2,723 5.61% Sex Male 6,055 50.06% 23,527 49.21% 23,681 48.81% Female 6,041 49.94% 24,281 50.79% 24,839 51.19% Age Under 18 3,118 25.78% 15,827 33.10% 13,719 28.27% 18-64 8,519 70.43% 29,814 62.36% 31,402 64.72% 65+ 459 3.79% 2,168 4.53% 3,399 7.01% Family Type Families with children 1,819 54.54% 7,149 64.49% 7,256 56.76% 2 Rancho Santa Margarita was incorporated in 2000 so boundaries prior to incorporation may be different. 87 522 Table 19.1: Demographics, San Clemente (San Clemenie,CA CDBG) (Los Angeles Long Beach ' � � �� i " Jurisdiction "�4,;,i��i��( ,` Anahenn,;CA rRe aon w ,ayq� u io Race/Etlillici ,." # !a.,a rlii % #,y _ YO White,Non-Hispanic 47,747 73.20% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 433 0.66% 1 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 11,665 17.88% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 2,940 4.51% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 75 0.11% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 1,551 2.49% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 89 1 0.14% 1 30,960 1 0.24% National Ori in #1 country oforigin Mexico 2,877 .4.41% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country oforigin Canada 400 0.61% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country oforigin Iran 363 0.56% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Philippines 321 0.49% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Germany 264 0.40% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin England 202 0.31% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Colombia 198 0.30% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Korea 179 0.27% 1 Iran 1 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin India 175 0.27% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% 410 country of origin Poland 162 0.25% India 79,608 0.66% Limited En lish`Proficienc = #1 LEP Language Spanish 2,672 4.47% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Vietnamese 103 0.17% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Tagalog 91 0.15% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Korean 83 0.14% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Persian 74 0.12% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Japanese 60 0.10% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Chinese 53 0.09% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Greek 34 0.06% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Thai 34 0.06% Russian 28,358 0.23% Other Pacific Island #10 LEP Language Language 17 0.03% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Hearing difficulty 1,950 3.01% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 783 1.21% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 1,581 2.44% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 2,060 3.18% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 929 1.43% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 1,675 2.59% 496,105 4.13% Seg. p Male 31,315 50.27% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 30,980 49.73% 6,500,403 50.67% 88 523 i' su v '� °plli •� iui.°i i, Under 18 14,972 24.03% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 39,094 62.76% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 8,228 13.21% 1,415,376 11.03% Familial Status _ r c, r Families with children 7,482 45.56% 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity San Clemente is majority White (73.20%) with a significant minority population of Hispanics (17.88%). This is a significantly larger White population than the county as a whole (41.40%). Black residents comprise 0.66% of the population, and non-Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.11% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 2.49%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.14%. National Origin The most common country of origin for San Clemente residents is Mexico, with 4.41% of the city population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in San Clemente are, in order, Canada,Iran,Philippines, Germany, England, Colombia,Korea,India, and Poland. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in San Clemente with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Spanish.The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are,in order,Vietnamese,Tagalog, Korean, Persian, Japanese, Chinese, Greek, Thai, and Other Pacific Island Languages. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by San Clemente residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, hearing difficulty, independent living difficulty, cognitive difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex San Clemente residents are 50.27% male and 49.73% female. Age The majority of San Clemente residents are between 18-64,with 62.76% of residents falling in this group. 24.03% of city residents are under 18, and 13.21% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 45.56% of San Clemente's population. 89 524 Table 19.2: Demo ra hic Trends, San Clemente 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 35,093 83.45% 40,022 78.55% 47,349 76.01% Black,Non- Hispanic 250 0.59% 442 0.87% 577 0.93% Hispanic 5,435 12.92% 8,028 15.76% 10,518 16.88% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 1,074 2.55% 1,802 1 3.54% 3,236 5.19% Native American, Non-Hispanic 140 0.33% 419 0.82% 488 0.78% National Origin Foreign-born 5,069 12.11% 6,797 13.34% 7,605 12.21% LEP Limited English Proficiency 2,552 6.09% 3,666 7.20% 2,694 4.32% Sex Male 21,017 50.19% 26,076 51.18% 31,315 50.27% Female 20,856 49.81% 24,871 48.82% 30,980 49.73% Age Under 18 9,037 21.58% 12,640 24.81% 14,972 24.03% 18-64 27,570 65.84% 31,879 62.57% 39,094 62.76% 65+ 5,267 12.58% 6,428 12.62% 8,228 13.21% Family Type Families with children 4,973 43.73% 4,960 45.52% 7,482 45.56% Table 20.1: Demographics, San Juan Capistrano _ _ (San Juan Capistrano,Orange (Los Angeles Long Beach Coun Jurisdiction« („z T Anaheim,CA Re ion$ "Race/EtfuilC ity White,Non-Hispanic 20,600 57.30% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 32 0.09% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 13,073 36.37% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 1186 3.30% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 140 0.39% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 595 1.66% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 322 0.90% 30,960 0.24% 90 525 National Ori in G ih��°;'i'�'ti;;" o,i,r ri #1 country of origin Mexico 5,627 68.92% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% 42 country of origin Canada 272 3.33% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin England 271 3.32% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Peru 191 2.34% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Iran 150 1.84% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Cuba 149 1.82% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% 147 China excl. Philippines Hong Kong& #7 country of origin 1.80% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% China, 142 excluding Hong Kong #8 country of origin and Taiwan 1.74% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin India 126 1.54% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Poland 119 1.46% India 79,608 0.66% Limited:En`fish Proficient Spanish or 5,935 Spanish 41 LEP Language Creole: 17.65% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Persian: 143 0.43% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Chinese: 102 0.30% Korean 156,343 1.29% Other Indic 54 #4 LEP Language languages: 0.16% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% 45 LEP Language Vietnamese: 48 0.14% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language German: 33 0.10% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Japanese: 32 0.10% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Russian: 29 0.09% Japanese 32,457 0.27% Mon-Khmer, 29 #9 LEP Language Cambodian: 0.09% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Tagalog: 28 0.08% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Disabih _ _ v �f Hearing difficulty 1,181 3.3% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 744 2.1% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 1,134 3.4% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 2,144 6.4% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 1,251 3.7% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 1,653 6.0% 496,105 4.13% _Se% Male 48.03% 11.0% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 51.97% 9.4% 6,500,41 50.67% al iAM Under 18 8,381 23.35% �3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 20,925 58.29% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 6,593 18.37% 1,415,376 11.03% Familial Status Families with children 8,839 72.3% 1,388,564 47.84% 91 526 Race and Ethnicity San Juan Capistrano is a majority White city,with 57.30%of residents being White. 0.09% of residents are Black, 36.37% Hispanic, 3.30%Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0.39%Native American. National Origin The most common countries of origin for foreign-born residents in the city is Mexico, at 68.92%. The remaining most common countries for foreign-born residents, in order, are Canada, England, Peru, Iran, Cuba,the Philippines, China, excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan, India, and Poland. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in San Juan Capistrano with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Spanish or Spanish Creole. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Persian, Chinese, other Indic languages, Vietnamese, German, Japanese, Russian, Mon-Khmer Cambodian, and Tagalog. Disability The most common types of disability experienced by San Juan Capistrano residents in order are ambulatory, independent living, self-care, cognitive,hearing, and vision. Sex San Juan Capistrano residents are 48.03% male and 51.97% female. Age The majority of residents are between 18-64,with 58.29% of residents falling in this group. 23.35% of city residents are under 18, and 18.37% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 72.3% of the population. Table 21.1: Demographics, Santa Ana (Santa Ana,CA CDB_G,HOME, (Los Angeles—Long Beach ESG)Jurisdiction ES Anaheim;,CA Re"ion Race/Ethnici #; White,Non-Hispanic 31,499 9.42% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 2,716 0.81% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 258,449 77.27% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 38,872 11.62% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 430 0.13% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 2,184 0.68% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 377 1 0.12% 30,960 1 0.24% National Origin. 77, #1 country of origin Mexico 108,270 32.37% Mexico 108,270 F 32.37% 92 527 #2 country of origin Vietnam 20,391 6.10% Vietnam 20,391 6.10% #3 country of origin El Salvador 6,021 1.80% El Salvador 6,021 1.80% #4 country oforigin Guatemala 3,153 0.94% Guatemala 3,153 0.94% #5 country of origin Philippines 2,234 0.67% Philippines 2,234 0.67% China excl. China excl. Hong Kong Hong Kong #6 country of origin and Taiwan 1,215 0.36% and Taiwan 1,215 0.36% #7 country of origin Cambodia 1,211 0.36% Cambodia 1,211 0.36% #8 country of origin Korea 740 0.22% Korea 740 0.22% #9 country oforigin Honduras 707 0.21% Honduras 707 0.21% #10 country of origin Peru 494 0.15% Peru 494 0.15% Limited En HWli Pro ficienc r - ! ' #1 LEP Language Spanish 123,215 41.06% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Vietnamese 13,682 4.56% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Chinese 984 0.33% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Tagalog 676 0.23% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Cambodian 618 0.21% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Laotian 327 0.11% Ta alo 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Korean 284 0.09% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Japanese 224 0.07% Japanese 32,457 0.27% Other Indic #9 LEP Language Language 222 0.07% Russian 28,358 0.23% Other Pacific Island #10 LEP Language -Language 171 0.06% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Hearing difficulty 6,745 2.04% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 9,075 2.74% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 9,177 2.77% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 11,321 3.42% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 5,603 1.69% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 9,146 2.76% 496,105 4.13% Sex' ash Male 164,857 51.05% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 158,082 48.95% 6,500,403 50.67% Under 18 99,297 30.75% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 201,647 62.44% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 21,995 6.81% 1,415,376 11.03% Fain lial.Status "--_ = - Families with children 1 34,031 57.04% 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Santa Ana is majority Hispanic (77.27%) with a significant minority population of non-Hispanic Asian residents(11.62%). This is a significantly larger Hispanic population than the county as a whole(34.20%). Black residents comprise 0.81% of the population,and non-Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.13%of the population.The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 0.68%,and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.12%. 93 528 National Origin The most common country of origin for Santa Ana residents is Mexico,with 32.37% of the city population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in Santa Ana are, in order, Vietnam, El Salvador, Guatemala, Philippines, China (excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan), Cambodia, Korea, Honduras, and Peru. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Santa Ana with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Vietnamese, Chinese, Tagalog, Cambodian, Laotian, Korean, Japanese, Other Indic Languages, and Other Pacific Island Languages. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Santa Ana residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, cognitive difficulty, independent living difficulty, vision difficulty,hearing difficulty, and self-care difficulty. Sex Santa Ana residents are 51.05%male and 48.95% female. Age The majority of Santa Ana residents are between 18-64, with 62.44% of residents falling in this group. 30.75% of city residents are under 18, and 6.81% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 57.04% of Santa Ana's population. Table 21.2: Demo ra hic Trends, Santa Ana 1990 Trend 2000 Trend- 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 68,937 23.58% 42,837 12.74% 30,994 9.60% Black,Non- . Hispanic 6,272 2.15% 4,817 1.43% 3,662 1.13% Hispanic 189,758 64.92% 254,995 75.81% 251,792 77.97% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 26,112 8.93% 31,510 9.37% 35,171 10.89% Native American, Non-Hispanic 671 0.23% 1,333 0.40% 891 0.28% National Origin Foreign-born 148,116 50.69% 178,689 53.13% 159,506 4939% 94 529 LEP Limited English Proficiency 125,596 42.98% 155,759 46.31% 147,471 45.67% Sex Male 155,301 53.15% 174,039 51.75% 164,857 51.05% Female 136,895 46.85% 162,299 48.25% 158,082 48.95% Age Under 18 89,063 30.48% 118,041 35.10% 99,297 30.75% 18-64 186,981 63.99% 200,328 59.56% 201,647 62.44% 65+ 16,151 5.53% 17,969 5.34% 21,995 6.81% Family Type Families with children 32,142 58.43% 35,540 64.63% 34,031 57.04% Table 22.1: Demographics,Tustin (Los Angeles Long"Beach— ` "�� �� ,s�r (Tusfin,'CA CDBG)'Jiiiistlichon , Anaheim CA Re ion!,1 CA White, — # White,Non-Hispanic 24,289 30.36% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 1,926 2.41% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 32,982 41.22% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 17,542 21.93% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 418 0.52% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 1,949 2.62% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 169 0.23% 30,960 0.24% National Ori in - F"5,r ; #1 country oforigin Mexico 11,270 14.09% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Vietnam 2,115 2.64% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin India 2,048 2.56% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Philippines 1,677 2.10% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Korea 1,446 1.81% Korea 224,370 1.85% China excl. Hong Kong #6 country of origin &Taiwan 1,250 1.56% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Taiwan 1,040 1.30% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Iran 507 0.63% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Guatemala 405 0.51% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Canada 339 0.42% India 79,608 0.66% Limited;En lish Mr iricienc #1 LEP Language Spanish 10,333 14.60% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Vietnamese 1,665 2.35% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Korean 844 1.19% Korean 156,343 1.29% 95 530 #4 LEP Language Chinese 816 1.15% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Tagalog 400 0.57% Armenian 87,201 0.72% Other Indic #6 LEP Language Language 285 0.40% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Hindi 218 0.31% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Persian 216 0.31% Ja anese 32,457 0.27% Other Asian #9 LEP Language Language 183 0.26% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Arabic 165 0.23% Arabic 23,275 0.19% DisbibilitY Hearing difficulty 1,749 2.19% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 1,216 1.52% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 2,308 2.89% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficult 2,894 3.63% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 1,162 1.46% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 2,353 2.95% 496,105 4.13% , SeX �iS 4.n Male 36,263 48.83% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 37,995 51.17% 6,500,403 F50.67% Ake Under 18 19,341 26.05% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 48,704 65.59% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 6,213 8.37% 1,415,376 11.03% Familial Status Families with children 9,226 52.64% 1,388,564 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Tustin is majority Hispanic (41.22%) with a significant minority population of White residents (30.36%) and non-Hispanic Asian residents (21.93%). Black residents comprise 2.41% of the population, and non- Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.52% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 2.62%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.23%. National Origin The most common country of origin for Tustin residents is Mexico, with 14.09% of the city population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in Tustin are, in order, Vietnam, India, Philippines, Korea, China (excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan), Taiwan, Iran, Guatemala, and Canada. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Tustin with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese, Tagalog, Other Indic Language, Hindi,Persian, Other Asian Language, and Arabic. 96 531 Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Tustin residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive difficulty, hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, and self-care difficulty. Sex Tustin residents are 48.83%male and 51.17% female. Age The majority of Tustin residents are between 18-64,with 65.59% of residents falling in this group.26.05% of city residents are under 18, and 8.37% are 65 or older. Familial Status Families with children constitute 47.84% of Tustin's population. Table 22.2: Demographic Trends, Tustin 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 33,203 64.04% 29,936 45.70% 26,741 36.01% Black,Non- Hispanic 2,546 4.91% 2,001 3.05% 1,879 2.53% Hispanic 10,687 20.61% 22,177 33.85% 28,873 38.88% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 5,105 9.85% 10,452 15.95% 16,240 21.87% Native American, Non-Hispanic 197 0.38% 401 0.61% 314 0.42% National Origin Foreign-born 11,250 21.67% 21,580 32.92% 24,470 32.95% LEP Limited English Proficiency 6,814 13.13% 13,970 21.31% 14,937 20.12% Sex Male 26,403 50.87% 32,163 49.07% 36,263 48.83% Female 25,502 49.13% 33,386 50.93% 37,995 51.17% Age Under 18 12,604 24.28% 17,885 27.28% 19,341 26.05% 18-64 35,509 68.41% 42,998 65.60% 48,704 65.59% 97 532 65+ 3,792 7.31% 4,665 7.12% 6,213 8.37% Family Type Families with children 6,634 51.65% 8,043 53.99% 9,226 52.64% Table 23.1: Demographics,Westminster ' (Westminster;CA CDBG,HOME) (Los'Angeles—Long Beach .+�, :agg d �,,�� �, urisdiction �,ih'° Anaheim,CA)Re ion Race%Ethniei _ m #, x # ° White,Non-Hispanic 22,450 24.46% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 797 0.87% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 21,783 23.73% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 43,957 47.89% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 384 0.42% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 1,858 2.07% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 121 0.13% 30,960 0.24% National'Origin n 1,1 x;t #1 country of origin Vietnam 26,801 29.20% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country oforigin Mexico 7,184 7.83% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country oforigin Philippines 906 0.99% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% China excl. Hong Kong #4 country of origin &Taiwan 467 0.51% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Egypt 428 0.47% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Cambodia 379 0.41% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Peru 294 0.32% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Laos 277 0.30% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Taiwan 273 0.30% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country oforigin Korea 254 0.28% India 79,608 0.66% Limited,En lish Proficienc _ x #1 LEP Language Vietnamese 22,514 26.32% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% 42 LEP Language Spanish 6,446 7.53% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Chinese 1,026 1.20% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Korean 234 0.27% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Cambodian 223 0.26% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Tagalog 213 0.25% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Laotian 202 0.24% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Japanese 154 0.18% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Arabic 147 0.17% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Armenian 77 0.09% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Hearing difficulty 3,399 3.71% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 1,959 2.14% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 5,517 6.02% 445,175 3.70% Ambulatory difficulty 6,308 6.89% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 2,964 3.24% 312,961 2.60% 98 533 Independent living difficulty 5,665 6.19% 496,105 4.13% sex-- Male 44,523 49.57% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 45,295 50.43% 6,500,403 50.67% Under 18 21,014 23.40%J 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 56,236 62.61% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 12,568 13.99% 1,415,376 11.03% Fa—'al Statusa = Families with children 9,079 44.54% 1,388,564� 47.84% Race and Ethnicity Westminster is majority non-Hispanic Asian residents (47.89%) with a significant minority population of White residents(24.46%)and Hispanic residents(23.73%).This is a significantly higher percentage of non- Hispanic Asian residents than Orange County overall (19.78%). Black residents comprise 0.87% of the population, and non-Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.42% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 2.07%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.13%. National Origin The most common country of origin for Westminster residents is Vietnam, with 29.20% of the city population comprised of residents from Vietnam. This is distinct from the most common country of origin for all Orange County residents(Mexico).The remaining most common countries of origin in Westminster are, in order, Mexico, Philippines, China (excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan), Egypt, Cambodia, Peru, Laos, Taiwan, and Korea. Limited English Proficiency The most commonly spoken language for those in Westminster with Limited English Proficiency(LEP)is Vietnamese. This is distinct from the most common LEP language overall in Orange County (Spanish). The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Cambodian, Tagalog, Laotian,Japanese,Arabic, and Armenian. Disability The most common type of disability experienced by Westminster residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive difficulty,hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty. Sex Westminster residents are 49.57%male and 50.43% female. Age The majority of Westminster residents are between 18-64, with 62.61% of residents falling in this group. 23.40% of city residents are under 18, and 13.99%are 65 or older. 99 534 Familial Status Families with children constitute 44.54% of Westminster's population. Table 23.2: Demo ra hic Trends,Westminster 1990 Trend=' 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- Hispanic 45,552 57.77% 32,550 36.89% 23,627 26.31% Black,Non- Hispanic 775 0.98% 985 1.12% 1,047 1.17% Hispanic 15,131 19.19% 19,678 22.30% 21,709 24.17% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 16,918 21.45% 33,809 1 38.32% 42,829 47.68% Native American, Non-Hispanic 357 0.45% 756 0.86% 454 0.51% National Origin Foreign-born 22,718 28.86% 37,094 42.04% 39,808 44.32% LEP Limited English Proficiency 16,594 21.08% 28,427 32.22% 30,447 33.90% Sex Male 40,162 51.03% 44,216 50.11% 44,523 49.57% Female 38,546 48.97% 44,019 49.89% 45,295 50.43% Age Under 18 19,745 25.09% 23,821 27.00% 21,014 23.40% 18-64 51,871 65.90% 54,970 62.30% 56,236 62.61% 65+ 7,093 9.01% 9,443 10.70% 12,568 13.99% Family Type Families with children 9,049 46.90% 9,753 49.37% 9,079 44.54% Non-Entitlement Jurisdictions Table 24: Demographics,Brea u (Los Angeles—Long Beach ' _ :Anaheim,GAP 'Re 'ion RacOEthnici White,Non-Hispanic 18,738 44.70% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 633 1.51% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 12,191 29.08% 5,700,860 44.44% 100 535 Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 8,883 21.19% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 93 0.22% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 1,270 3.03% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 113 0.27% 30,960 0.24% National,Ori m e,d r C.A F 41 country of origin Mexico 1,697 20.55% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Korea 1,390 16.83% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin Philippines 997 12.07% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Taiwan 623 7.54% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% China, excluding Hong Kong #5 country of origin and Taiwan 571 6.91% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin India 381 4.61% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Vietnam 318 3.85% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Canada 162 1.96% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin England 118 1.43% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% United Kingdom, excluding England and #10 country oforigin Scotland 112 1.36% India 79,608 0.66% Lirruted=En hsh Proficienc LEP Ia <' ' - n ua e Spanish or Spanish #1 LEP Language Creole 1,475 3.83% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Korean 988 2.57% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Langage Chinese 573 1.49% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Tagalog 178 0.46% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Vietnamese 118 0.31% Armenian 87,201 0.72% Mon-Khmer, #6 LEP Language Cambodian 117 0.30% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% Other Asian #7 LEP Language languages 109 0.28% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Arabic 106 0.28% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Japanese 59 0.15% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Thai 39 0.10% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Disabifi = Hearing difficulty 971 2.30% 81,297 2.59% Vision difficulty 580 1.40% 51,196 1.63% Cognitive difficulty 969 2.50% 99,317 3.16% Ambulatory difficulty 1,633 4.20% 133,232 4.24% Self-care difficulty 1 730 1.90% 61,615 1.96% Independent living difficulty 1,249 1 3.90% 104,705 3.34% Male 20,407 48.709/= 6,328,434 49.33% Female 21,500 51.30% 6,500,403 50.67% A e �t 101 536 Under 18 9,493 22.65% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 26,691 63.69% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 5,723 13.66% 1,415,376 11.03% Familial Staius s. V ,7i'u Families with children 4,880 32.32% 1,388,564 47.84% Table 25: Demographics,Cypress I) t ri A 169 '��i�� , .. 7 (LosEAngeles ' Long Beach ,i , ( ress' Anahelfi iCA ," lon Race/Ethnici "Ji" .s # %; % # % White,Non-Hispanic 19,399 39.50% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 1,947 3.96% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 9,767 19.89% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 16,154 32.89% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 179 0.36% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 1,506 3.07% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 156 0.32% 30,960 1 0.24% National Ori in #1 country oforigin Korea 3,736 25.87% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Mexico 1,668 11.55% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country oforigin Philippines 1,473 10.20% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin India 1,001 6.93% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Taiwan 812 5.62% Korea 224,370 1.85% China, excluding Hong Kong #6 country of origin and Taiwan 740 5.12% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Vietnam 703 4.87% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Iran 399 2.76% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Jordan 306 2.12% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin England 212 1.47% India 79,608 0.66% Limited English Proficient �.' LEP :L'an ua a #1 LEP Language Korean 4,111 8.79% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% Spanish or Spanish #2 LEP Language Creole 2,282 4.88% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Chinese 1,368 2.93% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Tagalog 480 1.03% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Vietnamese 455 0.97% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Japanese 197 0.42% Ta alo 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Persian 197 0.42% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Arabic 150 0.32% Japanese 32,457 0.27% Other and unspecified #9 LEP Language languages 142 0.30% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Thai 112 0.24% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Disabili Hearing difficulty 1,587 3.20% 81,297 2.59% 102 537 Vision difficulty 786 1.60% 51,196 1.63% Cognitive difficulty 1,789 3.80% 99,317 3.16% Ambulatory difficulty 2,640 5.60% 133,232 4.24% Self-care difficulty 1,180 2.50% 61,615 1.96% Independent living difficulty 1,583 1 4.10% 1 104,705 3.34% SeX i�r ilis'! � ,.I��i r.i iiii$!N�l��I��ii (9W Psi Male 23,816 48.50% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 25,286 51.50% 6,500,403 50.67% a rey�^nx Under 18 10,793 21.98% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 31,414 63.98% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 6,895 14.04% 1,415,376 11.03% Familial Status r Families with children 5,583 35.25% 1,388,564 47.84% Table 26: Demographics,Dana Point , x (Lo's Angeles'=Long Beach int ,Reions Po Raee/Ethnics _ -; _ # .Y , , ,.% = £# _ < _ % .. : White,Non-Hispanic 25,799 75.82% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 525 1.54% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 5,594 16.44% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 1,115 3.28% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 89 0.26% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 838 2.46% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 68 0.20% 30,960 0.24% NationalOri m _ #1 country of origin Mexico 1,076 23.31% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Canada 360 7.80% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin Iran 226 4.90% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Germany 218 4.72% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% 45 country of origin Vietnam 187 4.05% Korea 224,370 1.85% 46 country of origin Philippines 183 3.96% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Argentina 160 3.47% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin England 140 3.03% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Guatemala 140 3.03% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Ukraine 111 2.40% India 79,608 0.66% Limited En lish Proficient` � LEP'Lan ua e r n �..w Spanish or Spanish #1 LEP Language Creole 1,515 4.68% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Russian 94 0.29% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Chinese 58 0.18% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Korean 49 0.15% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% French(incl. Patois, #5 LEP Language Cajun) 38 0.12% Armenian 87,201 0.72% 103 538 #6 LEP Language Hungarian 38 0.12% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% Other West Germanic #7 LEP Language languages 34 0.11% Persian 41,051 0.34% Other Pacific Island #8 LEP Language languages 24 0.07% Japanese 32,457 0.27% Other Slavic #9 LEP Language languages 24 0.07% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Persian 22 0.07% Arabic 23,275 0.19% f Dis`abili Hearing difficulty 1,123 3.30% 81,297 2.59% Vision difficulty 361 1.10% 51,196 1.63% Cognitive difficulty 1,209 3.80% 99,317 3.16% Ambulatory difficulty 1,323 4.10% 133,232 4.24% Self-care difficulty 682 2.10% 61,615 1.96% Independent livin difficulty 1,137 4.00% 104,705 3.34% Sex` x Male 16,302 48.185- 6,328,434 49.33% Female 17,537 51.82% 6,500,403 50.67% M .tEll � Under 18 5,699 16.84% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 21,299 62.94% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 6,841 20.22% 1,415,376 11.03% Familial�StatllS +„ ,rti„" �� 'Y; a 1 i .�dlli i U•g + Families with children 2,909 19.90% 1,388,564 47.84% Table 27: Demographics,La una Beach n (Los Angeles Long Beach ,�x I� - P iidi�i i�i �,.M`" M �II La una Beach �� Anaheim CA Re ion,���� G ai�i a :� �i �e „ y�,, Race/Ethn White,Non-Hispanic 19,075 82.13% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 201 0.87% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 1,959 8.44% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 1,151 4.96% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 33 0.14% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 704 3.03% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 101 0.43% 30,960 0.24% National O n - #1 country of origin Iran 275 8.89% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Germany 259 8.37% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country oforigin Canada 240 7.76% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Mexico 238 7.69% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin England 211 6.82% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Poland 127 4.10% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% United Kingdom, excluding China excl. England and Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Scotland 1 114 3.68% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% 104 539 #8 country of origin France 112 3.62% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Korea 105 3.39% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Brazil 92 2.97% India 79,608 0.66% LLmlt8fl E��- ! N iiii ii�� ��.. " � n is l'roficienc LEP Lan ua a ;H,i, �i16 Spanish or Spanish #1 LEP Language Creole 127 0.56% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Korean 72 0.32% Chinese 239,576 1.98% French(incl. Patois, #3 LEP Language Cajun) 67 0.30% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Persian 50 0.22% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language German 49 0.22% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Tagalog 30 0.13% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Chinese 26 0.12% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Japanese 20 0.09% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Vietnamese 19 0.08% Russian 28,358 0.23% Serbo- #10 LEP Language Croatian 13 0.06% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Disability Hearing difficulty 624 2.70% 81,297 2.59% Vision difficulty 334 1.40% 51,196 1.63% Cognitive difficulty 714 3.20% 99,317 3.16% Ambulatory difficulty 814 3.60% 133,232 4.24% Self-care difficulty 293 1.30% 61,615 1.96% Independent livin difficulty 531 2.80% 104,705 3.34% Sex F Male 11,638 50.16% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 11,563 49.84% 6,500,403 50.67% A e, w , Under 18 3,989 17.19% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 13,887 59.86% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 5,325 22.95% 1,415,376 11.03% Familial Status Families with children 2,152 20.52% 1,388,564 47.84% Table 28: Demographics,La una Hills 1 L h(Lo Ange es _, ong'Beac s La una Hills z = Anaheim,CA Re ion, Race/Ethnici #° % - # . . ." % White,Non-Hispanic 18,298 58.58% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 745 2.39% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 6,519 20.87% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 4,556 14.59% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 158 0.51% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 946 3.03% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 13 0.04% 30,960 0.24% NationalOri #1 country of origin Mexico 1,992 24.32% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Philippines 11070 13.06% Philippines 288,529 2.38% 105 540 #3 country of origin Iran 1,021 12.46% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Vietnam 363 4.43% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin El Salvador 255 3.11% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Peru 242 2.95% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Korea 240 2.93% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin India 229 2.80% Iran 1 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Colombia 223 2.72% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Canada 206 2.51% India 79,608 0.66% Limited English Proficienc L'EP rLari u ._� Spanish or Spanish #1 LEP Language Creole 1,994 6.74% S anish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Persian 328 1.11% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Korean 238 0.80% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Chinese 228 0.77% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Tagalog 187 0.63% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Vietnamese 157 0.53% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Japanese 143 0.48% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Gujarati 101 0.34% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Arabic 65 0.22% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Polish 33 0.11% Arabic 23,275 0.19% DlSablh x, t i i�i Ili i�"'Iu� *wno ii J� luo-'�.� ar' Hearing difficulty 936 3.00% 81,297 2.59% Vision difficulty 631 2.00% 51,196 1.63% Cognitive difficult 1,114 3.80% 99,317 3.16% Ambulatory difficulty 1,322 4.50% 133,232 4.24% Self-care difficulty 1 771 2.60% 61,615 1.96% Independent living difficulty 1,070 4.30% 104,705 3.34% Sex , r Male 15,052 48.47% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 16,003 51.53% 6,500,403 50.67% A e Gm°A i. 1 11 ' IIN'IM Under 18 6,337 20.41% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 20,208 65.07% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 4,510 14.52% 1,415,376 11.03% Familial-Status_ :. -_ = -_ `: Families with children 2,978T 28.72% 1,388,564 47.84% Table 29: Demographics,La una Woods Angeles°""Lo`ng Beach— s La unaj;Wo ods q����,;d,��e�M, N. = Anah6ift' Cion.. Race/Ethnics " # "� i�ii i�G% # White,Non-Hispanic 12,382 75.90% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 69 0.42% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 714 4.38% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 2,986 18.30% 1,888,969 14.72% 106 541 Native American,Non- Hispanic 0 0.00% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 141 0.86% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 22 0.13% 30,960 0.24% Natiori'alOri` in- " ..J w,l E #1 country oforigin Korea 1,082 20.14% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% China, excluding Hong Kong #2 country of origin and Taiwan 528 9.83% Phili ines 288,529 2.38% #3 country oforigin Iran 448 8.34% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Taiwan 383 7.13% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Philippines 328 6.10% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin South Africa 238 4.43% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin England 217 4.04% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin India 1 190 3.54% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Canada 171 3.18% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% 410 country oforigin Mexico 170 3.16% India 79,608 0.66% Limited English Proficient LEP Language #1 LEP Language Korean 658 4.02% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Chinese 393 2.40% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Persian 205 1.25% Korean 156,343 1.29% Spanish or Spanish #4 LEP Language Creole 188 1.15% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Vietnamese 84 0.51% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Hungarian 63 0.39% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Polish 42 0.26% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Arabic 31 0.19% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Japanese 30 0.18% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Russian 22 0.13% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Disability Hearing difficulty 1,868 11.50% 81,297 2.59% Vision difficulty 792 4.90% 51,196 1.63% Cognitive difficulty 973 6.00% 99,317 3.16% Ambulatory difficulty 2,758 16.90% 133,232 4.24% Self-care difficulty 1,172 7.20% 61,615 1.96% Independent living difficulty 11776 10.90% 104,705 3.34% Male 5,762 35.32% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 10,552 64.68% 6,500,403 50.67% -Age Under 18 11 0.07%1 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 2,852 17.48% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 13,451 82.45% 1,415,376 11.03% T;I:� � , Familial Status„ ,:� I Families with children 0 0.00% 1,388,564 47.84% 107 542 Table 30: Demographics,La Palma r(Los�Angeles�-,Long:Beach— . Lea'Parma v Anaheim,.CA), ! 4 o u` RacelEthnici = # „' White,Non-Hispanic 4,179 26.43% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 833 5.27% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 2,781 17.59% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 7,398 46.78% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 83 0.52% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 529 3.35% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 11 0.07% 30,960 0.24% National0ri in r #1 country of origin Korea 1,292 24.53% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin India 803 15.25% Phili ines 288,529 2.38% #3 country oforigin Philippines 592 11.24% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Mexico 532 10.10% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Vietnam 499 9.47% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Taiwan 430 8.16% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China, excluding China excl. Hong Kong Hong Kong& #7 country of origin and Taiwan 191 3.63% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Pakistan 152 2.89% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Cambodia 67 1.27% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country oforigin Romania 63 1.20% India 79,608 0.66% Limited En'lisb Proficienc , LEP Lan ua a i" r #1 LEP Language Korean 1,115 7.42% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% Spanish or Spanish 42 LEP Language Creole 675 4.49% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Chinese 490 3.26% Korean 156,343 1.29% African 44 LEP Language languages 191 1.27% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Tagalog 161 1.07% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Vietnamese 109 0.73% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Gujarati 90 0.60% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Japanese 78 0.52% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Arabic 74 0.49% Russian 28,358 0.23% Other Indic #10 LEP Language languages 69 0.46% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Dis`abili " Hearing difficulty 421 2.70% 81,297 2.59% Vision difficulty 262 1.70% 51,196 1.63% Cognitive difficulty 476 3.10% 99,317 3.16% Ambulatory difficulty 825 5.40% 133,232 4.24% Self-care difficulty 496 3.30% 61,615 1.96% Independent living diffi ulty 547 4.20% 104,705 3.34% Sex Male 7,673 48.54% 6,328,434 49.33% 108 543 Female 8,135 51.46% 6,500,403 50.67% Under 18 2,866 18.13% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 10,101 63.90% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 2,841 17.97% 1,415,376 11.03% Fami lial Status, r,; i���i' i. ° ny "• rat i ",�, a . u G 4 t Families with children 1,380 28.12% 1,388,564T 47.84% Table 31: Demographics,Los Alamitos x G� i' (Ios Angeles Long Beach '`-_ ozLos Alamitos , _ Anali-eim;CA),R' Race/Ethnici White,Non-Hispanic 5,505 47.30% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 518 4.45% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 3,233 27.78% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 1,448 12.44% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 74 0.64% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 842 7.23% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 19 0.16% 30,960 0.24% a a e National Qrl IQ a es ,�' Ni ii �h � P w��' !�iii�' �� l Tiih,, + �. .�- �ii . :� 7 fi a_ ,.3", #1 country oforigin Korea 373 19.97% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Mexico 353 18.90% Phili roes 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin Philippines 238 12.74% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Taiwan 115 6.16% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% United Kingdom, excluding England and #5 country of origin Scotland 76 4.07% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Sri Lanka 62 3.32% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China, excluding China excl. Hong Kong Hong Kong& #7 country of origin and Taiwan 56 3.00% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Canada 50 2.68% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Japan 47 2.52% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin India 37 1.98% India 79,608 0.66% Limited En lisli Proficienc LEP ,Lan'' r #1 LEP Language Korean 247 2.23% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% Spanish or Spanish #2 LEP Language Creole 243 2.20% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Tagalog 85 0.77% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Chinese 84 0.76% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Japanese 40 0.36% Armenian 87,201 0.72% Other Asian #6 LEP Language languages 29 0.26% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Vietnamese 22 0.20% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Armenian 20 0.18% Japanese 32,457 0.27% 109 544 Portuguese or Portuguese #9 LEP Language Creole 20 0.18% Russian 28,358 0.23% Mon-Khmer, #10 LEP Language Cambodian 19 0.17% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Disabili � „ Hearing difficulty 436 3.80% 81,297 2.59% Vision difficulty 300 2.60% 51,196 1.63% Cognitive difficulty 351 3.20% 99,317 3.16% Ambulatory difficulty 466 4.30% 133,232 4.24% Self-care difficulty 224 2.00% 61,615 1.96% Independent living difficul 308 3.50% 104,705 3.34% r m ifiiiP Sex :6 ' , �e �h(+edc, 'fk � P „ h, _ �,� `s. "" Pik Iin .° V!i Male 5,530 48.16% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 5,952 51.84% 6,500,403 50.67% r i6 A OMi Under 18 2,679 23.330 0 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 7,010 61.05% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 1,793 15.62% 1,415,376 11.03% Familial Status y„,ut r ; Families with children 1,296 31.53% 1,388,564 47.84% Table 32: Demographics,Placentia (Los Angeles Long Beach Placentia - r ,'Anaheim;'CA Re` ion Race/Et nicity # � z % ';"VONIi: ;I' �# �,� NMI White,Non-Hispanic 20,906 39.98% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 631 1.21% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 20,292 38.80% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 9,202 17.60% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 20 0.04% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 1,205 2.30% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 38 0.07% 30,960 0.24% IWO NationalOrn ��J °u�,i� Nii�� n t,,i I #1 country of origin Mexico 4,959 39.15% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Philippines 1,489 11.75% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin India 1,074 8.48% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Vietnam 955 7.54% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Korea 789 6.23% Korea 224,370 1.85% China, excluding Hong Kong #6 country of origin and Taiwan 479 3.78% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Taiwan 383 3.02% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Argentina 194 1.53% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Canada 161 1.27% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country oforigin Iran 156 1.23% India 79,608 0.66% 110 545 Spanish or Spanish #1 LEP Language Creole 5,022 10.29% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Korean 616 1.26% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Vietnamese 570 1.17% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Chinese 491 1.01% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Tagalog 370 0.76% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Gujarati 287 0.59% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Japanese 82 0.17% Persian 41,051 0.34% Other Asian #8 LEP Language lan wages 81 0.17% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Arabic 74 0.15% Russian 28,358 0.23% Other Pacific Island #10 LEP Language languages 70 1 0.14% 1 Arabic 1 23,275 0.19% Dsabili Hearing difficulty 1,509 2.90% 81,297 2.59% Vision difficulty 724 1.40% 51,196 1.63% Cognitive difficulty 1,449 3.00% 99,317 3.16% Ambulatory difficulty 2,425 4.90% 133,232 4.24% Self-care difficulty 1,193 2.40% 61,615 1.96% Independent living difficulty 1,725 4.30% 104,705 3.34% Sex- Male 25,505 48.98% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 26,572 51.02% 6,500,403 50.67% I, '•r; of! , 1 a = 1 p u k+t A e f� � i iaiiik =i li 7 _ q i,i iagr� Under 18 12,193 23.41% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 32,780 62.95% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 7,104 13.64% 1,415,376 11.03% Familial Status- , Families with children 5,831 35.54% 1,388,5647 47.84% Table 33: Demographics, Seal Beach (Los Angeles Long Beach Seal,Beach Anaheim,G'A)Re gion -Race/Ethnicity, White,Non-Hispanic 17,782 72.55% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 337 1.37% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 3,001 12.24% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 2,502 10.21% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 26 0.11% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 810 3.30% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 52 0.21% 30,960 0.24% #1 country of origin Korea 647 17.23% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Philippines 305 8.12% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin Canada 292 7.78% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Mexico 291 7.75% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Vietnam 224 5.97% Korea 224,370 1.85% 111 546 #6 country of origin Germany 129 3.44% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& 47 country of origin Japan 100 2.66% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Cuba 98 2.61% 1 Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Thailand 87 2.32% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin England 82 2.18% India 79,608 0.66% 'Limited En lis"iofkienc'" #1 LEP Language Korean 486 2.05% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% Spanish or Spanish #2 LEP Language Creole 360 1.52% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Chinese 192 0.81% Korean 156,343 1.29% 44 LEP Language Vietnamese 125 0.53% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Japanese 72 0.30% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language German 67 0.28% Ta alo 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Arabic 60 0.25% Persian 41,051 0.34% Other West Germanic #8 LEP Language languages 40 0.17% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Russian 36 0.15% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Thai 31 0.13% Arabic 23,275 0.19% rq `Disabili ; Ya„N� Hearing difficulty 1,558 6.50% 81,297 2.59% Vision difficulty 700 2.90% 51,196 1.63% Cognitive difficulty 1,202 5.20% 99,317 3.16% Ambulatory difficulty 2,567 11.10% 133,232 4.24% Self-care difficulty 1,000 4.30% 61,615 1.96% Independent living difficulty 1,371 6.50% 104,705 3.34% Sez : Male 11,097 45.96% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 13,047 54.04% 6,500,403 50.67% u y txf Under 18 2,917 12.08% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 12,047 49.90% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 9,180 38.02% 1,415,376 11.03% Familial Status �; . 41 Families with children 1,532T 12.30% 1,388,564 47.84% Table 34: Demographics, Stanton �OS Angeles�]_.Ong`,BeaCh -44�Stanton ,�� ;�,'�,. Anaheim,CA Re ion- Rake/Ethmci White,Non-Hispanic 7,172 18.56% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 519 1.34% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 19,358 50.09% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 10,674 27.62% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 173 0.45% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 709 1.83% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 43 0.11% 30,960 0.24% 112 547 NationalOri in _ #1 country of origin Mexico 7,699 44.54% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Vietnam 5,440 31.47% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin Korea 944 5.46% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Philippines 538 3.11% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Guatemala 382 2.21% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin El Salvador 307 1.78% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin Peru 207 1.20% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% China, excluding Hong Kong #8 country of origin and Taiwan 167 0.97% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Sri Lanka 153 0.89% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Bangladesh 99 0.57% India 79,608 0.66% Limrted;En lish:Proficienc LEP ,L°an ua e, sr ..�t�, r r��� �. as Spanish or Spanish #1 LEP Language Creole 7,609 21.26% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Vietnamese 4,128 11.54% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Korean 531 1.48% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Arabic 152 0.42% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Chinese 128 0.36% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Persian 70 0.20% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Tagalog 53 0.15% Persian 41,051 0.34% Other Asian #8 LEP Language languages 53 0.15% Japanese 32,457 0.27% Other Indo- European 49 LEP Language languages 49 0.14% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Thai 32 0.09% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Disabili Hearing difficulty 1,291 3.30% 81,297 2.59% Vision difficulty 691 1.80% 51,196 1.63% Cognitive difficulty 1,898 5.30% 99,317 3.16% Ambulatory difficulty 1,952 5.40% 133,232 4.24% Self-care difficulty 829 2.30% 61,615 1.96% Independent living difficulty 1,522 5.40% 104,705 3.34% � .. Sex Male 19,064 49.45% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 19,487 50.55% 6,500,403 50.67% s — _ .*.,. .� Under 18 10,149 26.33% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 24,010 62.28% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 4,392 11.39% 1,415,376 11.03% Familial Statu"s'.: Families with children 4,244 38.84% 1,388,564 47.84% 113 548 Table 35: Demographics,Villa Park (Los Angeles=Long Beach Villa Park�, ' Anaheim,CA Re `ion �` �h i A b tl Race/Ethnici # White,Non-Hispanic 3,998 67.36% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 80 1.35% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 668 11.26% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 1,001 16.87% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 0 0.00% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 162 2.73% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 1 26 1 0.44% 1 30,960 0.24% ti u�i}" Dili �'�' ��i�i iJ lid s+ (dla �i�'�i -National qrl lIl ii i� li .'..i it iiAi i� .���ii li���� L #1 country oforigin Taiwan 217 20.83% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin India 103 9.88% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin Vietnam 87 8.35% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% China, excluding Hong Kong #4 country of origin and Taiwan 87 8.35% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Korea 85 8.16% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country oforigin Mexico 73 7.01% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin England 46 4.41% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Japan 44 4.22% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Iran 34 3.26% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Germany 32 3.07% India 79,608 0.66% Limited En`Mh Proficienc .(LEP Lari ua a=z r #1 LEP Language Chinese 96 1.65% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Korean 83 1.43% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Vietnamese 44 0.76% Korean 156,343 1.29% Spanish or Spanish #4 LEP Language Creole 22 0.38% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% French(incl. Patois, #5 LEP Language Cajun) 19 0.33% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Gujarati 12 0.21% Ta alo 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Thai 10 0.17% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Arabic 8 0.14% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Persian 0 0.00% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Tagalog 0 0.00% Arabic 23,275 0.19% DisWfity Hearing difficulty 271 4.60% 81,297 2.59% Vision difficulty 193 3.30% 51,196 1.63% Cognitive difficulty 365 6.30% 99,317 3.16% Ambulatory difficulty 477 8.20% 133,232 4.24% Self-care difficulty 270 4.70% 61,615 1.96% Independent living difficulty 384 8.00% 1 104,705 3.34% III 114 549 Sex w Male 2,939 49.52% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 2,996 50.48% 6,500,403 50.67% Under 18 1,125 18.96% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 3,116 52.50% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 1,694 28.54% 1,415,376 11.03% 9411 11ull"'" FanilialStatus �Gi�� Families with children 524 26.23% 1,388,564 47.84% Table 36: Demographics,Yorba Linda a a lip di1i411 �'il 4 Los Angeles='Long$each" �'°���a Yorba.LiudanC'I` m; As& Anaheim;CA W ion Race/Ethnici' #R C'" °/ # %. O White,Non-Hispanic 40,902 60.38% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non-Hispanic 766 1.13% 859,086 6.70% Hispanic 10,991 16.23% 5,700,860 44.44% Asian/Pacific Island,Non- Hispanic 12,641 18.66% 1,888,969 14.72% Native American,Non-His . 67 0.10% 25,102 0.20% Two+Races,Non-Hispanic 2,327 3.44% 267,038 2.08% Other,Non-Hispanic 46 0.07% 30,960 0.24% National`Ori in' ' #1 country of origin Mexico 1,538 11.90% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Korea 1,403 10.85% Philippines 288,529 2.38% China, excluding Hong Kong #3 country of origin and Taiwan 1,401 10.84% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country oforigin Taiwan 1,285 9.94% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% #5 country of origin Vietnam 947 7.32% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Philippines 784 6.06% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% China excl. Hong Kong& #7 country of origin India 672 5.20% Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Iran 585 4.52% 1 Iran 1 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Canada 429 3.32% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Indonesia 263 2.03% India 79,608 0.66% IimitedrEn lish`.Proficienc' LEP Lan ua a !, ;" ,. r' wn; Spanish or Spanish #1 LEP Language Creole 1,299 2.05% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Chinese 1,132 1.78% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Korean 654 1.03% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language Vietnamese 522 0.82% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Persian 285 0.45% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Tagalog 161 0.25% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Gujarati 118 0.19% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Japanese 98 0.15% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Arabic 75 0.12% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Armenian 59 0.09% Arabic 23,275 0.19% 115 550 DiSaliili# w ,f. z- vl- Hearing difficulty 1,797 2.70% 81,297 2.59% Vision difficulty 765 1.10% 51,196 1.63% Cognitive difficulty 1,631 2.50% 99,317 3.16% Ambulatory difficulty 2,460 3.80% 133,232 4.24% Self-care difficulty 1,033 1.60% 61,615 1.96% Independent living difficulty 2,147 1 4.20% 104,705 3.34% Sex r r. — 0va1ff , �W iJb ilia�i6 liilili� II i Male 33,179 49.12% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 34,372 50.88% 6,500,403 50.67% Under 18 16,120 23.86% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 40,467 59.91% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 10,964 16.23% 1,415,376 11.03% Fam>l1al,StataS Families with children 7,825 35.6P/ 1,388,564 47.84% Los Angeles—Long Beach—Anaheim,CA Region Religion The most common religious group is Roman Catholic. Approximately 797,473 County residents identify as Roman Catholic, which is 26.49% of the total population. The second most common is nondenominational, which accounts for 122,205 residents, or 4.06% of the total population. Southern Baptist Convention and Mormon account for 2.30% and 2.22% of the population respectively. The remaining religions,which account for less than 1% of the total county population, are Assemblies of God, Buddhism, Muslim, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Church of Christ. Table 37: Demo ra hic Trends,Region 1990 Trend 2000-Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % White,Non- 5,166,76 Hispanic 8 45.86% 1 4,417,595 35.72% 4,056,820 31.62% Black,Non- Hispanic 971,105 8.62% 1,001,103 8.10% 932,431 7.27% 3,914,00 Hispanic 1 34.74% 5,117,049 41.38% 5,700,862 44.44% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 1,146,69 Hispanic 1 10.18% 1,651,006 13.35% 2,046,118 15.95% Native American,Non- Hispanic 36,210 0.32% 66,029 0.53% 54,362 0.42% National Origin 3,469,56 Foreign-born 7 30.80% 4,299,323 34.77% 4,380,850 34.15% LEP 116 551 Limited English 2,430,63 Proficiency 0 21.57% 3,132,663 25.33% 3,053,077 23.80% Sex 5,626,07 Male 7 49.94% 6,107,286 49.39% 6,328,434 49.33% 5,640,05 Female 1 50.06% 1 6,258,058 50.61% 6,500,403 50.67% Age 2,911,03 Under 18 1 25.84% 3,518,245 28.45% 3,138,867 24.47% 7,280,51 18-64 7 64.62% 7,641,369 61.80% 8,274,594 64.50% 1,074,58 65+ 0 9.54% 1,205,730 9.75% 1,415,376 11.03% Family Type Families with 1,318,47 children 3 50.20% 1,143,222 53.64% 1,388,564 47.84% Over time, the non-Hispanic white population has dropped over time since 1990 both measured both by percentage change and overall population decline.The white population has dropped by 21.48%since 1990, and has decreased by 1,109,948 people over that span. The white population has gone from representing 45.86% of the region's population to representing 31.62% of the region's population. By contrast, the Hispanic population in Orange County has grown significantly: 1,786,859 more people identify as Hispanic currently as compared to 1990, and Hispanic residents now represent 44.44% of the region's population, up from 34.74% in 1990. The Asian, non-Hispanic population has also increased over this time period, albeit at a slower pace than the Hispanic population: 237,963 more residents are non-Hispanic Asians, and their proportion of the region's population has increased from 10.18% to 14.72% today. The Black population has decreased slightly (from 8.62% to 6.70%), while the Native American population has remained relatively flat(0.32%to 0.20%). The percentage of population with LEP has seen an increase of approximately 2%. The percentage of the population that are families with children has decreased slightly, by approximately 2.5% since 1990. The population of residents under 18 has remained essentially constant. The population of residents from 18-64 has also remained basically constant, while the percentage of those over 65 years of age has increased slightly(by approximately 1.5%). 117 552 A. General Issues i. Segregation/Integration 1. Analysis a. Describe and compare segregation levels in the jurisdiction and region. Identify the racial/ethnic groups that experience the highest levels of segregation. Dissimilarity Index 3 W � m sr�p�r Leve"l o ,1 aew� Vue gregat11W L ° _ t 4; Dissimilarity Index 0-40 Low Segregation Value (0-100) 41-54 Moderate Segregation 55-100 High Segregation The tables below reflect the Dissimilarity Indices for each jurisdiction. The Dissimilarity Index measures the percentage of a certain group's population that would have to move to a different census tract in order to be evenly distributed within a city or metropolitan area in relation to another group. The higher the Dissimilarity Index, the higher the extent of the segregation. Overall, Orange County experiences moderate levels of segregation, with significant variances in some individual jurisdictions. The Non-White/White value is 44.71, Black/White 46.98, Hispanic/White 52.82, and Asian or Pacific Islander/White 43.19. These values have all increased sharply since 2010, though values had remained consistent from 2000 and 2010. Jurisdictional values tend to indicate low levels of segregation in comparison to the county as a whole, but this is due to the spatial distribution of populations across different jurisdictions rather than within different jurisdictions. Areas in central Orange County have the highest Dissimilarity Index values for their populations. The Cities of Orange, Santa Ana and Tustin are particularly affected. The Black/White index value for the City of Orange is 42.35, as opposed to a 22.63 Non-White/White index value.Neighboring Santa Ana has a 50.58 Non-White/White index value, and Tustin 48.19. Hispanic residents are affected in Santa Ana, with Dissimilarity Index value of 52.62, and Black and Hispanic residents are especially segregated with values of 66.02 and 57.43,respectively. These measures are relevant because Hispanic residents are more concentrated in Anaheim and Santa Ana, compared to the rest of the county. Black residents face consistently high Dissimilarity Index values, especially compared to Non- White/White or other populations' index values. They experience higher levels of segregation in La Habra, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, Orange and Santa Ana, and especially high levels in Newport Beach and Tustin, at 67.68 and 66.02, respectively. This is not represented in county- wide Dissimilarity Index values likely due to Black residents being comparatively more evenly distributed throughout the county than in individual jurisdictions. 118 553 Hispanic residents also face somewhat high Dissimilarity Index values,though values in individual jurisdictions are typically below the 40.00 threshold. Noticeable differences are evident in Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, and Tustin, which have relatively high levels of segregation. In Santa Ana and Tustin, Dissimilarity Index values for Hispanic residents in relation to White residents are 52.62 and 57.43 respectively. Dissimilarity Index values for Asian or Pacific Islander residents vary. Some jurisdictions have lower values, and others higher. In Garden Grove, values for Asian or Pacific Islanders are higher than for other groups. Table 1 Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and E hnicity for Oran a County Racial/Ethriic Dissimilari Index1990Trend e2000.Trend 2010Trend Current Non-White/White 30.38 34.71 33.58 44.71 Black/White 32.60 33.63 32.27 46.98 Hispanic/White 36.13 41.08 38.18 52.82 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 32.58 34.31 34.82 43.19 Table 2: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Aliso Viejo �r ® �'2000Trerids, 2010Trend ;� Cui rent RaciaUEthnic`_Dissimilari; Index1990Trend ,._ Non-White/White N/A N/A N/A 13.3 Black/White N/A 12.6 12.3 50.89 His anic/White N/A 11.6 20.4 22.57 Asian or Pacific Islander/White N/A 6.1 8.1 14.98 Table 3: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Anaheim I'AaciaUEthnic Dissiiriilari'"�IndeX 1990`TrA 12000 Trend„„ ,2010FTrend "' Current �i Non-White/White 29.37 31.67 31.72 31.70 Black/White 22.24 26.01 27.90 39.71 Hispanic/White 38.81 40.34 38.84 38.40 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.26 17.36 21.59 25.16 Table 4: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Buena Park RaciaUEthnic DWimilari Index 1990 '1_rend 20_00�Trend �201O Trend a' Cu_rren`t , , Non-White/White 18.17 22.07 21.40 23.51 Black/White 21.76 23.51 25.25 42.66 Hispanic/White 26.64 33.21 30.85 36.71 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 1 11.56 1 13.87 16.44 15.49 119 554 Table 5: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Costa Mesa Racial%Ethnic Dissimilari Index 1-990Trend 2000 Trend 2010Trend� Current a Non-White/White 29.76 36.82 34.36 35.80 Black/White 30.21 27.11 27.72 44.23 Hispanic/White 34.42 45.28 41.93 42.06 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 30.34 31.93 30.60 42.65 Table 6: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Fountain Valle '�4 Iliil lG Unl GIIIB � ,,i ��' nii iyd I IIIW IIi 1(h '.� RaciaUEthnic.Dissimilari " iTndex 1990 Trend 2000 Trend, 201QTrendl; i; urrent Po . Non-White/White 14.25 22.27 23.54 34.00 Black/White 27.24 27.57 26.28 39.71 Hispanic/White 21.64 28.33 29.59 42.15 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.85 22.12 23.58 33.68 Table 7: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Fullerton RaciaUEthnicDissimilari ` Index l'990 Trend -2000 Trend �2010Trend Current Non-White/White 25.53 31.15 30.52 29.76 Black/White 30.59 31.83 26.53 28.59 Hispanic/White 33.72 39.98 38.28 35.96 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 30.41 33.48 35.24 33.56 Table 8: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Garden Grove Racial/EthnicDissmilari FIndex" 1�990 Trend,+ ,=2000=T,rend 2010:Treri`d urrent ,yN Non-White/White 25.06 31.79 32.16 34.93 Black/White 22.18 23.11 23.45 35.03 Hispanic/White 27.67 32.64 33.20 36.26 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 27.45 34.98 33.98 38.21 Table 9: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Huntin ton Beach RaclaUEthnie Dissimilari Index i 1994 rend 2000,Trend= 20%1OT�renda urEm Non-White/White 21.11 23.44 21.58 25.52 Black/White 21.45 19.99 24.21 37.58 Hispanic/White 28.10 33.37 30.09 28.86 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 22.86 20.11 18.25 26.26 Table 10: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Irvine RaciaUEthmc Dissimilari xvIn enf Non-White/White 16.50 21.56 18.01 19.24 Black/White 43.00 27.84 19.37 39.54 Hispanic/White 21.99 22.81 17.89 26.58 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 18.18 22.57 18.73 73.67 120 555 Table 11: Dissimilarity Index Values b Race and Ethnicityfor La Habra Racial/EthnicDLssimilari,. Index 1`990Trend ZOOO., f:_urend ; 2010Trend Current Non-White/White 28.16 26.70 24.12 25.08 Black/White 12.56 13.23 19.35 40.12 Hispanic/White 33.91 30.92 28.56 30.22 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 40.47 38.68 36.53 27.99 Table 12: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for La Palma RaciaUEthnic Dissimilari Index x,Current Non-White/White 9.67 Black/White 17.98 Hispanic/White 1.93 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.62 Table 13: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for La una Ni ue1 R;aciaUEthnic,Dissiinilari Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend` 2010Trerid Curren: Non-White/White 9.17 12.98 16.34 20.29 Black/White 13.82 22.75 16.24 45.64 Hispanic/White 13.34 20.76 22.79 27.18 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.37 12.68 13.82 18.94 Table 14: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Lake Forest RaciallEthnicDissimilari4lndeX ��1990 Trend ,2000'�'�; g�reriii�„'.2010 T'irend Current :"q';��y Non-White/White 9.39 15.38 17.28 19.97 Black/White 12.43 12.16 9.52 26.59 Hispanic/White 15.72 26.10 27.63 30.04 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 8.84 11.06 13.46 17.18 Table 15: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Mission Vie'o RacialiEthmc=Dissimilari, Index 11990 T EC-5urrent Non-White/White 13.67 15.18 15.75 29.15 Black/White 18.03 20.63 16.83 43.54 His anic/White 12.26 18.75 20.96 20.00 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 20.00 16.83 13.98 16.84 Table 16: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for range (City) Racial/Ethnic Dissimilari "` In`dex1990Trend2000Trend2010-Trend_ �Current, n,, Non-White/White 23.79 24.21 22.68 22.63 Black/White 24.12 24.45 24.72 42.35 Hispanic/White 30.24 29.79 26.90 27.94 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 19.54 22.34 22.70 27.55 121 556 Table 17: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Rancho Santa Margarita RaciallEtlinicD,issI i ` Index 1990 Trend31'„ 2000`Trend 201Q rends Current Non-White/White 5.43 12.26 14.07 18.27 Black/White 7.18 12.64 13.35 23.56 Hispanic/White 5.73 19.52 23.13 24.53 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 6.70 8.56 9.55 17.95 Table 18: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for San Clemente Racial/EthnicI'Dissimilari Indexr, 1990 Trend 2000 Trendy 201'O Trend Current° + ` Non-White/White 21.89 25.93 16.76 17.23 Black/White 13.86 19.08 14.93 37.45 Hispanic/White 27.16 32.90 23.71 21.95 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 14.66 14.76 16.56 27.33 Table 19: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Santa Ana Racial/Ethnic DLssimilari, Indeg , 1990 Trend;_UN0¥Trend ,;IRMlOTrend, Current Non-White/White 47.73 49.25 46.51 50.58 Black/White 36.60 28.03 25.25 42.30 Hispanic/White 53.07 53.60 50.02 52.62 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 43.05 46.79 46.94 43.95 Table 20: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Tustin NOW a Dissimilari " ;Index F1994 Trend 2000 Trend= 201�O Trend Current Non-White/White 26.33 36.73 32.93 48.19 Black/White 42.49 35.11 29.03 66.02 Hispanic/White 31.14 48.19 42.55 57.43 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 19.20 17.74 19.76 28.73 Table 21: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Westminster Racial/Ethnic Dissimilari Inde_x 1Q90 Trend, 2000T#rends I2010 Trend ACurrentr _ _ _ Non-White/White _ 24.58� 28.05 31.59 11.95 Black/White 11.56 14.18 17.62 35.61 Hispanic/White 30.31 29.74 31.83 9.64 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 23.15 29.73 34.65 16.31 Non-Entitlement Jurisdictions Table 22: Dissimilarity Index Values, Brea Racial/Ethnic�Dissimilari ` Index Wurrent Non-White/White 11.40 Black/White 28.40 Hispanic/White 21.11 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.49 3 Rancho Santa Margarita was incorporated in 2000 so boundaries prior to incorporation may be different. 122 557 Table 23: Dissimilarity Index Values, Cypress Racial/Ethnic3 Dissimilari_ IndexCurrent Non-White/White 20.98 Black/White 29.47 Hispanic/White 23.70 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 21.94 Table 24: Dissimilarity Index Values, Dana Point uRacia1/Eth4ri °'" Gurrent Non-White/White 19.17 Black/White 46.50 Hispanic/White 25.62 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.27 Table 25: Dissimilarity Index Values, La Palma Racial/EthniciDissimilari Indexl��i;;nil; ,Current Non-White/White 11.34 Black/White 33.34 Hispanic/White 9.10 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 18.43 Table 26: Diss imilarity Index Values, Laguna Beach cial%Eihnic,�Dissimilam nIn IM WCurrent Non-White/White 26.11 Black/White 38.23 Hispanic/White 8.37 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 41.49 Table 27: Dissimilarity Index Values, Laguna Hills -`RaciaUEthnic Dissimilari ',nIndex , , Current Non-White/White 18.38 Black/White 50.11 Hispanic/White 26.05 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 19.06 Table 28: Dissimilarity Index Values, Laguna Woods Ra'cial/Etlinic Dis"flari Index ar�i1,1111111��!".0entu Non-White/White 14.83 Black/White 4.36 Hispanic/White 38.53 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 0.62 123 558 Table 29: Dissimilarity Index Values, Los Alamitos " " Racial/EthnicDissimilari ` Index Current `z Non-White/White 29.42 Black/White 62.03 Hispanic/White 33.57 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.96 Table 30: Dissimilarity Index Values, Placentia � Racial/E'thniDissimilari Index Curr,,ent Non-White/White 31.44 Black/White 46.05 Hispanic/White 37.79 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 23.07 Table 31: Dissimilarity Index Values, Seal Beach RaciaUEthnic,�Dissimilari "'"�Ind'ex � urr nt�� ; Non-White/White 10.56 Black/White 35.72 Hispanic/White 16.70 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 26.08 Table 32: Dissimilarity Index Values, Stanton RaciallEthnic_Diss mihir Indexi, Current Non-White/White 21.08 Black/White 44.79 Hispanic/White 25.43 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 21.95 Table 33: Dissimilarity Index Values,Villa Park RaciaUEthhi -Dissimilari Index 3C_urrent ' Non-White/White 33.19 Black/White 24.53 Hispanic/White 48.15 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 18.78 Table 34: Dissimilarity Index Values, Yorba Linda Rac>iaYEthmc Dissimilari r Index "'"'G Curreent„�M sit _ Non-White/White 12.82 Black/White 48.13 Hispanic/White 16.94 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 26.56 124 559 b. Explain how these segregation levels have changed over time (since 1990). In addition to the Dissimilarity Index, social scientists also use the Isolation and Exposure Indices to measure segregation. These indices, when taken together, capture the neighborhood demographics experienced, on average, by members of a particular racial or ethnic group within a city or metropolitan area. The Isolation Index measures what percentage of the census tract in which a person of a certain racial identity lives is comprised of other persons of that same racial/ethnic group. Values for the Isolation Index range from 0 to 100. The Exposure Index is a group's exposure to all racial groups. Values for the Exposure Index also range from 0 to 100. A larger value means that the average group member lives in a census tract with a higher percentage of people from another group. Table 35: Isolation Index Values by Race and Ethnicity, Orange County I olationIndex ¢ Current 5. µWhite/White 55.16 Black/Black 3.32 Hispanic/Hispanic 52.81 Asian/Asian 31.84 Table 36: Aliso Vie'o IsolationIndex1980 1990 _ 2000 2010 Curre , White/White N/A N/A 71.3 62.6 62.94 Black/Black N/A N/A 2.7 2.7 3.97 Hispanic/Hispanic N/A N/A 12.5 21.7 19.52 Asian/Asian N/A N/A 13.5 18.5 16.32 Table 37: Anaheim .Isolation Index y1980 �1990 200�4 2010 Current 4 _ _ White/White 78.8 62.1 44.9 37.1 35.8 Black/Black 1.8 3.1 3.6 3.6 3.61 Hispanic/Hispanic 28.6 44.8 58.2 61.7 59.25 Asian/Asian 4.4 10.8 16.5 20 22.66 Table 38: Buena Park �Isolation°Index �. 1a980 �1�990 -� 2000 s-� 201`0 ��£_Current - White/White 76.3 60.3 42.2 31.8 27.37 Black/Black 1.6 3.1 4.7 4.6 5.08 Hispanic/Hispanic 20 29 40.1 45.2 49.04 Asian/Asian 5.2 15.1 24.5 31.6 34.19 Table 39: Costa Mesa IsolationIndex 1980.." 1100L, 2000- 2010, M. Current White/White 84.1 74.8 64.6 59.7 57.38 125 560 Black/Black 1.6 1.8 2 2.1 3.18 Hispanic/Hispanic 14.9 29.3 47.7 49.2 45.35 Asian/Asian 6.4 9.7 12.7 14.3 22.27 Table 40: Fountain Valle eIsolation Index -1980 s1990. 2000WRi+" a2010 3Current White/White 83.9 73.4 60.6 52.4 45.93 Black/Black 0.8 1.2 1.7 1.5 0.75 Hispanic/Hispanic 7.1 9.2 12.4 15.1 29.93 Asian/Asian 7.6 18.6 30.7 38.8 42.97 Table 41: Fullerton �IsolationIridex 1980 199;0 2000', qm"a20a1'OA Current White/White 81 68.4 55.9 45.6 40.27 Black/Black 2.8 3 3.1 3 3.19 Hispanic/Hispanic 24.8 33.3 43.7 47.8 47.56 Asian/Asian 7 21 31.4 41 38.19 Table 42: Garden Grove Isolation Iridex w 1980 '�; '1990 Z000 i� �201`0 E Currents -w� � �k White/White 80.4 59 42 34.3 32.11 Black/Black 1.1 1.7 1.8 1.5 2.54 Hispanic/Hispanic 25.4 30.4 39.4 43.4 44.37 Asian/Asian 7.5 24.6 39.8 45.4 45.88 Table 43: Huntin ton Beach Isolation Index { 1980i � 6 11990 200fl ,'201'b', Current White/White 85.4 80.5 74.4 69.8 63.99 Black/Black 1 1.1 1.2 1.7 2.68 Hispanic/Hispanic 9.5 18.3 26.7 26.9 27.39 Asian/Asian 5.9 9.7 12.6 14.8 21.32 Table 44: Irvine Isolatio> Index 1980 ;.' y 1699�Or m2000° ;I �E20`l�`O�;y Current White/White 84.3 74.5 59.2 47 46.09 Black/Black 3.6 4.4 2.2 2.5 3.19 Hispanic/Hispanic 7.1 7 8 10.4 15.57 Asian/Asian 8.4 19.4 35.1 44.6 41.54 Table 45: La Habra Isolation Index . 1980 ,199U 2000` 20j110 �", n Current .xa :.'aaHPxr6 !: White/White 76.6 64.7 46.5 34.7 35.40 126 561 Black/Black 0.4 1 1.8 2 1.79 Hispanic/Hispanic 31.2 41.9 55.4 62.7 62.64 Asian/Asian 2.8 5.8 15.4 22.5 18.18 Table 46: Laguna Niguel Isolation IndeX 1980 '°'" 1990710, 2000 2a010 "Current White/White �� 92.7 83.2 77.9 73.4 68.74 Black/Black 0.4 1.4 1.8 1.7 3.98 Hispanic/Hispanic 4.4 8.4 12.2 16.7 20.88 Asian/Asian 2.2 8.2 9.8 12.3 11.02 Table 47: Lake Forest Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 " 20,10T Current White/White n/a n/a 67.9 59.3 54.69 Black/Black n/a n/a 2.4 2.2 2.95 Hispanic/Hispanic n/a n/a 23.1 30.7 32.32 Asian/Asian n/a n/a 11.6 16.2 17.49 Table 48: Mission Viejo UIsolatiori Indexes I980 �1990 !ARM �2010 " -,:Current r9® �� .�" White/White 89.8 85.2 76.8 70.1 67.55 Black/Black 0.8 1 1.8 2 3.11 Hispanic/Hispanic 5.9 8.2 15.6 20.8 21.55 Asian/Asian 3.4 7 10.2 12.5 12.48 Table 49: Orange (Ci ) Iso ationt Index1980 - 1990 �2000 " � 2010Current I"� ,,m White/White 82.9 70.3 58.5 50.4 52.18 Black/Black 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.2 2.71 Hispanic/Hispanic 17 30.6 39.7 43.9 44.99 Asian/Asian 3.7 10.2 13.6 15.9 14.10 Table 50: Rancho Santa Mar arita Isolation index� � 1980 r 1�990� 2000��� 2010 r„ a Current White/White n/a 78.3 74.9 68 67.91 Black/Black n/a 1.4 2.3 2.4 2.28 Hispanic/Hispanic n/a 11.6 15.1 21.9 21.90 Asian/Asian n/a 8.2 9.6 11.9 10.65 Table 51: San Clemente �iIsolationIndex� 1980 - 19t90, tihl �2010 �;� WCurrent -, -u i0,aw .J ua ,roi hni.nua� �i., _R a White/White 88.4 84.5 80.4 77.1 75.50 127 562 Black/Black 1.2 0.7 1 1 1.62 Hispanic/Hispanic 10 19.3 25.8 22.4 23.44 Asian/Asian 1.7 2.9 4.1 6.1 6.16 Table 52: Santa Ana `Isolation Index r 19841990 2000d` 2`01'0 f Current White/White 58.9 41.7 28.4 20.6 25.46 Black/Black 7.7 3.5 2.4 1.8 2.16 Hispanic/Hispanic 58.5 74.6 81.4 82.4 82.04 Asian/Asian 7 17.7 22.1 25.9 16.90 Table 53: Tustin 0 2004 2010 Current Isolation Ind°ex" 1980 ` 199 3 White/White 83.7 66.3 54.3 43.2 52.44 Black/Black 6.1 9.9 3.6 2.7 4.84 Hispanic/Hispanic 10.2 27 51.3 51.9 56.10 Asian/Asian 4.4 12.1 19.6 26.7 19.86 Table 54: Westminster Isol tioIn`dex 1980 1990 12000 52010 Cur=_ent White/White 78.2 60.7 43.2 34.3 16.61 Black/Black 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.78 Hispanic/Hispanic 14.5 24.8 26 28.6 28.35 Asian/Asian 9.5 25.9 45.8 55.4 57.40 Non-Entitlement Jurisdictions Table 55: Isolation Index Values, Brea Isolaho_n Index �� �Currerit White/White 48.74 Black/Black 2.19 Hispanic/Hispanic 35.18 Asian/Asian 22.25 Table 56: Isolation Index Values, Cypress Isolation�Ind`ex r °Current White/White 44.17 Black/Black 4.45 Hispanic/Hispanic 24.03 Asian/Asian 34.45 128 563 Table 57: Isolation Index Values, Dana Point Is�olatiori_Index 'Curr nt_, White/White 72.77 Black/Black 2.46 Hispanic/Hispanic 23.18 Asian/Asian 4.10 Table 58: Isolation Index Values, La Palma Isol Current White/White 29.59 Black/Black 6.48 Hispanic/Hispanic 25.33 Asian/Asian 41.14 Table 59: Isolation Index Values, Laguna Beach a Isolatton Index Currents White/White 71.88 Black/Black 1.72 Hispanic/Hispanic 8.52 Asian/Asian 26.72 Table 60: Isolation Index Values, Laguna Hills Isolat of n-Index ' ,`Curerit White/White 62.98 Black/Black 3.52 Hispanic/Hispanic 21.14 Asian/Asian 18.80 Table 61: Isolation Index Values, Laguna Woods �Isolation�Index � Curre t White/White 66.65 Black/Black 0.86 Hispanic/Hispanic 16.17 Asian/Asian 1 19.24 Table 62: Isolation Index Values, Los Alamitos µIsolation Index ,Current. White/White 61.96 Black/Black 5.77 Hispanic/Hispanic 26.74 Asian/Asian 13.53 129 564 Table 63: Isolation Index Values, Placentia �Isolat on�Index Current White/White 46.15 Black/Black 2.85 Hispanic/Hispanic 50.88 Asian/Asian 21.73 Table 64: Isolation Index Values, Seal Beach Isglation,4Index� Currents White/White 74.76 Black/Black 5.64 Hispanic/Hispanic 13.55 Asian/Asian 11.55 Table 65: Isolation Index Values, Stanton Isolatiori�Index y ���°Current White/White 26.47 Black/Black 2.79 Hispanic/Hispanic 48.93 Asian/Asian 31.42 Table 66: Isolation Index Values, Villa Park Isolation$Index Current a u. .� � White/White 52.00 Black/Black 1.41 Hispanic/Hispanic 50.17 Asian/Asian 17.75 Table 67: Isolation Index Values, Yorba Linda IsolatioIndex�� Current- White/White 59.46 Black/Black 3.00 Hispanic/Hispanic 21.33 Asian/Asian 22.32 Isolation values for different populations vary widely across the county and individual jurisdictions. Values for White residents are generally higher than for other residents, likely due to the larger number of White residents overall. In Orange County, White residents have an Isolation Index value of 55.16,Blackresidents 3.32,Hispanic residents 52.81, and Asian residents 31.84.Values for the county are sometimes higher than values in individual jurisdictions for White, Hispanic, and Asian residents, again likely due to higher segregation across jurisdictions rather than within them. Isolation values have generally decreased for White residents over time, increased for Hispanic and Asian residents, and remained low for Black residents. 130 565 There are notable exceptions, however. White residents have especially high Isolation values in Aliso Viejo, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, and San Clemente. While some of those cities have lower non-White populations, Lake Forest's significant Hispanic population suggests that White residents are disproportionately isolated. San Clemente has the highest White Isolation index value at 75.5. Buena Park has the lowest at 27.37. Isolation index values for Black residents are uniformly low. Values are in the single digits, due to the low Black population across the county. These values have remained low and fairly consistent since the 1980s, with no noticeable exceptions. Hispanic residents have experienced the highest Isolation Index value change over the last few decades. This is partly due to the increasing size of the population in the county. Certain areas have exceptionally high Hispanic Isolation Index values, however including La Habra at 62.64 and Santa Ana with 82.04. Table 68: Ex osure Index Values for Orange County Exposur=_e Indexes`K Currenfs: Black/White 38.76 Hispanic/White 27.47 Asian/White 35.78 White/Black 1.47 Hispanic/Black 1.56 Asian/Black 1.64 White/Hispanic 22.69 Black/Hispanic 34.09 Asian/Hispanic 27.54 White/Asian 17.10 Black/Asian 20.66 Hispanic/Asian 15.93 Table 69: Aliso Viejo Ex osure Index 1Q807; 1990 'fl 2000 5201'0 Chu Curret Black/White 70.7 55.1 35.3 25.5 20.09 Hispanic/White 72.8 54.7 33 24.4 20.39 Asian/White 73.7 58.7 39.4 28.6 25.83 White/Black 1 2.2 3.8 3.7 3.01 Hispanic/Black 1.2 2.6 4.4 4.3 4.15 Asian/Black 1.2 2.4 4 3.8 3.12 White/Hispanic 17.1 22.9 29 34.6 34.98 Black/Hispanic 20.5 27.1 36.4 42.2 47.49 Asian/Hispanic 17.7 23.1 30.5 35.3 34.03 131 566 White/Asian 4.1 13.8 23.4 29.2 31.53 Black/Asian 5 14 22 27 25.39 Hispanic/Asian 4.2 13 20.6 25.4 24.21 Table 70: Anaheim Exposure Index 1980i;iyN�i�u e99Q 2000� ;i';Il��i;i aa�2010 Current Black/White 76.7 57.2 36.7 27.8 25.38 Hispanic/White 65.9 45.4 27.3 21.2 20.8 Asian/White 78.7 61.6 41 31.4 28.44 White/Black 1.1 2.4 2.8 2.9 2.03 Hispanic/Black 1 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.09 Asian/Black 1.2 2.5 3.2 3.2 2.12 White/Hispanic 14.8 25.2 35.6 40.7 40.09 Black/Hispanic 15.8 29.7 43.1 49.9 50.48 Asian/Hispanic 14.2 24.6 37.8 44.8 44.5 White/Asian 3.9 9.8 15.2 18.6 19.66 Black/Asian 4.1 9.4 15.1 18.1 18.31 Hispanic/Asian 3.1 7.1 10.7 13.8 15.96 Table 71: Buena Park larE'xposure Index1980 ���,Yt 1990- 2000, !'�IE2010; Current Black/White 70.7 55.1 35.3 25.5 20.09 Hispanic/White 72.8 54.7 33 24.4 20.39 Asian/White 73.7 58.7 39.4 28.6 25.83 White/Black 1 2.2 3.8 3.7 3.01 Hispanic/Black 1.2 2.6 4.4 4.3 4.15 Asian/Black 1.2 2.4 4 3.8 3.12 White/Hispanic 17.1 22.9 29 34.6 34.98 Black/Hispanic 20.5 27.1 36.4 42.2 47.49 Asian/Hispanic 17.7 23.1 30.5 35.3 34.03 White/Asian 4.1 13.8 23.4 29.2 31.53 Black/Asian 5 14 22 27 25.39 Hispanic/Asian 4.2 13 20.6 25.4 24.21 Table 72: Costa Mesa Exposure Index 1980 ;ul£990r,„ 2000 20d10 Cue`ren`t .. Black/White 83.3 71.4 57.2 51.6 48.14 Hispanic/White 78.6 63.2 42.6 40.2 39.24 Asian/White 81.4 69.5 57.2 52.7 43.84 White/Black 0.6 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.49 Hispanic/Black 0.6 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.23 Asian/Black 0.6 1.3 1.9 2.1 2.21 132 567 White/Hispanic 9.7 17.6 23.8 27.8 25.99 Black/Hispanic 9.8 19.4 28.9 33.3 26.41 Asian/Hispanic 10.2 19.1 26.7 30 28.27 White/Asian 4.2 6 8.5 9.9 11.69 Black/Asian 4 7 10.5 12.1 19.1 Hispanic/Asian 4.3 5.9 7.1 8.2 11.38 Table 73: Fountain Valle ExposurehIndex t �980,; `` =1"0` 2000{ H,CG SN 2010 Current;i Black/White 83.5 70.8 54.9 47 40.9 Hispanic/White 83.4 71.6 55.4 46.4 29.3 Asian/White 83.3 71.8 55.2 45.9 32.95 White/Black 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.2 0.47 Hispanic/Black 0.7 1.1 1.6 1.4 0.47 Asian/Black 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.2 0.35 White/Hispanic 6.8 8 10.1 12.4 16.67 Black/Hispanic 7 9.6 12.7 15.1 23.22 Asian/Hispanic 6.8 8.1 11 13.3 21.16 White/Asian 7 17.2 26.3 33.2 33.5 Black/Asian 7 17.8 29.1 35.5 31.29 Hispanic/Asian. 7 17.4 28.8 36.2 37.8 Table 74: Fullerton gfiposure Index f i , f a 20�§2010 Current". Black/White 73.3 59.5 44.7 37.3 32.48 Hispanic/White 67.9 54.6 40 33 29.88 Asian/White 78.6 60.7 44.3 33.9 30.48 White/Black 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.39 Hispanic/Black 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.76 Asian/Black 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.17 White/Hispanic 11.6 18.1 24.8 29.7 31.92 Black/Hispanic 18.1 26.4 35.6 37.8 40.13 Asian/Hispanic 11.3 16.1 21 22.4 25.69 White/Asian 4.4 11.2 15.7 21.5 21.94 Black/Asian 4.1 11.2 15.2 21.1 21.26 Hispanic/Asian 3.7 9 12 15.8 17.3 Table 75: Garden Grove _ ;Expos eIndex �1980 1990'- 200.0 2010 Current Black/White 77 53 32.7 23.4 28.9 Hispanic/White 66.7 48.2 27.9 19.2 17.18 Asian/White 77 50.5 27.6 18.9 17.02 133 568 White/Black 0.8 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.48 Hispanic/Black 0.8 1.4 1.5 1.3 0.92 Asian/Black 0.9 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.89 White/Hispanic 11.5 20.7 27.8 31.3 31.25 Black/Hispanic 13.8 23.7 33 36.9 32.61 Asian/Hispanic 12.7 22.9 30.2 33.9 34.42 White/Asian 5.6 18.4 27.6 32.4 32.34 Black/Asian 6.2 21 31.4 37.7 32.74 Hispanic/Asian 5.4 19.4 30.2 35.6 35.94 Table 76: Huntingon Beach ' `' 2410 rCurreut Exposure Index 1a980 1990 2„OOO��;H� ��`r Black/White 83.9 77.5 69.4 64.5 59.11 Hispanic/White 82.9 71.8 60.4 57.7 52.89 Asian/White 83.4 77.2 70.9 66.3 1 54.76 White/Black 0.7 0.9 1 1.2 1.26 Hispanic/Black 0.8 1 1.1 1.4 1.3 Asian/Black 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.21 White/Hispanic 7.7 10.2 12.3 14.6 17.18 Black/Hispanic 8.6 12.8 16.1 18.8 19.87 Asian/Hispanic 8.2 11.7 13.8 16.5 18.84 White/Asian 4.7 7.8 10.7 13.2 13.44 Black/Asian 4.8 7.9 11.7 13.9 13.99 Hispanic/Asian 5 8.3 10.3 13 14.24 Table 77: Irvine Ex osure Iridez 1980 1990 '2000 2010. Current P am i Black/White 76.8 70 54.1 43.9 39.74 Hispanic/White 81.2 71.9 55.2 44 42.26 Asian/White 81.7 72.1 53.8 43.4 41.17 White/Black 1.3 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.57 Hispanic/Black 2 2.2 1.9 2.3 1.72 Asian/Black 1.8 1.7 1.8 2.2 1.83 White/Hispanic 5.8 6.1 7.1 8.6 10.98 Black/Hispanic 8.3 7.9 8.2 9.9 11.29 Asian/Hispanic 6.7 6.5 7.6 9.2 10.48 White/Asian 7.3 17.4 30.3 41.3 36.5 Black/Asian 9.6 17.2 33.6 43 41.09 Hispanic/Asian 8.4 18.7 33 42.6 35.75 134 569 Table 78: La Habra iEXposue Index 1980 1990 !illi 00 ^2010 'Pi1� `u>rrent �,.�. Black/White 75.6 63.3 42.5 30.8 30.02 Hispanic/White 65.7 53.6 36.6 27.4 25.8 Asian/White 77.6 63.8 43.5 32.1 34.55 White/Black 0.3 0.9 1.7 1.7 1.09 Hispanic/Black 0.3 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.09 Asian/Black 0.4 0.9 1.8 2.1 0.96 White/Hispanic 19.7 29.8 43.4 51.9 48.56 Black/Hispanic 20.2 30.9 47.1 53.6 56.34 Asian/Hispanic 17.9 29 38.1 42.5 44.47 White/Asian 2.2 4 7 10.8 12.95 Black/Asian 2.6 4.3 7.4 12.8 9.89 Hispanic/Asian 1.7 3.3 5.2 7.6 8.86 Table 79: Laguna Niguel Exposure Index 1a980 1990 rep, 2000' _22010 Current Black/White = 92.4 82.4 75.5 70.9 59.48 Hispanic/White 92.4 82.6 75.1 69.4 62.18 Asian/White 92.1 82.7 76.6 71.2 65.29 White/Black 0.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.64 Hispanic/Black 0.4 1.4 1.7 1.6 2.3 Asian/Black 0.4 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.11 White/Hispanic 4.2 7.7 10.1 13.3 15.5 Black/Hispanic 4.3 8.4 11.9 15.1 20.84 Asian/Hispanic 4.4 7.6 10.6 14.2 16.95 White/Asian 2 7.5 9.1 11.1 9.62 Black/Asian 2.1 7.5 9.1 11.6 11.33 Hispanic/Asian 2.1 7.4 9.3 11.5 10.03 Table 80: Lake Forest Exposure Index �1980° 1990 2000 `�2.010Current Black/White n/a n/a 67.3 58.3 52.72 Hispanic/White n/a n/a 62.4 52 47.67 Asian/White n/a n/a 66.5 57.4 52.56 White/Black n/a n/a 2.1 2 2.01 Hispanic/Black n/a n/a 2 1.9 2.01 Asian/Black n/a n/a 2.2 2 1.87 White/Hispanic n/a n/a 17.4 22.4 23.84 Black/Hispanic n/a n/a 17.4 23 26.34 Asian/Hispanic n/a n/a 18.4 23.5 24 White/Asian n/a n/a 11.2 15.5 15.36 135 570 Black/Asian n/a n/a 11.5 15.6 14.3 Hispanic/Asian n/a n/a 11.2 14.7 14.02 Table 81: Mission Viejo ExposureIndexd1980 FHV,Current Black/White 88.9 83.9 73.6 67.4 67.06 Hispanic/White 89.1 84.3 72 65 61.99 Asian/White 88.6 83.8 74.5 68 65.26 White/Black 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.7 1.62 Hispanic/Black 0.7 1 1.6 1.9 1.46 Asian/Black 0.7 1 1.6 1.8 1.47 White/Hispanic 5.6 7.6 11.5 16 15.89 Black/Hispanic 5.9 8.2 13.5 18.3 15.45 Asian/Hispanic 6 7.9 12.4 17 16.76 White/Asian 2.8 6 9 11.4 10.9 Black/Asian 3.2 6.5 9.8 11.4 10.12 Hispanic/Asian 3.1 6.2 9.4 11.5 10.92 Table 82: Orange City) Exposure Index 1.980 1990i 2'000 2010 `Current ..,4 .,1Hn .� Black/White 79 35.2 51.7 43.3 43.93 Hispanic/White 76.8 60.6 48 42.2 42.34 Asian/White 81.1 67.4 54.7 47.5 48.65 White/Black 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.09 Hispanic/Black 1.1 1.4 1.8 1.9 1.28 Asian/Black 0.9 1.2 1.8 1.9 1.16 White/Hispanic 11.6 20.4 28.3 34.4 33.22 Black/Hispanic 14.8 25.2 34 40.5 40.53 Asian/Hispanic 12.9 20.8 28.8 34 33.15 White/Asian 3.2 7.6 10.4 12.8 10.58 Black/Asian 3.2 7.5 10.8 13.2 +9.19 0.22 Hispanic/Asian 3.4 7 9.3 11.2 Table 83: Rancho Santa Mar arita E_x<posure Indexes�1980 � $1=9 0 " `°2000 _ 2010 Current Black/White n/a 78.3 73.2 66 66.49 Hispanic/White n/a 78.3 72.1 63.6 62.68 Asian/White n/a 78.3 74 66.6 65.32 White/Black n/a 1.4 2.1 2.3 1.73 Hispanic/Black n/a 1.4 2.3 2.4 1.63 Asian/Black n/a 1.4 2.2 2.4 1.9 White/Hispanic n/a 11.6 12.6 17.7 16.66 136 571 Black/Hispanic n/a 11.6 14 19.3 16.6 Asian/Hispanic n/a 11.6 13 18.4 17.99 White/Asian n/a 8.2 9.2 11.3 9.43 Black/Asian n/a 8.1 9.3 11.5 10.51 Hispanic/Asian n/a 8.2 9.2 11.2 9.77 Table 84: San Clemente Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 = 2010 Curr nth Black/White 85.5 82.3 75.9 75.3 76.35 Hispanic/White 86 77.1 68.6 70.8 68.96 Asian/White 87.1 83.6 79.3 76.4 74.08 White/Black 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.9 1 0.75 Hispanic/Black 1.1 0.6 1 0.9 0.63 Asian/Black 1 0.6 0.9 1 0.76 White/Hispanic 8.2 11.9 13.9 15.7 15.89 Black/Hispanic 10.4 13.8 18.2 17 14.78 Asian/Hispanic 9 12.4 14.5 15.5 14.98 White/Asian 1.5 2.6 3.7 5.4 4.29 Black/Asian 1.6 2.8 3.8 5.7 4.45 Hispanic/Asian 1.6 2.5 3.3 4.9 3.77 Table 85: Santa Ana �E"xpo°surelIndex 1980 £'1990' 2�000 2010"'��� `CurrentG' � Black/White 38.2 27.1 19.5 14.5 15.73 Hispanic/White 30.8 15.8 9.3 7.5 8.57 Asian/White 46.2 27.4 15.4 11.1 13.25 White/Black 3.3 2.6 2.3 1.8 1.29 Hispanic/Black 4 2 1.3 1 0.83 Asian/Black 4.8 2.4 1.6 1.2 0.96 White/Hispanic 30.8 44.4 56.7 63.9 60.58 Black/Hispanic 45.6 59.1 66.7 71.8 71.44 Asian/Hispanic 39.2 52.2 60.1 61.5 67.45 White/Asian 4.9 10.8 11.8 13.2 10.72 Black/Asian 5.9 9.9 10.6 11.4 9.44 Hispanic/Asian 4.2 7.3 7.5 8.7 7.72 Table 86: Tustin "Ex osureIndex 1980 _ 1990l2000 - 20120 ��; Current£ Black/White 78 57 40.3 32.5 20.01 Hispanic/White 81.4 56.6 30.8 26.3 23.47 Asian/White 83 62.7 48.9 37.2 39.02 White/Black 2.4 4.9 2.8 2.3 1.36 137 572 Hispanic/Black 3 6.3 3.5 2.7 3.49 Asian/Black 2.6 4.6 2.9 2.4 2.56 White/Hispanic 8.5 18.5 23.5 30 25.32 Black/Hispanic 10.2 24 39 42.8 55.54 Asian/Hispanic 8.6 20.1 27.2 33.1 34.8 White/Asian 4 9.8 17.9 23.8 17.08 Black/Asian 4 8.4 15.6 21.4 16.51 Hispanic/Asian 3.9 9.6 13.1 18.5 14.12 Table 87: Westminster E'pAosure Index 9 0 1990 20002010 Curren Black/White 78.8 57.8 38.6 29.6 17.19 Hispanic/White 74.1 52 33.4 24.5 16.4 Asian/White 75 53.8 31.1 21.4 15.21 White/Black 0.7 1 1.2 1.3 0.45 Hispanic/Black 0.6 1 1.1 1.2 0.51 Asian/Black 0.6 1 1 1 0.36 White/Hispanic 11.5 17.3 20 22.6 27.06 Black/Hispanic 11.4 18.7 21.8 25.7 31.71 Asian/Hispanic 12.9 18.8 20.9 21.7 24.54 White/Asian 7.7 20.5 34.1 41.1 53.04 Black/Asian 7.1 21.9 37 42.6 47.49 Hispanic/Asian 8.5 21.6 38.2 45.1 51.88 Non-Entitlement Jurisdictions Table 88: Exposure Index Values, Brea Exp tee.osure Index ,� ���Cu� rrent: Black/White 46.13 Hispanic/White 43.14 Asian/White 47.93 White/Black 1.58 Hispanic/Black 1.55 Asian/Black 1.70 White/Hispanic 25.86 Black/Hispanic 27.13 Asian/Hispanic 24.13 White/Asian 19.99 Black/Asian 20.69 Hispanic/Asian 16.80 138 573 Table 89: Exposure Index Values, Cypress .,Exposure Indexes Curr nt'. Black/White 37.56 Hispanic/White 38.58 Asian/White 37.61 White/Black 3.33 Hispanic/Black 3.70 Asian/Black 3.87 White/Hispanic 20.09 Black/Hispanic 21.73 Asian/Hispanic 20.60 White/Asian 28.27 Black/Asian 32.84 Hispanic/Asian 29.74 Table 90: Exposure Index Values, Dana Point --, Expflosure,Index Current` Black/White 75.73 Hispanic/White 68.57 Asian/White 74.73 White/Black 1.09 Hispanic/Black 0.90 Asian/Black 1.09 White/Hispanic 17.05 Black/Hispanic 15.5 Asian/Hispanic 16.48 White/Asian 3.62 Black/Asian 3.64 Hispanic/Asian 3.21 Table 91: Exposure Index Values, La Palma - � .� �� -�=Win% Exposure Index Currents Black/White 25.73 Hispanic/White 29.45 Asian/White 27.22 White/Black 4.32 Hispanic/Black 4.07 Asian/Black 5.32 White/Hispanic 24.56 Black/Hispanic 20.22 Asian/Hispanic 22.42 White/Asian 37.72 139 574 Black/Asian 43.89 Hispanic/Asian 37.25 Table 92: Exposure Index Values, Laguna Beach Exposure Index Current Black/White 74.89 Hispanic/White 70.43 Asian/White 61.60 White/Black 0.99 Hispanic/Black 1.02 Asian/Black 0.62 White/Hispanic 8.24 Black/Hispanic 9.04 Asian/Hispanic 7.78 White/Asian 15.62 Black/Asian 11.99 Hispanic/Asian 16.88 Table 93: Exposure Index Values, Laguna Hills `Exposure Index�� Current= Black/White 55.88 Hispanic/White 57.65 Asian/White 60.02 White/Black 1.56 Hispanic/Black 2.04 Asian/Black 1.67 White/Hispanic 16.02 Black/Hispanic 20.38 Asian/Hispanic 16.14 White/Asian 16.01 Black/Asian 16.01 Hispanic/Asian 15.49 Table 94: Exposure Index Values, Laguna Woods E,osure Index Curi'erit Black/White 67.23 Hispanic/White 61.51 Asian/White 66.73 White/Black 0.84 Hispanic/Black 0.72 Asian/Black 0.85 White/Hispanic 10.40 140 575 Black/Hispanic 9.75 Asian/Hispanic 10.31 White/Asian 19.21 Black/Asian 19.40 Hispanic/Asian 17.55 Table 95: Exposure Index Values, Los Alamitos Ex osure Index Current Black/White 41.47 Hispanic/White 50.85 Asian/White 57.37 White/Black 1.82 -Hispanic/Black 3.96 Asian/Black 2.49 White/Hispanic 18.85 Black/Hispanic 33.44 Asian/Hispanic 21.15 White/Asian 12.88 Black/Asian 12.73 Hispanic/Asian 12.81 Table 96: Exposure Index Values, Placentia Exposure Index Current" Black/White 34.37 Hispanic/White 29.80 Asian/White 39.38 White/Black 1.66 -Hispanic/Black 2.07 Asian/Black 1.67 White/Hispanic 31.19 Black/Hispanic 44.89 Asian/Hispanic 34.60 White/Asian 18.16 Black/Asian 15.95 Hispanic/Asian 15.25 Table 97: Exposure Index Values, Seal Beach Exposure Index Currerit;> Black/White 66.77 Hispanic/White 73.68 Asian/White 73.94 White/Black 1.19 141 576 Hispanic/Black 1.41 Asian/Black 1.34 White/Hispanic 11.68 Black/Hispanic 12.59 Asian/Hispanic 9.56 White/Asian 8.40 Black/Asian 8.56 Hispanic/Asian 6.85 Table 98: Exposure Index Values, Stanton Exposure Index� _Current Black/White 18.65 Hispanic/White 18.94 Asian/White 20.68 White/Black 1.27 -Hispanic/Black 1.59 Asian/Black 1.26 White/Hispanic 41.28 Black/Hispanic 50.81 Asian/Hispanic 44.50 White/Asian 28.49 Black/Asian 25.44 Hispanic/Asian 28.13 Table 99: Exposure Index Values,Villa Park Exposure Index - urrent_ Black/White 46.78 Hispanic/White 34.63 Asian/White 47.94 White/Black 1.15 Hispanic/Black 0.96 Asian/Black 1.30 White/Hispanic 27.92 Black/Hispanic 31.53 Asian/Hispanic 30.59 White/Asian 16.32 Black/Asian 17.96 Hispanic/Asian 12.92 Exposure Index values are for the most part consistent with proportions of populations in individual jurisdictions. While Non-White/White exposure values are decreasing, exposure to Hispanic and Asian populations is increasing, and to the Black population is remaining the same. 142 577 Exposure to White residents is exceptionally high in Mission Viejo and San Clemente. Areas with high Hispanic populations have high exposure to Hispanic residents as well, as seen in Santa Ana, but less so in Lake Forest, indicating higher levels of segregation. c. Identify areas in the jurisdiction and region with relatively high segregation and integration by race%thnicity, national origin, or LEP group, and indicate the predominant groups living in each area. 143 578 Race/Ethnicity Ma 1: Race/Ethnicity, North Orange County, CA _ .�, M. Legend =•M . •�� +" '+' et *� t, `j• ~ r} .f�r r,r .+n' .`t las/ 9 t �,L • .,1t Qet. �;r..�. r •' • :'�• . t' ••` r i •S twhi +! 1►'Fjy_'�? ,.,1 •s. +ats��y .�:.3+ •x'lib`' ;.4�,?, •�}r• f• Ltd '�- s • a •4 NS.:'�? tit•' �• ti.• Y' t• .+y'•.« �lii"••.♦ •- ♦ itf:ia.�:�'{�' ,vt Birk •r •j1 =t•. Z ♦'K♦ y«.-q .,At• wMY. .: •' ..,� "S t••�• • i I++ • N•ivr Aa acmorAmauem Indian S•��, is} ",.' .•, .�. t"•• a..t. •�,• 'S • •' 4r' �, 04'�'' y • Pacific W.ds r.rt '.�,•a• •" 33/fi A� �`�iw••r�ee •� � 1•7.i'»;w"= .. tax.' •{^.�• +�+l ,�• '. � r'�K` ;�•.� '�.;it �a�Stn. •s'''•. t 'I.• ` '. o'i+••;/ i+:7 •L. .a- air �`• � ..,. . .• jet x V. ; ir. y rts`i►• 11'�y��t�'�'�} t LEiTON fit 3 .ti Wit.• �'rJ �f tors►Lasaw•�_�.• �R •'• t •• •• ��.•= M ►d :`, • .�r�.j�...� RACLx T[A ►S. 'i •�i7 • •t t•,Y. .rtr 'p'(«f y'P•( ��r sirt•,tj«i Y�y V-,�s�•�t •�ei••4Y• *• �: t yy, t r= , ��.,,�•_�•�f: r si,t=•'�'!� 'i'�rwyrt� "'. ;•a,+,+' _••~' � t tom•: i:w'i»;'�'' ` aw�iM"s'.•:tx•• sy 't+r�t�rt'♦« � `_'•• �,r 'L4-.•• l:G.w�•• 7- Z-Or Y reas yt• •`%[. v c+ r=�Ri•. tiF. c-n.Lsrse= M .,Yt,. exibae rtyv, .a•rtiS; „ A.A. M r,Lai eLAaraa +•+R ) .tj I[r �e i' •! •• r' . {:>�.• jr•'' ♦' •ti• t ,a.�,� �•.a/.'auxcea ••w♦ •rt •'�.� osaxcecO ,•.'•' • 4 ;s ti+ .•�iinex aso'cew,a; .� i ,` • :` ` •t.. , •*� _t ! . ,�«c �.ett � •� , tit •.' (}t~ •r €r • i• �„j. ;.e,•+y • .Jtlf�'�✓�••• '*tiM�' �3fsrS /1 ..�r� s• ,�•- reesruaearca. •. } �'- . .r.• fit, `�tt•r�: ':,.`. reALeescn •� .-sr i• }to,. saxra._.xa.=�`-' t '• 'r' ,, t. • ` •! `�- ..ids• .: ��N.ayt' • ncxr5cryori"sera= t.4 " ♦s. xcirn+, :•> . ;=-..• "�••� c rotmriarc�.er 1� j•. .r ', 144 579 Map 2: Race/Ethnicity, Central Orange County, CA o N .. + ,� _• ttnns' `STANT .r ear •i.`� p•'`�• �f "� •`:wlt�m<< !, NI .'• .,r.,{ :{ •'. r;=' •". tof AllaTaa' ..•„ [•`•,..�A'�• 31,.A ' j, '• ':• • a'y.. f t!•S' '3 •sv • .. t�',t, a' ., .iG',• a'.:I!:«'': t,�;tY 1:•�.fii.!' .,'oaaxGE3".,•,e!"Pa: r i �., :.. �• •:Y, .".;✓ .. 15t;�csinEl`cc�a7-Egj�, -..�:l. w .;•x !- .... r :.+• ••% a:t� 4y♦•.•..•♦4 A +Y.'aw+. • tea . ••.•♦.•a. .._•r •x 'j�r ft'.+:..••.L. `�Z`f rK• •�♦. •. ���•A� rdi�. .. +ram,�S.,,'• f.'.. • v �� y�r:;►: .r .•ram �tt �•.• 'r d � � :y• '•f 1. I- +,�:•.» 't�,":... � 2 SELL AO[OE :,•• .RfSY1xfSEt', ,r,., •• -•i y » M.t •t _ f`s�; .r rs�l.l•4• :•� mot` �at�.r iGi. .j'�ds'r�e���1'�, ��•�••: a. '•,`r•t. `!' tf• ♦ .41i4�s••�'�'' a1A. �.�.r�:C7'i�•S' ..1♦.y-�yyk.: •;�r : ;•`•` •!'•• �riOtiN S VALLE •' J. �i•j r..,,i•,�:+ }' •y v• 'V. ;''`• • ncxiixorox BEicn,( .. ri L (+"•� • ♦ i •p �'ar x :!•ir, ,» ram. ••.� •`►♦ . i • I' ,� +,. •'%}:I.: .`+»M tea,•.i. •i,•♦��. .�'I ,r. .•••r•,• t f,•r .. coaxes irna S� r , t:.X-t 7x'•I„1 .q�w •.;'�t.•et Z• a:. ••r: ;+ • • tM 11% a. Legend . s•, •�.`�•' •. ,,.1,1,�:»�•::i, •I 1 r..1�, Race/F,t- am ,ti,►'i�lz 00.0 ♦.��� r +..M•• Y 4t. `r',� R6ek .J,•' t AI• fx7�7•oer aexc>!'•:y • Nati•e A—acanoc Anxcan Inds- rt`•, .• • ^i•__ • Ammm PaciSe Islaad•r IM � f•` • •�, .. • Hispanic • • _• !,>.•yr : •' Map 2.1: Hispanic Origin, Central Orange County CPD Maps- Persons of Hispanic Origin ri 1\ fir#. I Mach 16.2020 1.49,569 0 O.r25 085 t7 m� 1 tfiap-1,0,igin 1322-28.18%—>71.50% . 803002EST12 PCT a as awn 28 18-47 80% �,...+e.-.e.a7.w�.u .w•,�,...eueea*a rac.,.7•n �0-1322% 47.80-71.50% 145 580 Map 3: Race/Ethnicity, South Orange County, CA ... :• . U At ��ty�j'. H� `w• •• .• Legend tAN TSANA•t : !%nt, •. } ��' 'i •' 14o1 v • 'J 4` r • • t •'t oasiA AtLfA. ."Ott <^c� "t.�.t'�'�'�� '.. ,�•j..l'• .!•',. Birk • ' •,r:� � s''�'•`'s`•r' + �'�j•"«�.•: s• NoveAmerieaoorAmmml�n •. • -lal "rC,acrr.i;.• uzst iose"ar`: .• .�` Asia JF fit'` , r�'s 'Y�' .�•.is :�;�• R.� � l �� Yy ay�� '.. i• Hp—. �: t., is ,�.•• I•'js,r �•.LS', ..r.7:."•r_ i'. 1�•r• •♦ ii `•�, y 1•�^ •,t.•S LAN QfO laTi t6ltARGASITA : Mai ••,f'•f` LAG IINA VZD'1K,♦ < h.'"v.♦ `•.jam« OLNGL CO .�. �trioa `LAGUNAKACN •�♦ L•, s• aL tyv ice.. ,�•� ••wt ' i••,�~�:� •9,1A�•gip• • • 'sAN'jtssat.unsriaiv o • ,•AAN aOiEr:TL ••� Clear patterns of segregation both across and within jurisdictions are visible in the above maps. In general, White residents tend to reside towards the outer edges of the county, while Hispanic and sometimes Asian residents are found more in the center of the county. La Habra, Anaheim, Buena Park, Santa Ana,Tustin, and parts of Costa Mesa have higher concentrations of Hispanic residents, while Fullerton, Westminster, Garden Grove, and Anaheim have higher populations of Asian residents. In areas with high Hispanic or Asian populations are present, segregation within a jurisdiction is more visible. For example,Hispanic residents are found more in northern Anaheim, western Costa Mesa, eastern Tustin, northern Huntington Beach, southeastern Lake Forest, and northwestern San Juan Capistrano. Asian residents are more heavily concentrated in Garden Grove, northern Fullerton, eastern Westminster, and northwestern Irvine. Integration More integrated areas of the County include the city of Orange, Fountain Valley, and Mission Viejo. 146 581 National Origin Map 4: National Origin, North Orange County, CA Lcgend -, NarmmlOvgm I D.,-50 _ FhIPP—, w , J-P'a Ck3m,cctudmg t3ossg F.aag wd Tu— •L�xwaad i � Leg..d Indi> msex ♦ , • . aw • e + '* +Pt%LL£LTOri", '�+ t'OHBeLA Dd w r, « •C1'PAESS • 3' ... � i+' ♦ ' . t'tLLA iXAS .. • •�S i` • wORXTv GE GQ • 3SA TAT: ��• S LQS ALXMSSQS Yt ��:• •,Y +r„ . w • i• ' + ++• .t ..��.� 'vw� K...T•�.t ,i i Qadxce « � �����.. � ri � :mow �.• r • ',1�� �b+i r • •+ WES2XtR:4SER ' i seer,arwcx • C�fA^�i" aXr 2X dhX +•: �'•. wJ w t� �. < Al,��.•,, '; + 'rc•stm. « �+r+ tat'tcsE' ,i n�xre.crAn ncect[. +,. •. w♦ ,; r • Map 5: National Origin, North Orange County, CA L.g<.d 1 D—50 ... S Szk-3d. C—& C-4. - L'—i lze.. , ,�Ls xXaca « • narw - - + F{•LLiZSQtt }Tannh LDEDA e x w $ w { � yc S� T'• + low, i � t + etrcess• Y • "+. X"4,�T,` '.�' _ •�•��suta rein + ♦. , LQS ALXS3TTQ8 y.•' ♦ ewe +t �`y. & �. X b rtiR k`� •^� �ti - „• a eBa�` .� R + � `air♦ ., �' ..ate��:�«���w +�. ' FRS•�"' � ` .��+� z . . 4 , asstacrnszea, �, > ' +...-... �POVIa TARt rd1LEY.• '-'.-v . ♦� .. 147 582 Map 6: National Origin, Central Orange County, CA •. -TON' ' .. . A1'AN r.ID1 . n� x,os,u.Asoros S R .1• •, L ,•y.•rr T't,,. oaAxce �a • • '•♦ •T('.2••aI�•1-..OF!.�G[OI•C'••a•N4{a' ., u AL neacx . }f, y• ,.•t•� • roeei riLN i�wu.c1 ;• r, xtiN rtNGTON BeACx l s'•a ,, :A. "''• ' • CO[SA a[CSA . . • 1�g..d i Na Ionem I Doe=iC •N L'.if20[T DEAEII , • Ch,aa.cd„d,og Hoeg Y:oog vd 7i;mo o[ANGe co• Sad:i LAGENA aEAcx Map 7: National Origin, Central Orange County, CA sM♦." .I(.Y a1•Ci -•R 1.,,•�,a/ �+:. •f•=y �' ••• ni[NA�A[[ -iy1+� ���15a[[• ° ..i' •1ir"a.LA 1•AI[ 'GlT[IIS •+•�1�� •T'•I�yy\ANAx Ca[ ' •. •� •M; �,gY.}^a''(�'•.'��I�p 19S A1.A1aTOd •. , • a •aR • 4 •• • O[ANGC a • ^ . • •, a '.i J;,..'.?• ,� '.i R• c` ;�' •�..za s' •� as'esrxvcliea �'•S',±i�•' "�t t• , SEAL DEA.IX �"^ .:,j�ri '•i�: . I � A i .�$ .fir•,` "n�rar .�aaL•+'.:• rocxrAm o:u,iev a +' 't,w•�.� ' '�• •• '. nENrDeerax nEseis ',�.a•�f�v�'••' . • 1. x sue• '.' �� s. '�,• a •. +. recm�e' UT[ .•* q•aR!♦ • i N[Go 10.gm r •• i ' I Doe=50 - - . II S>kadaa C—da Goa—I. L'n.sd}:uq&. 148 583 Map 8: National Origin, South Orange County, CA AI��TTA,,,H���E••IDy��1 •• • SAT TA AT A' 'f•4':•. � rcizE@; mow•.,:: '• . , POUT:rAII:t�A1LE]' • •�; ',S t.l• HVNTMGTON!EACH y.y=:� _' , ••• , [Et'm E COdTA MESA• •••�J 'ice• .Y LwIE TOIESI • + dts= +r'+ ' • " • • t;�• • •• r. '•aAT CHo s.A4 rs S4AELAAI YA ,.t • i' "ErroRT 6£A.H•• • .LAGti HA ROO DS • YIESI Oti i"ILJO• • • ••~ • S LAGETA HdLb r • ALI50 t"RjO. • ♦= r• ' ORATGECO LAGCTAIIEACH LAGITA N11—j N>mo>xl Oniga sA.v JL cA STRA o Doi�JO • .— nv:w romt ", Pp--. knrea SAT aErenre kP+" • Ch—m hvd Hoc{K-C—d 7,_•n-.c ind:a Map 9: National Origin, South Orange County, CA IGAi AL DLN GsoPE _ . 1 a UMSTER *•a�a' r TA AHA - 'TG3T t • CW TA YESA s t LdtE tO�iT -1 •j� ♦ ..0�. •J.• • 1.`'j�•. ♦ •• •=• Y A•t M�• 11 '[AN CHO—TA...GAE1TA H ctroat sLAet'. LGL'NA vaons , '••.•�L• • ' s M#TOX�'ICJO a'Y •LAGL'XA HdLL • y . • OEAT•GECO ucErw etwcH • • LAGti HA TSGCPJ. a ' SA4Jt[EATO u�.,a ryT•r•. . NauemI Duey. daxe iwart Ilaa •- • SAT CLESI ETTL • Ve9.ro • • 0 Sak-ad- c_lu c oily - Cm:sni facgdom 149 584 There are some clear patterns of settlement based on national origin in Orange County. The maps above show the largest populations of foreign national origins in both the county overall and in individual jurisdictions. These maps were formed using the top five largest foreign born populations in each jurisdiction, but due to the high levels of overlap across jurisdictions, 12 populations total are represented. In northern Orange County, there is a high Korean population in La Habra and Fullerton. A very large Vietnamese population exists in the area stretching from Garden Grove into Westminster, and a Filipino population is most populous in Buena Park and Anaheim. Anaheim, along with Santa Ana, also contains a large Mexican population, stretching into south Costa Mesa. Mexican residents are similarly scattered throughout central Orange County, though less are present in Irvine. Irvine has significant populations of all represented populations, and higher numbers of residents from the United Kingdom in particular. Mexican residents are especially present in the areas of Lake Forest, Mission Viejo and Laguna Hills, and central San Juan Capistrano. d. Consider and describe the location of owner and renter occupied housing in the jurisdiction and region in determining whether such housing is located in segregated or integrated areas, and describe trends over time. Map 10: North Orange County, Housing Tenure Legend Ro—g T— Rmw Pmeaage 11•YI Si•JO -41-50 :L NAasw DEEA� 51-6 61--D MLLERTON - ,IOtEA LM Dw S1-9D 1 - 91-100 rLACENTU BUENA TAli LA rALllA _.1 ANAN EO[ CYraESs- rAf1< LOS ALAW TOS STANTON oaaxce S N GMOVE Ol GECO�- aEsrxatsrEa - QAL BEACH t. iaN TA ANA HUNTINGTON arAC![ ' rOQN TAIN VALLEY f r IEVaCE +coaTw xEsw - LAZE ro sEsi 150 585 Map 11: Central Orange County, Housing Tenure �LOS ALAlUT65�='�'� GE p t i T /. 1 l wuagT.— R-W Perowlta0. t "`� _ =0.10 =11.20 �21.30 9fiYYEfi6 ' -41.50 4 _51-00 -el"70 -71 80 C? Mal-90 r -91.100 W Map 12: South Orange County,Housing Tenure P 88NTA TA dec UN lU Renler Perunope »„ =0-10 �11-20 -41.50 \ `� -51.ec -el-70 -71.80 -81-90 -91-100 151 586 Housing tenure varies widely across the county. Northern and more rural areas of the county tend to have less renters, as compared to more populous areas towards the center of the county. Anaheim, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Seal Beach, and Irvine tend to have much more renters than average. Some of these areas have high populations of Hispanic residents specifically, including Anaheim and Santa Ana. Irvine has a high population of students, which may explain the higher percentages of renters in that city too. e. Discuss how patterns of segregation have changed overtime (since 1990). 152 587 Maps 13 & 14: Race/Ethnicity in 1990 HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool ogee IMP I p (L r N CHI ��I��IIt =t�;r.. *♦ ti.o "9r �� • C.5. . Jurisdiction ''� •i'x,c.'�f •f "Y..� rSti�.t. I p �^�• ;tI. • -M•,� L ..c Region t''' �k •� � �i^�• r r{: =^*• Demographics 1990 1 Dot=100 White.Non-Hispanic �tiv'• ,, •' r`, Y ;Black.Non-Hispanic i Native American.Non- , �• `..r`• P •.< ` k r •ti.:p C Hispanic 14.Asian/Pacific Islander.Non- {�+'; ••t' Z` ,t, ,, ►• '� .%_i Hispanic Hispanic ��• �"ran. ,� a�'K21rt+�cy��• .. a V� t".,• e n :ram j i t �• '- TRACT K � r nr• " '3~.t,>f i o RIECAP 3 112 20 Name:Map 2-Racer'Ethnicity Trends Description:Past race/ethnicity dot density map for Jurisdiction and Region with RECAPS Jurisdiction:Orange County(CDBG,HOME,ESG) Region:Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim,CA HUD-Provided Data Version:AFFHT0004 HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool " - ` ,j• Jurisdiction },..- i. ^� ^•, ""� ti t i• .f ° - Region 'r AT, .,� x=. ♦. 'rrt J7�P���. 7 � 1 Demographics 1990 i .r ` ,'. t• "n', 1 Dot=1D0 it V i +y {'" • White.Non-Hispanic or Black.Non-Hispanic -�: Lake, t aril �+�•Native American.Non- Hispanic Aslan/Paciflc Islander,Non- ,•{,° _ °, 1 Hispanic Hispanic TRACT an-;Iua `".... RIECAP AFFHT0004}Esri.HERE,NPS 'J Date created�112020 .Prynt• '1 Name:Map 2-Race/Ethnicity Trends Description:Past race/ethnicity dot density map for Jurisdiction and Region with R/ECAPs Jurisdiction:Orange County(CDBG,HOME,ESG) Region:Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim,CA HUD-Provided Data Version:AFFHT0004 153 588 Maps 15 & 16: Race/Ethnicity in 2000 HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool � /"^ } ' ,y,' �jtr1' f•.vy,1v''�?i.. �,. ,r3.�h f ,.g; a. ,�.. !"r Legend 'i' ��- + y.i. r t,"ti;•� p ¢ - w�aK+r Jurisdiction t L�i f.t.•tea,.,�3 KY, ".•. �+a .�.- ..• r ��.. .. ter. •.fir 3 1C 4 Jt• tE.. yr• r �� t"�, � :,/t• •.• •r. atn�+Y'�' e..� Region o *k'f�('� ,r `1�1/'� •`f. � "." �� •' ,•>• Demographics 2000 ^ �•�" ^r'y • t Dot=75 T4 a j t .. ��, �� ;.3' �1� A+ -.� + ,+•�•�� "'White,Non-Hispanic F y t i °��J# * t�;Black.Non-Hispanic y. -i _ • Native American,Non- r• ♦ -a r,' 4. i�+r• s z a+Hispanic {; i A sF.' Y•"1 Asian'Paafic Islander.Non- Hispanic Hispanic is 1 �y '' y.' �� - .a• TRACT �,,,` "�` ""•a �i� R/ECAP V 7"�~. AFFHT0004I Esri Ht✓ p - Date creatad 3/112020+ Name:Map 2-Race/Ethnicity Trerds Description:Past race/ethnicity,dot density map for Jurisdiction and Region with RECAPS Jurisdiction:Orange County(CDBG,HOME,ESG) Region:Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim,CA HUD-Provided Data Version:AFFHT0004 HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool .rv;-;�,.; - •yc. �f'rn.`'' •may: ® .� Legend gam;'" t d•p o a �m - ` Jurisdiction +r,� � .�4� r: a (.`: _ .• Region Demographics 2000 r 1 Dot=75 0.•,""t •se {,• ��+ te White,Non-Hispanic lia !: Black.Non-Hispanic # R pa is • y P 9 Native American.Non- Hispanic ���.y;;a, ,•4t+ � ,�, �;' t`v�Asian/Pacific;Islander.Non- IV �t ..., * .j.t !ra Hispanic + Y t Hispanic �� •,. TRACT ••� �<'��i'gtca�, ' ++ R/ECAP t-°4x AFFHT0004 I Esn,HERE,NPS 4 •Datecreated-3/1 020 Name:Map 2-Race/Ethnictty Trends Description:Past race/ethnicity dot density map for Jurisdiction and Region with RrECAPs Jurisdiction:Orange County(CDBG.HOME,ESG) Region:Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim,CA HUD-Provided Data Version:AFFHT0004 154 589 Maps 17 & 18: Race/Ethnicity in 2010 HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool r.liiitir _'r:: Le end .��// �"J'"'S�"`e) a •ttT,d 'L,. ."'fit is ��F ,+,r yr�t ?,a r �a• r.�P Jurisdiction •M ` . - �� ,� �r Region t . t a Demographics 2010 "¢?r, t Dot=75 31 ty pa„ t. �fi i•* .;, Whtta,Non-HiS-Hispanic �Black. pan Non-His is •tr ,.. • j Native American,Non- ,• '.• �s.�Hisp anic is Asian/Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic �aF .. '�� � k.����r ,} � �• �Hispanic .. .. .•,+.• �'h %$ .i.a -r TRACT RtECAP r r- t•'.2, O 'Ala a ' '- 4 y \ Q AFFhfLtk}4 Esr,HER"NPS a - '•'� ,"r �,..,,f}4.�a,n a p .tiw ♦ L„ �af��ra.N,. y7.2,,:.6 Name:Map 2-Race/Ethnicity Trends Description:Past race/ethnicity dot density map for Jurisdiction and Region with RrECAPs Jurisdiction:Orange County(CDBG.HOME.ESG) Region:Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim.CA HUD-Provided Data Version:AFFHT0004 HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool Legenp (I���II Y �l�+, "a-L�t �• �;. Jurisdiction n C' �, i'[ ♦ ' •0, Region •z>r+ ., ,` ,J - Demographics 2010 " �. �;.�•t �. .?_io t Dot=75 ti = • S r t_ `ciKe +• While.Non-Hispanic ••r. ',-r•_ ,i" "•" 4 h f *Black.Non-Hispanic • k • r 7111!Native American.Non - •+'� Hispanic "'+', �••-' +.1�Asian/Pacific Islander.Non- �' Hispanic •ti 'i `A Hispanic TRACT r• man RECAP AFFHTOOD41 Esn.HERE.NPS :� e y Date created:3/1/2020 Name:Map 2-RacelEthnictty Trends Description:Past race/ethnictty dot density map for Jurisdiction and Region with R/ECAPs Jurisdiction:Orange County(CDBG,HOME,ESG) Region:Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim,CA HUD-Provided Data Version:AFFHT0004 155 590 The main trends present in residential patterns in the County are in Asian and Hispanic populations. Asian and Hispanic populations were small but significant in 1990, and for the most part constrained to certain sections of the Central part of the County. This was mostly in the vicinity of Garden Grove and Westminster. By the 2000s, the Hispanic population began growing more rapidly in Anaheim, and Hispanic and Asian populations grew more rapidly into other northern parts of the county, including in Buena Park and Fullerton. There are fewer visible changes in residential patterns from 2000 to 2010. Additional Information Beyond the HUD provided data,provide additional relevant information, if any, about segregation in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other protected characteristics. HUD does not provide and the Census Bureau does not collect data concerning religious affiliation, but religion remains a prohibited basis for discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. Although the data discussed above with respect to national origin and LEP status can provide some insight into residential patterns with respect to religion given correlations between language, national origin, and religion, the resulting picture is merely a rough proxy. It is also a proxy that does not genuinely capture minority religious communities whose members are less likely to be recent immigrants. The tables below, from USC's Center for Religion and Civic Culture,indicates the number of each type of religious center located in the county's jurisdictions. These numbers roughly correlate to residential patterns based on race/ethnicity and national origin. Areas with higher numbers of Buddhist or Hindu centers, including Anaheim, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and Irvine, indicate more Asian or Pacific Islander residents or residents of Asian descent in those jurisdictions. Table 100: Religious Centers, Orange Count Religious Center ALISO ANAHEIM BUENA COSTA FOUNTAIN FULLERTON VIEJO PARK MESA VALLEY - BUDDHIST 25 1 8 5 1 CATHOLIC 22 3 2 4 11 CHRISTIAN- 1 42 10 26 10 28 OTHER HINDU 6 3 2 5 JEWISH 2 12 2 3 3 4 MUSLIM 8 1 1 7 ORTHODOX 9 2 5 OTHER 37 4 23 4 13 OTHER-INDIA 9 7 2 OTHER- 1 1 INTERRELIGIOUS OTHER-JAPANESE 5 3 PENTECOSTAL 1 156 591 PROTESTANT 12 452 143 177 70 266 Grand Total 15 628 173 245 100 343 Table 101: Religious Centers, Orange County Religious Center GARDEN HUNTINGTON IRVINE LA . LA LAGUNA GROVE BEACH HABRA PALMA NIGUEL BUDDHIST 46 1 4 CATHOLIC 4 18 8 3 2 CHRISTIAN- 33 20 19 6 8 OTHER HINDU 2 3 JEWISH 2 5 16 1 2 MUSLIM 3 1 1 ORTHODOX 5 9 2 OTHER 17 4 18 9 3 OTHER-INDIA 3 OTHER- INTERRELIGIOUS OTHER-JAPANESE PENTECOSTAL PROTESTANT 301 180 150 124 16 39 Grand Total 413 232 228 144 17 54 Table 102: Religious Centers, Orange Count Religious Center LAKE MISSION NEWPORT ORANGE RANCHO FOREST VIEJO BEACH SANTA MARGARITA BUDDHIST 2 1 CATHOLIC 7 27 1 CHRISTIAN- 5 13 20 19 5 OTHER HINDU 1 1 2 JEWISH 6 9 2 1 MUSLIM 1 2 ORTHODOX 1 OTHER 2 15 13 14 OTHER-1NDIA 2 OTHER- I 1 INTERRELIGIOUS OTHER-JAPANESE 5 PENTCOSTAL PROTESTANT 16 64 51 263 13 Grand Total 25 102 104 335 20 157 592 Table 103: Religious Centers, Orange Count Religious Center SAN SAN JUAN TUSTIN WESTMINSTER CLEMENTE CAPISTRANO BUDDHIST 23 CATHOLIC 4 5 6 6 CHRISTIAN-OTHER 8 8 13 16 HINDU 2 JEWISH 6 5 MUSLIM 1 1 ORTHODOX 2 OTHER 1 11 6 8 OTHER-INDIA 2 2 OTHER- INTERRELIGIOUS OTHER-JAPANESE PENTECOSTAL PROTESTANT 57 52 98 150 Grand Total 70 78 136 209 Contributing Factors of Segregation Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and Region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to,perpetuate, or increase the severity of segregation. Please see the Appendix for the following Contributing Factors to Segregation: • Community opposition • Displacement of residents due to economic pressures • Lack of community revitalization strategies • Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods • Lack of public investment in specific, neighborhoods, including services and amenities • Lack of local or regional cooperation • Land use and zoning laws • Lending discrimination • Location and type of affordable housing • Loss of affordable housing • Occupancy codes and restrictions • Private discrimination • Source of income discrimination • Lack of public investment in specific, neighborhoods, including services and amenities 158 593 ii. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) R/ECAPs are geographic areas with significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations. HUD has developed a census-tract based definition of R/ECAPs. In terms of racial or ethnic concentration,R/ECAPs are areas with a non-White population of 50 percent or more. With regards to poverty,R/ECAPs are census tracts in which 40 percent or more of individuals are living at or below the poverty limit or that have a poverty rate three times the average poverty rate for the metropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower. Where one lives has a substantial effect on mental and physical health, education, crime levels, and economic opportunity. Urban areas that are more residentially segregated by race and income tend to have lower levels of upward economic mobility than other areas. Research has found that racial inequality is thus amplified by residential segregation. Concentrated poverty is also associated with higher crime rates and worse health outcomes.However,these areas may also offer some opportunities as well. Individuals may actively choose to settle in neighborhoods containing R/ECAPs due to proximity to job centers and access to public services. Ethnic enclaves in particular may help immigrants build a sense of community and adapt to life in the U.S. The businesses, social networks, and institutions in ethnic enclaves may help immigrants preserve their cultural identities while providing a variety of services that allow them to establish themselves in their new homes. Overall, identifying R/ECAPs is important in order to better understand entrenched patterns of segregation and poverty. a) Identify any R/ECAPs or groupings of RECAP tracts within the jurisdiction and Region. 159 594 Map 1: R/ECAPs in Orange County Or LII�iDA r •Ml��t--«• _ .-.it�ik ' •i.s ��,j�'•� . GARCM La PIlli!(► ` •• .Y •�i• »•t ���t i•_j• •�r, •i ti' 1 � • AYE • . •• '•+{S.-. __«.A•�;'���• •' POL•NPAIN •«• ORANGE CO _�� �• S�^�•,��C�i T!. •• •t `HC'Nr'LtiGTON BEACH • • Sal , oasrw nrraA i� i+as s oREST. -�" J j• • RANCHO SAPTIA MARGARITA j T BEACH '�"6 • 4•S[ • : 'u- LAGsaa��OODs NnssON o +� ;�-! t•; AID % EJO t`v «••w• •% •l v• r• ' •l ••�•' Lessad LAGL"VA EW-ACH ,`t'�A'••'a. RaCelEfhnicigr LAGUNA UEML r• ••S:rJ; 1Dot=75 "�. •: Matte � r •suv,Jra�N,carssrRANo AS.^•t•,,, r • Black I1lPtA POINT , ` • ••.j• •• t • ;• • • ••• «+•� `�• •ems ♦ • • Native American or American Indian SOMCUEMEN • Asian +• Pacific Islander •' • Hispanic t•+••. _• `• . 160 595 There are four R/ECAPs in Orange County, two of which are found in Santa Ana, two of which are found in Irvine. The two R/ECAPs found in Santa Ana are predominantly Hispanic and found close to the Santa Ana Freeway. The northernmost RECAP is located along North Spurgeon Street, while the more southern RECAP is found along South Standard Avenue. The R/ECAPs found in Irvine are adjacent to each other and located on the campus of University of California, Irvine,making it likely that they qualify as R/ECAPs due to the high proportions of students. These R/ECAPs have a much more diverse group of residents, with some White, Asian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic and Black residents. b) Describe and identify the predominant protected classes residing in R/ECAPs in the jurisdiction and Region. How do these demographics of the R/ECAPs compare with the demographics of the jurisdiction and Region? Table 1 -RECAP Demographics Jurisdiction RECAP # % Race/Ethnicity Total Population in 33458 R/ECAPs White,Non-Hispanic 7858 23.49% Black,Non-Hispanic 7858 1.63% Hispanic 48.50% Asian or Pacific 79300 23.70% Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 48 0.14% Non-Hispanic RECAP Family Type Total Families in 7848 R/ECAPs Families with children 2529 32.22% RECAP National Origin Total Population in R/ECAPs #1 country of origin Mexico 5782 17.28% #2 country of origin China, excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan 1387 4.15% #3 country of origin Korea 520 1.55% #4 country of origin El Salvador 464 1.39% #5 country of origin India 459 1.37% #6 country of origin I Iran 395 1.18% #7 country of origin Saudi Arabia 219 0.65% 161 596 #8 country of origin Russia 195 0.58% #9 country of origin Cambodia 192 0.57% #10 country of origin Taiwan 187 0.56% Note 1: 10 most populous groups at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately. Note 2: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documenLation). These R/ECAPs primarily contain Asian or Pacific Islander or Hispanic residents. 23.49% of residents are White, 1.63% are Black, 48.50% are Hispanic, 23.70%are Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0.14% are Native American. 32.22% of households are families with children(they are likely located primarily in the Santa Ana R/ECAPs). The most populous countries of origin, in order, are Mexico at 17.28% of the total population, China, excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan at 4.15%, Korea at 1.55%, El Salvador at 1.39%, India at 1.37%, Iran at 1.18%, Saudi Arabia at 0.65%, Russia at 0.58%, Cambodia at 0.57%, and Taiwan at 0.56%. c) Describe how R/ECAPs have changed over time in the jurisdiction and the Region (since 1990). 162 597 Map 2: R/ECAPs 1990, Orange County HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool Isgend "�' �4 p '� ,. ..�'' •its.. ' , °� i, s Jurisdiction r v Region x �a t r; Demographics 1990 r 4 1 Dot=75 White.Nan-Hispanic . a Black,Non-Hispanic va S Native American,Non- �rii ' g °` t...,Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic t Hispanic r TRACT RtECAF Pf FtlT4fiO4 Esn HERE •s� s -^�_gate created 3t1512021 Name:Map 2-Race/Ethnicity Trends Description:Fast racefethnicity dot density map for Jurisdiction and Region with RIECA.Ps Jurisdiction:Orange County(CDBG.HOME,ESG) Region:Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim,CA HUD-Provided Data Version:AFFHT0004 In 1990,one RECAP was present in Orange County, along E La Palma Ave in Yorba Linda. This RECAP had a low population, with 82 total residents. 47.56% of the population was Hispanic, 8.54%was Asian, and the remainder were White. 163 598 Map 3: R/ECAPs 2000, Orange County HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool -� r1 ` •i, ® :'% Legend 2 Mf Jurisdiction ,,Phi ���„�, .}` 1 ,+. <y•. Region a Demographics 2000 y,.•� 4 „!, 1 t Dot=75 1,1,'hde.Non-Hispanic rd4 ;,;`Black Non-Hispanic hiatroe American Non- Hispanic%� ~• Asian/Pacific Islander Non- Hispanic •' !, s' .fit .�: y Hispanic �#` • •�. 4• :. TRACT '--.. ,� �• RIECAP t `AFFHT0004 Esri HERE Name:Map 2'Race;Ethnicity Trends Description:Past race%ethnicity dot density map for Jurisdiction and Region with R/ECAPs Jurisdiction:Orange County(CDBG HOME ESG) Region:Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim.CA HUD-Provided Data Version:AFFHT0004 By 2000, the RECAP present in Orange County had shifted slightly to the West, in the area between E Orangethorpe Ave and E Frontera St. This RECAP remained sparsely populated, with 302 residents, 19.21%of which were White,0.99%were Native American,4.64%Asian or Pacific Islander,and 75.17%Hispanic.The original RECAP had a larger Hispanic population than before, and a shrinking White population. Another RECAP appeared in the northernmost portion of the University of California, Irvine campus, likely due to the presence of students. The RECAP had 2672 residents, which were 34.73% White, 1.57% Black, 0.41%Native American, 53.41% Asian or Pacific Islander, and 7.49%Hispanic. 164 599 Map 4: R/ECAPs 2010, Orange County HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair dousing Data and Mapping Tool t � r :+ legend � . t2l � . . z n3. • II �{ • y"' t ti� a 4 . ,,. . [J, Juurriysd iotion a r t 14 4a f a. ;•. Region Demographics 2010 1 Dot=75 White,Non-Hispanic �' Black Non-Hispanic Is Native American,Non- .. • Hispanic a; `` Asian/Pacific islander,Non- + .�Hispanic Hispanic a r 1 TRACT r RIECAP AfFHT0004 i Estl,HERE,NP g� D14$Cre3sv Z art 2 2Q Name:Map 2-Race/Etfinicity Trends Description:Past race/ethnicity dot density map for Jurisdiction and Region with RfECAPs Jurisdiction:Orange County(CDBG,HOME,ESG) Region:Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim,CA HUD-Provided Data Version:AFFHT0004 By 2010, the RECAP in Santa Ana was no longer present. The high level of fluctuation in this RECAP indicates that the area hovers around the 40%poverty threshold to qualify as a RECAP. The second RECAP,which appeared on the University of California,Irvine campus is again likely caused by the presence of diverse students, though increasing poverty is also likely a factor. All the areas with R/ECAPs in the maps above once again were present in the most current map of R/ECAPs, suggesting that these will be continued areas for concern in the future. Contributing Factors of R/ECAPs Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and Region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to,perpetuate, or increase the severity of R/ECAPs. Please see the Appendix for the following Contributing Factors to R/ECAPs: • Community opposition • Deteriorated and abandoned properties • Displacement of residents due to economic pressures • Lack of community revitalization strategies • Lack of local or regional cooperation • Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods 165 600 • Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities • Land use and zoning laws • Location and type of affordable housing • Loss of affordable housing • Occupancy codes and restrictions • Private discrimination • Source of income discrimination 166 601 iii. Disparities in Access to Opportunity The following section describes locational differences and disparities experienced by different groups in accessing key features of opportunity: educational quality, economic factors, transportation, and environmental health. Access to neighborhoods with higher levels of opportunity can be more difficult due to discrimination and when there may not be a sufficient range and supply of housing in such neighborhoods. In addition, the continuing legacy of discrimination and segregation can impact the availability of quality infrastructure, educational resources, environmental protections, and economic drivers, all of which can create disparities in access to opportunity. Three opportunity indices (economic, educational, and environmental) use data assembled by the California Fair Housing Task Force on behalf of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map4. The Economic Opportunity Index is a composite of four indicators5 depicting elements of neighborhood socio-economic character. The Environmental Opportunity Index reflects indicators from the exposures and environmental effects subcomponents of the "pollution burden" domain of CalEnviroScreen 3.0. The Educational Opportunity Index is a composite of four educational indicators? capturing information on student proficiency, graduation rates, and student poverty. All indices range from 0 to 100, reflecting percentiles scaled to census tracts in Orange Countyg, and with higher values indicating higher levels of opportunity. The two transportation indicators(transit trips and low transportation cost)analyzed below employ data from version 3.0 of the Location Affordability Index (LAI)9. The transit trips index measures how often low-income families in a neighborhood use public transportation. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating a higher likelihood that residents in a neighborhood utilize public transit. The low transportation cost index measures cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation by neighborhood. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to lower transportation costs in that neighborhood. a Data files and methodology details available for download here: https://w\v\v.treasurer.ca.aov/ctcac/opportullI'ty.asp 5 The Economic Opportunity Index summarizes the following four indicators: (1) Poverty:%of population with income above 200%of federal poverty line(2013-17 ACS);(2)Adult Education: %of adults with a bachelor's degree or above(2013-17 ACS);(3)Employment:%of adults aged 20-64 who are employed in civilian labor force or in armed forces(2013-17 ACS); (4)Jobs proximity:number of jobs filled by workers with less than a BA that fall within a given radius of each census tract population-weighted centroid(2017 LEHD LODES). See methodology document for further details. 'See methodology document for additional details. Also note that because higher pollution exposure and effects reflects a negative outcome,the final composite environmental index is inverted to ensure that higher index values denote higher opportunity. '(1)Math and Reading Proficiency: %of 4th graders who meet/exceed literacy or math standards;(2) Graduation: %of students who graduate high school in 4 years;(3) Student Poverty:%of students not receiving free or reduced-price lunch. All indicators use data from 2017-18 CA DOE. s Similarly,data computed for LA County(for regional comparisons)are scaled to census tracts in LA County. 9 Data available for download here: https://w\vw.hudexchan.e.info/proQrams/location-affordability-index/ 167 602 a. Educational Opportunities 1. For the protected class groups) HUD has provided data, describe any disparities in access to education in the jurisdiction and region. Countywide,there are disparities across racial/ethnic groups in access to educational opportunities as measured by the index. Across all tracts in Orange County, non-Hispanic Whites exhibit the highest exposure to educational opportunity (index score of about 59) and non-Hispanic Asians second-highest (53). Hispanics have the lowest access to these opportunities (31), with non- Hispanic Blacks in between (46). Several jurisdictions score highly(index values at or above 60) on educational opportunity across all racial categories. These cities include Aliso Viejo, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Niguel, La Palma, Mission Viejo, and Rancho Santa Margarita. Other jurisdictions obtain low scores on the index. San Juan Capistrano has low educational opportunity, scoring below 10 on the index for all races/ethnicities. San Clemente, Anaheim, and Santa Ana fare similarly poorly, although non-Hispanic Whites score higher (39) than other race/ethnic groups in that city. Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Orange City, La Habra and Westminster are other cities that struggle with educational opportunity, all with scores in the 30s to 40s on the composite education index. Finally, a few cities have educational opportunity patterns that mirror those of Orange County overall. Non-Hispanic Whites in Fountain Valley have high exposure to educational opportunity (scores of about 60),whereas Hispanics in the city do not(30). In both Fullerton and Tustin,Non- Hispanic Whites and Asians have much higher access than do Blacks and Hispanics. 2. For the protected class group(s) HUD has provided data, describe how the disparities in access to education relate to residential living patterns in the jurisdiction and region. Jurisdictions that score low on the education opportunity index exhibit different residential patterns. For instance, Santa Ana has high concentrations of Hispanics and a very light presence of any other racial or ethnic group. Anaheim also has high concentrations of Hispanics in the low- opportunity western neighborhoods of the city,but Whites and Asian/Pacific Islanders also appear to reside in those tracts (although at lower densities). The high opportunity eastern Anaheim neighborhoods are almost exclusively White. Garden Grove, Westminster, Buena Park and La Habra are examples of cities with low educational opportunity and that have a noticeable mix of Hispanics, Asians and Whites. Costa Mesa, San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente are low opportunity jurisdictions with high densities of Whites (although San Juan Capistrano and Costa Mesa have important Hispanic populations as well). Jurisdictions with the highest educational opportunity also appear to have primarily large concentrations of non-Hispanic Whites and Asian/Pacific Islanders. Irvine, Aliso Viejo and Huntington Beach are good examples of cities with large populations of those two groups. Other high opportunity cities, by contrast appear more segregated and more heavily populated by non- Hispanic Whites. Rancho Santa Margarita and Mission Viejo are two examples of such places. 168 603 b. Environmental Opportunities 1. For the protected class group(s) HUD has provided data, describe any disparities in access to environmental opportunity in the jurisdiction and region. Countywide, there are disparities across racial/ethnic groups in access to environmental opportunities, measured as lower exposure to and effects from pollution. Across all tracts in Orange County, non-Hispanic Whites exhibit the highest access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods (index score of about 54). All other racial/ethnic groups obtain lower index scores in the 40s: Hispanics score lowest at 41, followed by non-Hispanic Blacks (45), non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander(47), and non-Hispanic Native American (48). Several jurisdictions score especially highly on environmental opportunity across all racial categories. Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Mission Viejo, and Rancho Santa Margarita all have index scores in the 70s to 90s for all racial and ethnic groups. Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach also have higher access to environmental health, scoring in the 50s to low-70s on the index. Other cities are low-scoring across the board. Orange City, La Habra, and Fullerton are the least environmentally healthy, with index scores in the 20s. Anaheim, Buena Park, Irvine, Santa Ana, and Westminster also have low access to environmental opportunity, scoring in the 30s to 40s on the index. Other cities have disparate environmental scores between races. One such jurisdiction is Costa Mesa, in which Hispanics, non-Hispanic Whites, and non-Hispanic Native Americans score the highest(50s),while non-Hispanic Blacks(44)and non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islanders(35)score lower. Another such city is Tustin, with non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics scoring the lowest (20s/30s) and non-Hispanic Whites the highest(55). 2. For the protected class group(s) HUD has provided data, describe how the disparities in access to environmental opportunity relate to residential living patterns in the jurisdiction and region. Jurisdictions with the highest environmental opportunity appear to have primarily large concentrations of non-Hispanic Whites and Asian/Pacific Islanders. Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach are good examples of cities with large populations of those two groups. Other high opportunity cities, by contrast appear more segregated and more heavily populated by non-Hispanic Whites. Rancho Santa Margarita and Mission Viejo are two examples of such places. Lower-scoring cities exhibit a diversity of residential patterns. For example, Orange (city) has concentrations of both Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. Similarly, Fullerton has concentrations of Hispanic neighborhoods as well as non-Hispanic Whites and Asian/Pacific Islanders. Anaheim and La Habra follow a similar pattern. By contrast, Santa Ana is a city with low environmental quality that is characterized almost exclusively by dense concentrations of Hispanics. 169 604 c. Economic Opportunities 1. For the protected class groups HUD has provided data, describe any disparities in access to economic opportunity by protected class groups in the jurisdiction and region. In Orange County, there are significant disparities in access to economic opportunity. Non- Hispanic White residents have the greatest access to economic opportunity. Asian and Pacific Islander residents (49), Native Americans (46), and Black residents (46) have lower index scores in the high to mid-40s. Hispanic residents (32)have the lowest access to economic opportunity of all racial and ethnic groups in Orange County. Among residents living below the poverty line, there are significant disparities between groups. White residents have the highest economic opportunity score(30)followed by Black residents(27)and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (23). Poor Native Americans and Hispanic residents have the lowest economic opportunity scores (19). There are major disparities in economic opportunity scores across racial/ethnic groups in other cities in the County. Generally,Asian and White residents tend to have the highest index scores in these cities. For instance, Tustin has very high scores for non-Hispanic White residents (77) as well as Asian residents (67) but Black and Hispanic residents have significantly lower scores (in the 40s). In Fullerton, Asian residents have the highest score (64) while Black residents have a score of 44 and Hispanic residents have a score of 37. In Santa Ana, White residents have the highest score (41) while Hispanics have the lowest (18). Costa Mesa has relatively high access to economic opportunity for all groups (high 50s to high 60s) but Hispanic residents have a significantly lower score (42). In La Habra, economic opportunity scores are relatively low for all groups (30s and 40s) but White residents have significantly higher scores than other racial/ethnic groups. Other jurisdictions with relatively large disparities by protected class groups include Anaheim, Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Lake Forest, and Orange City. In these cities, Hispanic residents have significantly lower access to economic opportunity than other racial/ethnic groups. A number of jurisdictions have relatively little disparity between groups. There are high economic opportunity scores for all racial and ethnic groups in Aliso Viejo and Irvine (high 60s to low 70s), although there are large disparities across racial/ethnic groups for the population living below the poverty line in Irvine. La Palma also has relatively high opportunity and little variation in scores between groups (index values ranging from 60 to 66). Huntington Beach, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, and Rancho Santa Margarita have moderate economic opportunity scores for all racial/ethnic groups (scores from the mid-40s to mid-50s). San Clemente has moderately low economic opportunity scores with little difference between groups (scores ranging from 40-46). There is low access to economic opportunity for all racial and ethnic groups in Garden Grove (index scores range from 9-25) and Westminster(scores in the 1 Os). a. For the protected class groups HUD has provided data, describe how disparities in access to employment relate to residential living patterns in the jurisdiction and region 170 605 Economic Opportunity Index scores are generally lower in North Orange County than in South Orange County. Scores are especially low in Westminster, Garden Grove, and much of Santa Ana and Anaheim. Scores are generally high in much of Irvine, La Palma, and Tustin and along the coast from Newport Beach to Laguna Niguel as well as in unincorporated areas near the eastern border with Riverside County. Areas in Orange County with the highest index scores tend to have large concentrations of non- Hispanic and Asian residents. By contrast, areas with the highest concentration of Hispanic residents tend to have lower economic index scores. Cities such as Fullerton and Costa Mesa are examples of localities with segregated living patterns and significant disparities between racial and ethnic groups. Neighborhoods in these cities with higher Hispanic populations score lower than neighborhoods that are heavily populated by non-Hispanic and Asian residents. d. Transportation 1. For the protected class groups HUD has provided data, describe any disparities in access to transportation related to costs and access to public transit in the jurisdiction and region. As previously mentioned,higher scores on the low transportation cost index indicate greater access to low cost transportation. When analyzing Orange County as a whole, non-Hispanic Whites have the lowest scores (34). Asians and Pacific Islanders as well as Native Americans have a score of 38. Black residents have a score of 39 while Hispanic residents have the highest score (42). Regionally, low transportation cost index scores are similar for all racial and ethnic groups. Non- Hispanic Whites and Native Americans both have a score of 19, Asians/Pacific Islanders as well as Hispanics have a score of 20, and Black residents have a score of 21. There are no significant disparities between racial/ethnic groups in the low transportation cost index in most jurisdictions in Orange County. Index scores are in the 20s for all groups in Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, and San Clemente. Scores are in the low to mid 30s for all racial/ethnic groups in Buena Park, Lake Forest, La Palma, Orange City. Scores are in the high 30s to low 40s for all groups in Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Irvine, Huntington Beach, La Habra. Scores are moderate (in the high 40s to low 50s) across groups in Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, and Westminster. In both Tustin and Rancho Santa Margarita, White and Asian residents have significantly lower scores on the low transportation cost index compared to Black and Hispanic residents. These patterns are similar to those of Orange County overall. Transit index scores do not vary significantly by racial or ethnic group in most jurisdictions in Orange County. Scores are moderate for all groups in Santa Ana with every group having a score in the low 50s. Scores are moderately low (30s to 40s) across the board in Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, La Palma, Orange City, and Westminster. Transit use is extremely low(scores of 3 and lower) for all groups in Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, San 171 606 Clemente, and San Juan Capistrano. There is also little difference in transit index scores by racial or ethnic group in Orange County with all groups scoring in the low 20s. There is a significant disparity between groups in Tustin and Countywide. Hispanics in Tustin have the highest transit index scores (64) followed closely by African Americans (60). Asian and White residents have significantly lower scores (49 and 42 respectively). Countywide, Hispanics have the highest transit index score (41) while non-Hispanic Whites have a significantly lower score (27) than other racial and ethnic groups. 2. For the protected class groups HUD has provided data, describe how disparities in access to transportation related to residential living patterns in the jurisdiction and region Low transportation cost index scores as well as transit index scores are generally higher in North Orange County than in South Orange County. Scores are generally higher in jurisdictions with greater levels of density. Generally,North Orange County cities have a variety of residential living patterns with varying levels of density. Additionally, some jurisdictions have highly segregated living patterns while others have a mix of multiple racial and ethnic groups across neighborhoods. Jurisdictions and neighborhoods with greater concentrations of non-Hispanic White residents tend to have lower transit index scores and transportation cost index scores. South Orange County has a greater concentration of non-White Hispanic residents and has lower levels of transit service than North Orange County. This pattern likely contributes to disparities in transportation cost index and transit index scores between non-Hispanic Whites and other racial and ethnic groups in South Orange County jurisdictions and countywide. e. Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity 1. For the protected class groups HUD has provided data, identify and discuss any overarching patterns of access to opportunity and exposure to adverse community factors. Include how these patterns compare to patterns of segregation, integration, and R/ECAPs. Describe these patterns for the jurisdiction and region Generally, access to opportunity is highest for non-Hispanic Whites and Asians/Pacific Islanders in Orange County. By contrast, access to opportunity is generally lower for Black residents than for non-Hispanic Whites and Asians and access is lowest for Hispanics. Metrics are lower on average in census tracts with more of each of these groups. Geographically, access to economic, environmental, and educational opportunity is generally lowest in portions of North Orange County. Anaheim, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Westminster all have relatively low scores across various dimensions of opportunity. Access to opportunity is also low in San Juan Capistrano. However, access to transportation is generally better in North Orange County than in South Orange County. 172 607 Maps and Tables Appendix: Table 1: Index Values,Aliso Viejo -; "E Low "Economic it p ik tM r Also Viejo ��, Opportunityal �i�a� �;y�i�'�i��r� Opportunity Transportatio ' TransitIndex Opportunity + , Index" Index n Cost Index�. - Index"' Total Population - = _ White,Non- 72.30550385 83.83909607 72.71175385 37.90481567 2.982049465 Hispanic Black,Non- 66.52386475 85.23960114 71.72485352 43.27718735 3.305222511 Hispanic Hispanic 65.70877838 85.67479706 69.67499542 43.99542999 3.4930861 Asian or Pacific 71.44657135 87.03471375 72.0605011 38.21439362 3.052240849 Islander, Non- Hispanic Native American, 66.95543671 85.84021759 72.0728302 44.31396484 3.418583393 Non-Hispanic Populafion below,fMeral'poVerty line y. White,Non- 72 1219101 76.88407898 76.13404083 40.00963593 3.032668829 Hispanic Black,Non- 73.1000061 82.69999695 66.6000061 30.55382347 2.297693729 Hispanic Hispanic 67.39414215 84.66527557 75.61569214 42.99341965 3.097574472 Asian or Pacific 67.48900604 85.0457077 69.90343475 44.67321396 3.799084425 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 73.30000305 88 66.19999695 30.19909286 2.297693729 Non-Hispanic Table 2: Index Values,Anaheim "Environment::; , "Economic ar, "Eduucation -1 "Low Opportunity Opportunity Opportunity Transportatio Anaheim; Index" Index"-`_ Index" _ n Cost_Index" Transit Index Total Population White,Non- Hispanic 43.93139267 38.43595505 39.49500275 35.00980759 38.28310013 Black,Non- Hispanic 30.85617065 43.77084732 24.11480904 41.09883118 42.81028366 Hispanic 24.94393539 35.08900452 16.60894966 42.32661819 45.37927628 Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 35.78163528 45.57190704 28.93398666 38.00388718 40.76144028 173 608 Native American, Non-Hispanic 31.95301437 39.92325211 25.63920212 40.02379227 43.23343277 Pop ulation°below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 31.62712288 41.38234711 26.39390373 40.36358643 42.55496979 Black,Non- Hispanic 21.08607101 37.48281479 15.80590439 42.93815613 42.37175751 Hispanic 18.12784386 35.43183517 11.7365303 44.72396088 48.39587402 Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 31.28238106 50.9586525 23.88062859 39.64730453 41.40625763 Native American, Non-Hispanic 19.2225132 23.75654411 28.95340347 40.15534973 44.56227112 Table 3: Index Values,Buena Park ,. "Environment "Econoriiic` ;`alp. "Educational_ "Low - O ortuni O ortum O ortunit _ Trans p�ortatio PP, tY PP t3 = PP y R Buena Park Index" Index" - Index" n CostIndzex" Tiansit,Index,€; Total Population White,Non- Hispanic 46.83927917 44.0955658 42.70969772 33.90605164 37.46681976 Black,Non- Hispanic 32.80804825 33.55254364 34.25307465 36.66135025 37.74475479 Hispanic 28.33981895 29.21013069 30.79724121 37.55573654 37.4323349 Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 47.61252594 39.32788467 42.41317368 34.37330246 37.90651321 Native American, Non-Hispanic 40.82292938 40.50382233 38.02802658 34.82195663 37.10214996 Population-below federal poverty line White,Non- t Hispanic 40.31472397 40.72068405 37.29474258 36.05626297 37.11514664 Black,Non- Hispanic 25.9830513 38.49584198 35.70261765 40.10052872 38.47552109 Hispanic 17.92495918 21.97593117 24.49638939 39.0867157 37.56377792 Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 41.90719986 39.55010986 39.26160431 35.59976578 37.79622269 Native American, Non-Hispanic 81.6641922 33.69506073 49.20370483 31.88211632 37.17000198 174 609 Table 4: Index Values, Costa Mesa _ "Environment - ;- "Economic al `ram "Educational "Low - Opportunity Opportunity t PPS h P, O� ortum Trans ortado Costa Mesa Index" Index" = Index" a ' n Cost Index" Transit Index j , Total Population, ' � t White,Non- Hispanic 67.58622742 55.52037811 38.89334488 47.27882385 43.22631836 Black,Non- Hispanic 60.21097183 43.73588943 35.36569214 51.47803497 47.67166901 Hispanic 41.75721741 52.17251968 29.46787262 49.68540573 45.92378235 Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 62.83917236 34.57888412 37.24597931 51.76671982 49.81667328 Native American, Non-Hispanic 57.93167114 57.8879776 36.08298874 49.50308228 45.41753769 'Population below federal poverty line' i'r ; White,Non- Hispanic 59.96794891 54.49015427 36.67170334 49.62751389 44.84539795 Black,Non- Hispanic 69.71747589 15.24660206 44.42038727 60.94523239 57.05648804 Hispanic 30.79871941 51.77633667 27.76061058 50.66155243 45.77159119 Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 65.26630402 45.6599617 37.13913345 51.9749794 47.06335831 Native American, Non-Hispanic 47.94121552 40.6466217 39.73918915 44.072155 50.18476486 Table 5: Index Values,Fountain Valley Environment w "Economic al "Educktional "Low , Fountain: ` Opportunity Opportunity Opportunity i ansportati- Valley Index" - Index" ' Index" nGost-Index" Transit Index Total Population � _ __ �� - White,Non- Hispanic 60.60261536 64.15343475 58.0732193 34.88885498 39.57632446 Black,Non- Hispanic 53.71952438 56.91206741 44.76111221 39.96112061 40.72764587 Hispanic 41.24127579 59.6288147 33.37312698 39.45233154 41.81933975 Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 44.98392868 58.26979065 41.64525986 37.5691185 40.36568451 Native American, Non-Hispanic 52.49386597 69.90551758 47.91042709 36.09816742 39.42101669 175 610 Population below.federalpovertylinexk _ yy White,Non- Hispanic 64.17408752 71.23667908 61.07992172 32.63380432 39.16001511 Black,Non- Hispanic 64.10958862 65.91918182 73.40000153 42.57266617 40.4589119 Hispanic 31.28120613 67.20317078 28.9899292 39.14260483 41.5614624 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 44.84921646 49.497612 36.71788025 40.1937294 40.57577133 Native American, Non-Hispanic 18 72.09999847 6.900000095 39.88677597 43.88391495 Table 6: Index Values, Fullerton in ept "Economic ` "Educational "Low Fullerton Opportunity al - Opp,ortunity --Transportatio Transitjt: Index Opportunity Index" - _ Index n Cost Index" Index" Total Population White,Non- 55.78549576 26.03284073 58.12939072 38.56270599 36.36819077 Hispanic Black,Non- 43.93449402 23.39889526 50.62736893 43.17352676 39.78337097 Hispanic Hispanic 37.14920425 20.28424263 43.05700684 41.48886108 39.47481537 Asian or Pacific 64.09486389 25.70118332 65.7769165 35.43569183 35.37657928 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 42.6170578 22.90802765 48.14080048 41.21847534 38.35867691 Non-Hispanic Populafion below federal poverty hne White,Non- 42.62480927 23.49648094 50.72012711 45.41986847 40.98034668 Hispanic Black,Non- 26.27262497 20.02443314 37.49615479 50.76286316 44.32195663 Hispanic Hispanic 29.84314728 19.52399254 38.35726547 43.06222916 41.15517044 Asian or Pacific 57.70301437 27.73388481 64.75909424 42.01194 39.39395523 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 43.26682663 22.70192337 51.35336685 38.76887131 34.99217987 Non-Hispanic Table 7: Index Values, Garden Grove "Economic , "Educational "Low "Environments Garded Grove Opportunity al Opportunity Transportatio Transit Indextr :,.Index" - Index" nGost-Index" 176 611 O.pportunitys = Y - - r A Index" Total Population White,Non- 36.39666367 47.3960228 40.38077927 36.63133621 39.78887558 Hispanic Black,Non- 27 92678833 47.87880325 33.18390274 41.15602112 41.82769394 Hispanic Hispanic 22.90080643 47.05417633 29.86315918 41.03567505 42.94892883 Asian-or Pacific 23.95595741 49.54003143 35.30280304 40.51235199 40.41277313 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 27.66724777 46.53165817 34.10087204 41.22572708 41.86322403 Non-Hispanic Population below federal poverty line White,Non- 30.0959301 47.71313477 35.78342056 39.06194305 41.55861664 Hispanic Black,Non- 27.44144821 54.79440689 33.70690918 39.97136688 38.74142075 Hispanic Hispanic 18.94665909 46.0896759 26.74869919 43.83759689 44.6900177 Asian or Pacific 22.66533279 47.17929077 37.85955429 40.4188385 39.69983673 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 18.80149269 38.3007431 27.1022377 48.05475616 43.73262405 Non-Hispanic Table 8: Index Values,Huntington Beach "Economic,, "Educational "Low Huntington �, Opportunity Opportunity Transportatio Transit Index Beach �pportUnity' p„ r n �INPv�r a �� h Index °`a' Index" IndeX Il Cost Index - � ., s Total Poplation " .u White,Non- 64.58568573 71.44684601 69.54529572 37.66327667 35.70833206 ' Hispanic Black,Non- 55.74852371 61.43478394 59.94100952 40.57863235 36.41617966 Hispanic Hispanic 48.91268921 56.34483719 59.14129257 42.3997879 36.54937363 Asian or Pacific 55.79597092 58.89957809 60.11377335 38.13786316 35.30189133 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 59.45223999 69.95332336 66.42298126 39.55618668 36.38960266 Non-Hispanic Population below.federal poverty line White,Non- 63.94906235 71.72304535 68.93916321 40.83568192 37.38664627 Hispanic 177 612 Black,Non- 46.80564499 57.03628922 63.21209335 44.36582947 38.40356827 Hispanic Hispanic 37.6064682 48.60849762 55.68051147 45.98036194 37.06981277 Asian or Pacific 55.28670883 58.22230911 58.15016174 42.73658752 36.3033371 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 63.99184036 89.20612335 79.1040802 25.95944023 33.74476242 Non-Hispanic Table 9: Index Values, Irvine "Environment "Economi-iel Low Irvine Opportunity al o , Opportunity Transportatio Transit Index Opportunity .. � �r n u " �tfl'ii+ Index r u „ Index n Cost Index Index 1¢Ipi�iYii hUi i �i�i a 'a �IiF n, Total Population i� White,Non- 73.63127136 39.08622742 81.49776459 36.18370819 35.191082 Hispanic Black,Non- 70.55041504 36.09516525 81.03330994 39.19680023 37.68433762 Hispanic Hispanic 68.2244339 34.8563385 75.89785004 37.90677261 35.78848267 Asian or Pacific 73.3141861 38.35515213 85.66765594 37.19092941 37.06846237 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 68.81182861 37.30687332 78.0866394 37.68278122 34.32770157 Non-Hispanic Population below federal poverty line White,Non- 62.00982285 41.2605896 81.79143524 41.65803909 Y 40.29730606 Hispanic Black,Non- Hispanic 78.47797394 30.86845207 85.13333893 36.81203842 36.52822113 Hispanic 45.06617737 43.96442032 84.95259094 44.5932579 42.19712067 Asian or Pacific 50.49572372 45.72290802 87.87575531 44.2512207 42.13927078 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 34.17985535 56.2374115 91.07769775 53.02960205 50.96051407 Non-Hispanic 178 613 Table 10: Index Values,Los Angeles County "Environment_x ,Educational "Low Los An eles Economic al g Opportd � - pportumty Transportaho Transit Index . County Opportunity�� -> Index 74fideg'M' t Indexn Cost Index'! _ - r h i i i ii i TINN Sw1 Total Popnlation ' .i Dili ii�lil� �ii���l� �"4 ' ��'. White,Non- 65.67538452 55.94469833 67.478302 18.965065 21.0825634 Hispanic Black,Non- 40.16342545 53.13132858 33.42098999 21.05691338 24.56006813 Hispanic Hispanic 36.33623123 45.2298851 38.80290604 19.82450485 23.3633194 Asian or Pacific 57.39865494 49.95420074 61.21666336 20.27166367 23.09456062 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 45.30443192 51.25786972 49.35198593 19.37051392 21.6207428 Non-Hispanic Population below federal poverty line = = = s White,Non- 57.50989532 51.78505325 59.31045151 23.57732391 25.74990845 Hispanic Black,Non- 31.36289787 50.94706726 26.02533722 23.28333092 27.20900345 Hispanic Hispanic 31.3007412 42.91162491 31.26461411 22.65198517 26.92627716 Asian or Pacific 50.03251266 47.77090454 55.55622864 24.86695862 28.33756065 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 34.06453323 48.27433014 35.94702911 22.76408005 26.06622124 Non-Hispanic Table 11: Index Values, Laguna Niguel "Environment- - La una "Economic = al "Educational "Low Opportunity Opportunity Transportaho Transit Index Niguel', ;, Opportunit r„ �. , Index Index" y In n Cost Index �� i 4 Total Population r. White,Non- 51.88405609 94.96172333 69.4879303 26.46920204 2.232567787 Hispanic Black,Non- 49.20069885 94.27303314 70.40055847 27.88728714 2.385162592 Hispanic Hispanic 46.48111725 94.03167725 69.29504395 29.60008812 2.543926477 Asian or Pacific 51.05093765 94.28031921 70.32914734 28.43764305 2.466272593 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 52.94462585 95.30413055 70.03966522 27.89173698 2.296560049 Non-Hispanic 179 614 Population below federal poverty line =` White, Non- 48.66943741 93.59718323 70.38157654 27.90661812 2.297754049 Hispanic Black,Non- 61.86949158 94.28262329 58.08516693 32.82440567 2.653566122 Hispanic Hispanic 47.95252228 94.91544342 73.69073486 29.40856171 2.452992439 Asian or Pacific 42.89958572 90.35707855 72.27500153 34.07725906 2.88683486 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Non-Hispanic Table 12: Index Values,La Habra - "Environment ': - Economic-. al - Educational Pi, La Habra Opportunity I l = Opportunity Transportaho Transit Index Index" O dexrtumty Index" n Cosf Index" Total Population 'ii�i� ��i��i White,Non- 40.55103683 27.87729454 48.14756012 35.66272736 35.27762604 Hispanic Black, Non- 35.30363846 29.53260612 45.65385437 39.55151749 35.42910004 Hispanic Hispanic 32.31658936 27.45372391 44.28807068 38.3514595 34.83366394 Asian or Pacific 39.38534927 24.85019112 49.1582222 37.03078079 37.28299713 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 38.17602921 30.35684967 47.53630066 35.54092407 33.94094467 Non-Hispanic Population below federal poverty line White, Non- 40.29798126 29.05448341 48.00325012 35.98387527 34.38015747 Hispanic Black,Non- 31.18307686 28.36153793 45.95999908 39.51876068 36.60215759 Hispanic Hispanic 27.1908226 25.55690002 41.80315781 39.25904846 35.26225281 Asian or Pacific 32.04285431 28.29251671 42.60680389 37.83418655 36.04021072 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 24.10000038 11.80000019 38 44.92282867 41.23970032 Non-Hispanic 180 615 Table 13: Index Values, La Palma � "Educational "Low all 111P`qt,, Economic w , La Pal"ma Opportunity Opportunity Opportunity„ , Transportatio Transit Index Index" 114i �� Index" �.� n COSt Index''' � v Index ` Total Population _ _5= - White,Non- 60.54538345 52.2887764 74.90605927 31.26264191 33.98268509 Hispanic Black,Non- 62.44117737 50.76352692 79.34926605 30.94960976 32.45330429 Hispanic Hispanic 60.14683151 53.11293411 76.4289093 31.19957161 33.79656219 Asian or Pacific 59.61754608 54.71827316 80.94405365 30.98505211 33.03434372 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 66.49090576 44.5484848 74.41212463 31.03777504 32.16746521 Non-Hispanic Population below federal poverty line. White,Non- 56.16556168 58.63651657 78.42116547 31.26299286 34.6687851 Hispanic Black,Non- 62 52.13999939 83.30000305 30.76098061 31.77929115 Hispanic Hispanic 62.43789673 49.73848724 74.32682037 31.21320152 33.49207687 Asian or Pacific 57.32141113 57.53029633 80.26992798 31.11726379 33.91407013 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 59.40000153 51.29999924 62.90000153 31.94073486 36.83267593 Non-Hispanic Table 14: Index Values,Lake Forest s "Environment- - - "Economic al = "Educational "Lowak Lake Forest Opportunity Opportunity Transportaho Transit Index opportunity ., Index-" Index". �n.CostIndex Index ! T - Total Population _9 White,Non- 52.10555649 54.81097412 60.88927078 31.83229065 3.096983671 Hispanic Black,Non- 49.18192673 55.03483963 61.46455765 34.36283493 3.168195009 Hispanic Hispanic 39.65441513 43.67831039 53.05497742 35.60156631 3.339822292 Asian or Pacific 51.61265182 53.55771637 59.62294769 32.0095787 2.971857309 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 45.60740662 53.91375732 59.4603157 34.44470978 3.268085241 Non-Hispanic 181 616 Population below federalpoverty line `_ _ White,Non- 42.87811661 48.27126312 56.19835281 35.24717331 3.274830103 Hispanic Black,Non- 58.93999863 62.13200378 49.3239975 28.69176102 3.198252678 Hispanic Hispanic 23.69203186 17.86175346 43.00056839 33.14248276 3.199719906 Asian or Pacific 34.96779251 36.78378296 52.04999924 39.137043 3.588968277 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 6.400000095 10.10000038 39.90000153 50.44693375 4.321035862 Non-Hispanic Table 15: Index Values,Mission Viejo "Environment "Economic = "Educational t'Low Mission Viejo Opportunity al Opportunity Transportation" Transit Index OpportunityNI Index�� _ Index' Il COstIndexi I Index" Total Population „ 4r.sh , White,Non- 54.71001434 80.4629364 68.59661865 20.06777954 2.14685297 Hispanic Black,Non- 53.97848892 77.18696594 69.5125351 22.50149727 2.178300142 Hispanic Hispanic 49.20601654 77.96643066 69.57389832 24.251894 2.186423779 Asian or Pacific 56.29401779 79.96483612 69.64553833 20.08021736 2.172489405 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 52.15392685 77.70209503 68.03507996 20.00351524 2.125685453 Non-Hispanic Population lielow federal poverty line White,Non- 52.77148438 79.52762604 68.10930634 20.6295166 2.147603989 Hispanic Black,Non- 47.77692413 72.13846588 60.4153862 30.359375 2.514009476 Hispanic Hispanic 41.74552917 75.55897522 73.74349976 27.94129181 2.138385296 Asian or Pacific 50.18946457 76.0255127 75.70388031 27.29961014 2.231768131 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Non-Hispanic 182 617 Table 16: Index Values, Orange City "EnVlronments, i� ? � � - Economic �. Educational' Low �� alp ' �. �� Orange City Opportunity . Opportunity,' Opportunity Transportatio Transit Index, Index" Index n Cost:Indexr Al Total Population White,Non- 59.93873978 24.79452133 42.08477402 31.92243958 36.35044479 Hispanic Black,Non- 54.84865952 18.7726078 35.12828445 37.30315018 39.30299377 Hispanic Hispanic 47.76997757 19.34976578 33.2277832 36.87007141 38.43082809 Asian or Pacific 61.62908554 28.02267647 45.12159348 31.81376266 35.78025818 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 52.82477188 20.58942604 36.06827545 34.44309235 37.73715973 Non-Hispanic Population below-fed"eral poverty line =, = White,Non- 53.57085419 17.67649841 33.95972061 36.44538879 39.62675095 Hispanic Black,Non- 35.50442505 12.76637173 29.51,858521 37.15558624 28.86623383 Hispanic Hispanic 41.78118134 23.23805237 32.39267731 36.83862305 39.01893616 Asian or Pacific 61.44256592 21.8933773 41.95364761 37.79168701 37.63070297 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 31.33373451 10.93734932 20.50963974 41.80668259 43.29630661 Non-Hispanic Table 17: Index Values, Orange County "Environment Oran a "Economic "Educational "L gow - � . Opportunity Opportunity Transportaho Transit Index County O,pportumty Index" Index" n Cost Index',:Index•,, u� Total Population , White,Non- 59.36914825 53.88697052 58.6191597 33.84046555 27.43986702 Hispanic Black,Non- 45.8503685 45.21717072 45.6352005 39.68424606 36.21459579 Hispanic Hispanic 31.86008644 41.02077866 30.86243248 41.80742645 41.28927612 Asian or Pacific 49.36313629 46.78428268 52.50125504 37.48302841 36.11438751 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 46.39406204 48.79929352 45.07330704 37.47456741 33.02807617 Non-Hispanic 183 618 Population below federal poverty line ;x - White,Non- 51.70472336 51.01126099 52.13442612 39.18977356 32.26565933 Hispanic Black,Non- 36.25161743 40.4234581 37.29018784 40.77672958 35.60103607 Hispanic Hispanic 22.65623665 39.02124786 23.81145287 45.65877533 46.35126877 Asian or Pacific 38.94393158 46.38044739 48.32249832 41.97251129 39.51419449 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 35.89070892 38.62186813 40.92134476 40.15331268 40.17951965 Non-Hispanic Table 18: Index Values, Rancho Santa Margarita Environment, Er. "Economic . "EdllcatlOIlal Rancho Santa al Opportunity Opportunity 1 Transportaho Transit Index Margarita Index" O,pportumtY Index" - n CostIndex" Total White,Non- 55.31455231 77.42084503 74.73116302 22.26515198 1.739218593 Hispanic Black,Non- 48.5736618 78.66453552 72.82685852 29.90576553 2.138027906 Hispanic Hispanic 46.87901688 79.68223572 71.21639252 31.94477654 2.276622057 Asian or Pacific 52.71126556 76.4618454 74.23796082 25.72115326 1.882683992 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 52.11122513 76.42857361 73.22245026 27.17526817 1.988348365 Non-Hispanic Population below federal poverty hneM ;� ;. White,Non- 46.90814972 80.66777802 70.89245605 30.65854645 2.180054665 Hispanic Black,Non- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hispanic Hispanic 37.29422379 84.92796326 66.2130661 40.81872559 2.736426592 Asian or Pacific 60.54124069 82.12485504 78.08983612 16.653265 1.491689444 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Non-Hispanic 184 619 Table 19: Index Values, San Clemente n '�EnVironment,�;.'�� �` Economic obi Educational Low Sand OnW -Opportunity -Opportunity ^k Opportunity Transportaho Transit Index Index ,� - Index, n Cost Index Index .'Total POpUlation = r White,Non- 43.86069107 53.53229904 26.15826035 20.86557388 1.323781729 Hispanic Black,Non- 44.58891678 53.67986298 26.91267014 20.62924576 1.308523178 Hispanic Hispanic 40.03211212 58.22519684 23.51825714 25.35934067 1.459569693 Asian or Pacific 46.24467087 51.4276619 27.82583618 19.14149284 1.219676495 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 41.8181076 55.99135971 26.10987663 23.12410355 1.460949898 Non-Hispanic Population be ow federal poverty line 4''w ;! White,Non- 40.29958344 52.50610733 22.75804329 23.32270622 1.429345369 Hispanic Black, Non- 21.60899544 46.30582047 12.44285679 22.93115044 1.561009169 Hispanic Hispanic 38.13341522 59.1672554 19.66854095 25.5105629 1.351897478 Asian or Pacific 36.40293121 78.38371277 26.14299583 19.77955627 0.901919305 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 40.5885849 56.44565201 26.93206596 15.30980492 0.906552672 Non-Hispanic Table 20: Index Values, San Juan Capistrano '��Environmerit; 6;;` "Educational "Low��'�'�� Economic r San °Juan' al � Index rtunio , Opportunity Transportatio Transit Index]� pp Capistrano Oortuni - Index" Ty Index" n Cost Index" 77 Total Population b White,Non- 24.8559227 40.60459518 3.96122098 28.67803192 2.159676313 Hispanic Black,Non- 17.48586845 44.83804321 4.980434895 30.27136993 2.118023157 Hispanic Hispanic 9.223362923 51.43849182 6.480751991 31.45836258 1.975713015 Asian or Pacific 24.93882942 43.21843719 4.463120461 27.79998398 2.022916555 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 12.91760635 49.70633698 6.045070648 30.53370857 1.976489902 Non-Hispanic 185 620 Population below federal poverty line White,Non- 24.2220974 38.93087769 3.655807257 29.47362709 2.26116538 Hispanic Black,Non- 53.59999847 39.20000076 2.900000095 17.58180046 1.543227077 Hispanic Hispanic 8.015656471 53.10263824 6.83494997 31.40584183 1.918851495 Asian or Pacific 8.699999809 32.79999924 2.900000095 37.69218826 2.949278355 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Non-Hispanic Table 21: Index Values, Santa Ana „ "Environment° 41 Economic :_al - Educational I;ow Santa Ana Opportunity Q` ortunit Opportunity ` 'Transportatio ` Transit Index Index"" Index„ y Index" nCostIndex" Total Population " White,Non- 40.84465027 33.96951294 24.41191101 47.15653229 52.06034851 Hispanic Black,Non- 29.20541 38.66877747 19.36479187 48.0304451 54.12454987 Hispanic Hispanic 18.03375626 41.18429947 15.26601601 46.74744034 54.8878212 Asian or Pacific 25.11046028 46.18630219 18.69794273 47.20291138 54.18437576 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 25.56700134 38.30905533 17.4342041 45.30844498 52.30129623 Non-Hispanic Population below federal poverty line White,Non- 31.77580452 34.26587677 19.81741333 48.76362228 52.66421127 Hispanic Black, Non- 25.08537483 23.57221222 20.0210247 50.08654785 50.39803314 Hispanic Hispanic 14.87970352 41.16586304 15.27909184 50.43182755 57.66402054 Asian or Pacific 25.55044937 45.79997253 17.13907242 48.1301918 52.26394272 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 16.78843117 43.75597 12.58059692 42.92389297 57.04358673 Non-Hispanic 186 621 Table 22: Index Values, Tustin r "Eeonomic - "Environment a1 ' ,o Tustin Opportunity �rOpportunity Transportatio ansit Index O ortunit r ��i pp ' �� Index Index .n CostIndex. ^' 1 ya'Indext" Total Po ulation ����hi'.16 ti� White,Non- 77 3833313 55.53118134 57.9779892 37.03637695 41.61579132 Hispanic Black,Non- 49.5615654 33.86757278 33.26813889 54.51399994 60.01934433 Hispanic Hispanic 42.9604187 28.64287949 27.41756248 56.88419342 63.88144684 Asian or Pacific 67.04686737 46.94258499 49.78988266 44.89656067 48.62200546 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 63.12244797 43.92755127 47.4581604 43.06391144 49.6460228 Non-Hispanic Populatiou below federal poverty White,Non-Hispanic 57.39323807 42.8909874 38.77998352 47.96840286 52.79444885 Black,Non- 36.90000153 22.5 25.10000038 55.18679047 64.45001984 Hispanic Hispanic 32.15452576 17.71869659 18.61776543 65.68024445 74.0960083 Asian or Pacific 42.37282944 30.59916115 25.81988907 55.87603378 61.07912064 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 26.20000076 13.69999981 14.19999981 65.00455475 66.8004303 Non-Hispanic Table 23: Index Values, Westminster "Environment "Economic ':Educational "Low Westminster . Opportunity al Opportunity Transportatio Transit Index Index" Opportunity Index" n Cost,Index',' Index'.' Total Population, White,Non- Hispanic 13.81653023 42.93841171 35.6662941 44.7712059 37.7172699 Black,Non- 10.56679821 38.13873291 32.76600647 45.53092575 37.15086365 Hispanic Hispanic 11.77696323 40.45322037 32.86334991 44.28075409 36.86459732 Asian or Pacific 14.33915138 46.11770248 35.44109344 44.00982666 37.56019592 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 15.28125 44.0395813 36.25625229 43.3792572 37.29174042 Non-Hispanic 187 622 Population below federal poverty line White,Non- 15.20829582 44.93229675 37.83362961 45.77521515 38.73999023 Hispanic Black,Non- 8.191836357 21.56734848 37.28163528 40.71427536 33.28907013 Hispanic Hispanic 10.51876068 37.48429489 28.36954689 43.8158226 36.38402557 Asian or Pacific 12.96408653 44.58031464 32.6651535 44.92889404 37.62247467 Islander,Non- Hispanic Native American, 25.30000114 48.70000076 52.20000076 45.22904587 41.23970032 Non-Hispanic Map 1: Economic Opportunity Index, North Orange County San Bernardino County Los Anyeks Co-1!y +w. t� 1 Dot=1 DD Non risC3nK wntte Riverside County Nori-lU dnk Ba.K NO11-415=1.N32.a ARIeACM Or L ttl6�,dnfC Nan-"S;WC ABa^pACMC War-W Economic Ooportunrty Index _�. 10A-X WA-4 FA ., ..J. -60 1-90 �q`� ✓ 901•100 •,w 3p t .y v.. if x515fS17 No Data 188 623 Opportunity ma' s`••"`••'�'.�•e1•°`.��u, 0.10 No:ja 189 624 r ,,`ate. O`' '�lfi�•14�� }:d••%�i;A raSSSI" •��r�••� l' •1=.t f tx. Map 3: Educational Opportunity Index, North Orange County San Bernardino County Los Angeles County 1 Dot=100 ,� �•� �-:1 t -ram• =w Riverside County N0n-"1f4Wk.Wn Re Nan-"SW*.'as-e Non-_11s84nK Na3ri Anie%an • M��K Non-lieowlc Asia �3=c M13MLe cducationai Opportunity Index e 70.10 20 � •R�t44 20.t-3D yY,'•t.�•! 1 O 30.1-1q '}' 1, -a01-50 1 fi0 t-'0 -so1-90 -90 1-I'm ' No at3 190 625 1 1ucational OpportunityIndex, 1County ✓j��a -F ti r� i Dot=100 } - � t{ , Non-"WK sack Educational OppOrtunity Index s3" 6 D- Map 5: Environmental Opportunity Index, North Orange County T San Bernardnno County Los Angeles County t• ` ,_- �: }t�--• :-r'—, Nm-!i1s^•anC Nhl[9 - ry ,••µ _ R—mde County Naft•r•IE.pank:5:3:k i ,�e• iJ Nx-"E;WiC Abl3^o3GOG*W'JfY ` 'r f Enwvnmewal Opportunity Index0-10 K' t� 10.1-20 30.1-40 I ti .• `e' t 501-6C ra >� 807.90 x. No m 192 627 Rlap 6: Environmental Opportunity Index, South Orange County /T` jlla '•!y` a�1°�.'.♦ •�y R—mde County 1• i- NClf-UpanIC VAft N0n4H8{I r 5UCAc Nm-46WIC Nits'±MleMC- Hr.Pw1c • N^JIt-"ifCinIC A61an D7tl11C 4W4e[ Environmental Oppomnity Inoez - 0.10 �:. 10.1-20 _• 20 1-30 60i-70 •. M'0.7-80 ..._.... -80.7-90 San Diego County -901-100 No ala 193 628 Map 7: Transportation Cost Index, North Orange County San Bernardino County Los Angeles County •�_;•: �`�. L*r. e 7 Dot=1 PD 6 _ r Rnerslde County Non-+7a arb Wnrte •� '- . NO'-Ui n 54_k .. NCfar7EianK NiSve AnlenWn ` NM-IS ask:ANW,PadeC KUndC M'- •,`)•` Transportation Cost Index ..f'*� •,� - 4, 0-10 J -a0.t-90 # yM1 '.q -90.1-100 152525C) � t• t-Y'i'..•{yi}{ y 194 629 Map 8: Transportation Cost Index, South Orange County L• i Rmerslde County .y i Dot=100 ✓ ` r� , t••" '•'��t ti�t1` � ^-"1 Nan-H6{' IC NOn-'l6panlc Nit.•e Amt�esn /f • Nan�cpant Acun�aanc:sarac Transporaoon Casl+ndex 0-10 ---- 10.1.20 40.1-50 :"? •�. •1 6 60.1- 0 -0.1-80 E _80 t 90 •It" R• 2 San D1ego County ®901.100 x'SCSC�NO:ill 195 630 Map 9: Transit Trips Index, North Orange County :w t�`. • San Bernardino County Los AnpNes County ' 'f"` ,►• .. °r Riverside County • Nan-N6GnK WT.tte _ pion--4sZwK Sa:k ' •t• . 9 a. .t .w N01,M%C.WK Nair?Amenean • '%park Non--tWwl:Afi al PadllG riaR19 t 1•• .+� - 1I < � Transit Trips Index r .. } •fix• .' : 10 1-2G t• 'ter .. ,r p, 20.11-34 �„",X'L'�k• ; rq.. fi.x ,.. ..• • ,..,) ACA-50 501-60 per r r 60.t-7)" is 4;••�(`tq;i �� "•�}` *y °s` '�+ ♦'' L+ 1 x {�S R.� ��i"1^'Ta ate. _�Y �° #1 4•t fix'; :. ..S • ?01.50 ~ .M� Aa 11r�AE. rtilhr �. .• _ �.. w1-90 16. -901-100 No ata 4 :+ 196 631 Map 10: Transit Trips Index, South Orange County Riverside County +�#, •� �'* ••F i. ••t {t�w'°` ���. l .1/ it f Dot=160 �.�,��tr•�. +-J t�. r Nw-llspaNc While Non--lSAanC Na41'e AmeMin '� 1 .�,`.tf,! • - Nan-tisoanr_�atan aaanc luarxsc ��:'^,A. �i• �, `� ���� }: —ransa Taps Index ��`j!I 0-10 N • 201-30 W I-10 2 i' •..gaY�+, 80 t 90.1- '7r.wti San D�e�go County 100 Norm •_s. 197 632 iv. Disproportionate Housing Needs 10 Which groups (by race%thnicity and family status) experience higher rates of housing cost burden, overcrowding, or substandard housing when compared to other groups? Which groups also experience higher rates of severe housing burdens when compared to other groups? Across Orange County, many residents face high rates of housing problems, severe housing problems, and severe housing cost burden. The four HUD-designated housing problems include when a"1)housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities;2)housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is overcrowded;" and 4) household is cost burdened"12. Households are considered to have a housing problem if they experience at least one of the above. This analysis also considers what HUD designates as severe housing problems, which are a lack of kitchen or plumbing, more than one person per room, or cost burden greater than 50%. "The AFFH rule defines"disproportionate housing needs"as"a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing needs when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area." 24 C.F.R. § 5.152 " Households having more than 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room are considered overcrowded and those having more than 1.51 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. The person per room analysis excludes bathrooms,porches, foyers,halls,or half-rooms. 12 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp/CHAS/bg_chas.html 198 633 Housing Problems Table 1: Housing Problems,Orange County" Demographics of Households with`DisproporhonateMousing Needs F t_LLB Disproportionate, ousmg - 1 Jurisdiction � � � .� p� (4 - , N0e(15, — a fi, . � [ A �uti !.,�� s Households experiencing any of #with problems #households % with 4 housing problems problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 206,658 540,773 38.22% Black,Non-Hispanic 8,074 16,719 48.29% Hispanic 152,740 241,841 63.16% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 84,193 186,038 45.26% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 1063 2,179 48.78% Total 452,728 987,550 45.84% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 228740 576690 39.66% Family households,5+people 95050 145028 65.54% Non-family households 138270 273662 50.53% ,. rr is �., Households experiencing=any of #wrthevereM %with severe � , a a #.'households �� 6� 4 Sever Housing Problems problems r - ,'' , problems p� Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 104324 540,773 19.29% Black,Non-Hispanic 4816 16,719 28.81% Hispanic 107752 241,841 44.55% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 50205 186,038 26.99% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 544 2,179 24.97% Total. 267,641 987,550 27.10% - R og ousehos ldswithSdI vIpIere�H"" usm _ Cost Burden, WIT � ,. !Households witl Severe t 1�,-1, IMF Jurisdicion Housm Cost Burden I - Race/Ethnicity #with severe # households % with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 93564 540,773 17.30% t3 Please note that the extrapolation of HUD data may result in variances and rounding errors. 199 634 Black,Non-Hispanic 3774 16,719 22.57% Hispanic 59920 241,841 24.78% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 36879 186,038 19.82% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 432 2,179 19.83% Total 194,569 987,550 19.70% HouseholType Family households,<5 people 79610 576690 13.80% Family households,5+people 24586 145028 16.95% Non-family households 39386 273662 14.39% Table 2: Housing Problems,Aliso Viejo t C ' �trc e G(iI 41 — — D ographicslof Householdw�,ith'Dispr p rhonate Housing-Needs t o'i ii r ? �DisproporhonateHousmg4 w h� ���: =�m .Turisdiehon m Households experiencing any of % with 4 housing problems #with problems #households problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 4,840 12,570 38.50% Black,Non-Hispanic 235 380 61.84% Hispanic 930 2,120 43.87% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 995 2,830 35.16% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 20 70 28.57% Total 7,020 17,970 39.07% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 3955 11390 34.72% Family households,5+people 705 1420 49.65% Non-family households 2635 5605 47.01% ' - %wlthsever�e House holdsexperiencng any of #withsevere #households 4 Severe HousiIry ng Problems problems problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 2075 12,570 16.51% Black,Non-Hispanic 140 380 36.84% Hispanic 400 2,120 18.87% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 425 2,830 15.02% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 0 70 200 635 Total I 3,040 I 17,970 I 16.92% Demographics of,�HouseholdswithSevere HousingGost Bu�r�den,'!���� _;�i s ' �� , � `ul , m Households withSevece G �� o�� � . ., �T �1 ''' Jur�sdiction iOF � HousmgCostBurden _ � - =' e _ Race/Ethnicity #with severe # households % with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 1840 12,570 14.64% Black,Non-Hispanic 140 380 36.84% Hispanic 225 2,120 10.61% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 350 2,830 12.37% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 0 70 0.00% Total 2,555 17,970 14.22% LA A Household Typefand Size m„ a i �..•_,tea=�-�`� _� ..... -,.—....r �'"r 'C�:`��- _� t� � = f Family households,<5 people 1010 11390 8.87% Family households,5+people 150 1420 10.56% Non-family households 730 5605 13.02% Table 3: Housing Problems,Anaheim Deiuog�aphics o�°Hops�holds�_with,Dispro�o�tionate H�usmg Needs� ' ��;�,'�� ,��r �,� DisproporhonateHousing � � Households experiencing any of #with problems #households % With 4 housing problems problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 15,085 36,390 41.45% Black,Non-Hispanic 1,409 2,688 52.42% Hispanic 28,175 41,509 67.88% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 8,305 17,464 47.55% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 105 170 61.76% Total 53,079 98,221 54.04% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 24720 53980 45.79% Family households,5+people 15450 20740 74.49% Non-family households 13885 24384 56.94% 201 636 4m yntH7plp ny oIfI -Mil"I"OR 1101 il VkA' 11 T et Househ oldex eiencmg a 4 SevereHousmg Problems =problems T:, problems= Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 8425 36,390 23.15% Black,Non-Hispanic 993 2,688 36.94% Hispanic 20590 41,509 49.60% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 5065 17,464 29.00% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 85 170 50.00% Total 35,158 98,221 35.79% DemographicsofHouseholds°with SevereHoussSgCostBu denim A Households, err �I Wlthevel'e ��� Ur1S�d CtlOil�i:, a�I� V'I�'i IIi �� �'IG�°I� oil Diu t�I I � Housmg�Cost�Burden�: Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households % With severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 7210 36,390 19.81% Black,Non-Hispanic 810 2,688 30.13% Hispanic 11330 41,509 27.30% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 3290 17,464 18.84% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 50 170 29.41% Total 22,690 98,221 23.10% r i Ni� Household Type andFSize Family households,<5 people 9845 53980 18.24% Family households,5+people 4225 20740 20.37% Non-family households 4050 24384 16.61% Table 4: Housing Problems,Buena Park „,� =•� �"� dl, i ;�.''—€'�x;�� a Hip p��' � �— mr) i�'��s„�,�� 4 'K i�il ; 'k�l"� �y 6Piin itihs .(shi ', �� U� s. i' � i�r �I11s,' Demographics, f Households with,Disproporhoriate Housing Needs lDisprop rhonate Housing �' T s� �.lur�sdibon Needs �) 1Nihillli Households experiencing any of #with problems # households % with 4 housing problems problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 2,500 7,540 33.16% Black,Non-Hispanic 455 835 54.49% Hispanic 4,725 7,705 61.32% 202 637 Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 3,505 6,830 51.32% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 80 99 80.81% Total 11,265 23,009 48.96% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 6340 14230 44.55% Family households,5+people 3060 4930 62.07% Non-family households 2045 3910 52.30% . y ffl, C,r H se ouholds experiencing any of #with;severe ,iih� %with severe ",, ��o r� �1#households 4 Sev er•,ervllousing Problems sar prolilems %` r"y ProblemsMh , U . .. Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 1125 7,540 14.92% Black,Non-Hispanic 300 835 35.93% Hispanic 3050 7,705 39.58% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 2070 6,830 30.31% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 50 99 50.51% Total 6,595 23,009 28.66% mr a, � 'r Demographics of Households with Severe Housing CostBurden"f I Households with Severe Housing;~„Cost Burden 1 Jurisdiction p ,t WE Ili ,11, 'V' ��J �41�w����� Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households %with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 955 7,540 12.67% Black,Non-Hispanic 255 835 30.54% Hispanic 1780 7,705 23.10% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 1515 6,830 22.18% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 50 99 50.51% Total 4,555 23,009 19.80% HO;useholdT e and .ize e �� iI� i a � ! t, w f Family households,<5 people 2445 14230 17.18% Family households,5+people 770 4930 15.62% Non-family households 569 3910 14.55% 203 638 Table 5: Housing Problems, Costa Mesa Demographics 6UHouseholds with Disproporttonare Housing Needs_ pa Dispropgrhonate H"'sing 1`1i� V 1 Jurisdiction ��I�' uk Needs ;taP _ T , IT Households experiencing any of % with 4 housing problems #with problems #households problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 10,055 25,230 39.85% Black,Non-Hispanic 320 695 46.04% Hispanic 6,820 10,105 67.49% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 1,670 3,870 43.15% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 25 70 35.71% Total 18,890 39,970 47.26% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 8775 20195 43.45% Family households,5+people 3175 4175 76.05% Non-family households 7325 15975 45.85% HousehlM olds experiencing any_of #wrthisevere " o vurth severe � #'households Ar � � 4,Slevere,HousngProblems problems " 7 - � dih z " problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 5335 25,230 21.15% Black,Non-Hispanic 200 695 28.78% Hispanic 4650 10,105 46.02% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 804 3,870 20.78% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 15 70 21.43% Total 11,004 39,970 27.53% Demogra' hies of Households#witryh"SevererIIousin Cos'tBurden r' �? mad. �g 6 D.Bu Households with Severe �. Hou is ng Cost Burden '1� "k J;ufflF risd tion i y � Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households %with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 4905 25,230 19.44% Black,Non-Hispanic 125 695 17.99% Hispanic 2960 10,105 29.29% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 610 3,870 15.76% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 15 70 21.43% 204 639 Total 8,615 39,970 21.55% Household Type and Size - = ° Family households,<5 people 3460 20195 17.13% Family households,5+ people 904 4175 21.65% Non-family households 2650 15975 16.59% Table 6: Housing Problems,Fountain Valle Demographics of Ho endi with Disproportionate Housing Needs fi 6urd{do;�° � it I'r9m red d gip. alartupb u� rumn ainlmPl 011"i i iN 4 H � a I, AZ c Disproportionate Housmg,t � ,ul,,�,r w ,� ��d �� � �4� � �.Iurisdiction�N m „�, 5 y P ail li� Households experiencing any of #with problems #households % with 4 housing problems problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 3,910 10,405 37.58% Black,Non-Hispanic 75 175 42.86% Hispanic 1,290 2,174 59.34% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 2,425 5,785 41.92% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 0 55 0.00% Total 7,700 18,594 41.41% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 4625 12275 37.68% Family households,5+people 1110 2200 50.45% Non-family households 2150 4325 49.71% . �ix Househol&k., eHencing any of #with severer %with'se ere , ua l r r #hOuseholds lizo,'' �� 4rSevere Housing Problems :r. problems ;i �aa Npr4ohluems @��I• Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 1860 10,405 17.88% Black,Non-Hispanic 25 175 14.29% Hispanic 585 2,174 26.91% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 1419 5,785 24.53% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 0 55 0.00% Total 3,889 18,594 20.92% 205 640 Demographics'ofHousehold5 with Severe Housing CostBurdenME YHousm Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households % with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 1630 10,405 15.67% Black,Non-Hispanic 25 175 14.29% Hispanic 350 2,174 16.10% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 1105 5,785 19.10% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 0 55 0.00% Total 3,110 18,594 16.73% 9 � � House old Type' andSize� °' ruu�� r .'= 7 - - Family households,<5 people 1245 12275 10.14% Family households,5+people 250 2200 11.36% Non-family households 629 4325 14.54% Table 7: Housing Problems,Fullerton gl ". 'Uii47�an '».� ;-a Dem graphics of Households Wlt,"isproportionaate Housing Need .=�" Tie i� P i o II ZL isproporKtionate4,16-in � �� ".JurlsdlC � k a <<i - asrwh. , Households experiencing any of % with 4 housing problems #with problems # households problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 7,960 20,005 39.79% Black,Non-Hispanic 655 1,448 45.23% Hispanic 7,620 11,890 64.09% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 5,085 10,615 47.90% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 20 90 22.22% Total 21,340 44,048 48.45% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 10595 25185 42.07% Family households,5+people 4450 6275 70.92% Non-family households 6925 12920 53.60% 206 641 �Householdsexperiencing any of #wrth�severe a � � ��� %thse�ere PW 4 SevereHousingProblems j k„ problems roblems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 4320 20,005 21.59% Black,Non-Hispanic 433 1,448 29.90% Hispanic 5250 11,890 44.15% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 3125 10,615 29.44% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 20 90 22.22% Total 13,148 44,048 29.850/ appm, " �i r mmmm 1 o diry n �I�G �i �' Demographics of7Household withz' 'v a Housing ost Burde ,�- ° ' ,, i 'r HWx ouseholdswithtSevere � �� Jurisdiction ; Housing,Cost Burd Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households %with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 3665 20,005 18.32% Black,Non-Hispanic 375 1,448 25.90% Hispanic 2950 11,890 24.81% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 2495 10,615 23.50% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 0 90 0.00% Total 9,485 44,048 21.53% Household Type and N' Family households,<5 people 3695 25185 14.67% Family households,5+people 1029 6275 16.40% Non-family households 2664 12920 20.62% Table 8: Housing Problems,Garden Grove r. � � h Demo WS ra hies � g p with DLsproporhonate Housing Needs Pq of Houieh s� rd e�""f'I Disproportionate Housing r Needs k urisdichon Households experiencing any of % with 4 housing problems #with problems #households problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 5,055 14,255 35.46% Black,Non-Hispanic 287 592 48.48% Hispanic 8,945 13,550 66.01% 207 642 Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 10,303 18,418 55.94% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 130 148 87.84% Total 24,720 46,963 52.64% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 12495 26390 47.35% Family households,5+people 7515 10735 70.00% Non-family households 5059 9854 51.34% Households egperiencmg any VO of #with severe-, �„ � - ' °la with severe zl ��ho #`households � p­ 4 Severe HousingProblems - problems �' roblems - i� . Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 2645 14,255 18.55% Black,Non-Hispanic 173 592 29.22% Hispanic 6540 13,550 48.27% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 6775 18,418 36.78% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 85 148 57.43% Total 16,218 46,963 34.53% oM Demographics,YofHouseholdswithSevere Housing nsxost'Burd"eril {; wm;'n, r ni 'ba Households with Severer Housing Cost�Burden � ,T�_, � � c, Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households %with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 2135 14,255 14.98% Black,Non-Hispanic 145 592 24.49% Hispanic 3435 13,550 25.35% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 4685 18,418 25.44% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 85 148 57.43% Total 10,485 46,963 22.33% x � " Household Type and Size r� ii <� WE VAI '%� �a l=ll r s µhi Family households,<5 people 4950 26390 18.76% Family households,5+people 1945 10735 18.12% Non-family households 1450 9854 14.71% 208 643 Table 9: Housing Problems,Huntington Beach 6 a j z p J i 'Y B"5 Rair 5(ii�iB W Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs _ -- S, =� Disp or porhona Housing ��� :Turisdiction Needs w , Households experiencing any of #with problems #households % with 4 housing problems problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 19,865 53,650 37.03% Black,Non-Hispanic 344 753 45.68% Hispanic 5,500 10,855 50.67% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 3,089 8,114 38.07% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 74 274 27.01% Total 28,872 73,646 39.20% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 15230 43760 34.80% Family households,5+people 3035 5995 50.63% Non-family households 11235 24905 45.11% � MA MMIM�� o �x Households experiencing any of #with severe , �, /o Rithsevere #households _ ,: 4aSevere=Housing Problems problems d �; �yu a F prob,lems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 9745 53,650 18.16% Black,Non-Hispanic 179 753 23.77% Hispanic 3570 10,855 32.89% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 1669 8,114 20.57% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 55 274 20.07% Total 15,218 73,646 20.66% �i o, �«a ,"+tIiuiii'�O �Illii laver'i r� r (NBj°I��nioiyi ' I jDemographicsofHouseholds�with�SevereHo'' ngaCo tuBurden w.d a,, � sem ap 1 �s- �Yy �� i � e.� !H'.Wi holds wrtIi Severe d Jurisdiction ` �- Housing Cost Burden ; ,z - Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households %with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 9030 53,650 16.83% Black,Non-Hispanic 139 753 18.46% Hispanic 2580 10,855 23.77% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 1475 8,114 18.18% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 45 274 16.42% 209 644 Total 13,269 73,646 18.02% m; �- . '� li r 'i ii 94 Household T e and sized ' �d�a Family households,<5 people 5195 43760 11.87% Family households,5+people 899 5995 15.00% Non-family households 3245 24905 13.03% Table 10: Housing Problems,Irvine AM— UM" _ Deinograpincs of Householdswith Disproportionate Housing Needs �, 9,.4 ' A=. � x�t �1,mr < , �„a =a�.. i Disproportionate Housing . w , z9urisdiction � _ 4 Needs '16 A � - - � Households experiencing any of #with problems # households % with 4 housing problems problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 18,555 45,505 40.78% Black,Non-Hispanic 865 1,795 48.19% Hispanic 3,310 6,790 48.75% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 13,955 33,220 42.01% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 65 130 50.00% Total 36,750 87,440 42.03% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 20175 52685 38.29% Family households,5+people 3630 6270 57.89% Non-family households 14279 28074 50.86% u - oWit 14 Households experiencing any of #with severe x k /o with severe #households-A, 4 Severe�Housing Problems problems w protilemsr _ n ,K. a�. Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 9085 45,505 19.96% Black,Non-Hispanic 570 1,795 31.75% Hispanic, 1805 6,790 26.58% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 7850 33,220 23.63% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 10 130 7.69% Total 19,320 87,440 22.10% 210 645 MW q 10 Demographies}ofHouseholdswith Severe.HousmgxCostB den =Households withSevere � w ` - Housin ,zCostBarden dui ib9 JBi p1* i1 0 , { ,w, fl „ i«' Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households % with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 7700 45,505 16.92% Black,Non-Hispanic 315 1,795 17.55% Hispanic 1510 6,790 22.24% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 6110 33,220 18.39% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 10 130 7.69% Total 15,645 87,440 17.89% :9s��l .,.:� . = T ii Household T e andF Size - ill� � ,�� Family households,<5 people 6605 52685 12.54% Family households,5+people 1055 6270 16.83% Non-family households 5460 28074 19.45% Table 11: Housing Problems,La Habra MYR Demographics of'Households with iDispropiiortionate Housing Needs$; �i R;�V! �ja.'; 9r �� v `r 41AW `int a a i�, ;.. M�,e, 'i Disproportionate - SW —2145­_ Jurisdiction t Needs Households experiencing any of % with 4 housing problems #with problems #households problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 2,910 7,363 39.52% Black,Non-Hispanic 144 304 47.37% Hispanic 4,800 8,870 54.11% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 965 2,260 42.70% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 10 10 100.00% Total 8,829 18,807 46.95% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 4335 10875 39.86% Family households,5+people 2325 3285 70.78% Non-family households 2240 4600 48.70% 211 646 Househol th `severe /o with severe #=households in-MMOM lems ti_ Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 1630 7,363 22.14% Black,Non-Hispanic 59 304 19.41% Hispanic 3285 8,870 37.03% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 700 2,260 30.97% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 10 10 100.00% Total 5,684 18,807 30.22% Demo ra hics�of Households with Severe�Housm Cost Burden r _ — ��_; Households wrth�Severe �! '{ �ai�iG'!�a��ti7il��,� Jurisdiction:",,' ? k Housing host dBurden 4(� G�h1a? €... Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households %With severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 1240 7,363 16.84% Black,Non-Hispanic 55 304 18.09% Hispanic 1765 8,870 19.90% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 485 2,260 21.46% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 10 10 100.00% Total 3,555 18,807 18.90% Family households,<5 people 1640 10875 15.08% Family households,5+people 465 3285 14.16% Non-family households 555 4600 12.07% Table 12: Housing Problems,La Palma Demographics'ofHouseholds with Disproportionate HousmgNeeds ZMNV$�, ,r Jurisdiction FUMIT", � Households experiencing any of % with 4 housing problems #with problems #households problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 430 1,619 26.56% Black,Non-Hispanic 150 370 40.54% Hispanic 320 709 45.13% 212 647 Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 810 2,148 37.71% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 30 30 100.00% Total 1,740 4,876 35.68% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 1015 3220 31.52% Family households,5+people 340 765 44.44% Non-family households 435 930 46.77% r — 74a � r s �' u �' zHouseholds experiencing anof #,wrth severe /owith severe #_households 4 Severe HousmgPr-ollems problems" MC problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 210 1,619 12.97% Black,Non-Hispanic 75 370 20.27% Hispanic 239 709 33.71% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 434 2,148 20.20% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 0 30 0.00% Total 958 4,876 19.65% "Demo ra hies of Household'swith SevereHousin Cost Burden' ,„a O'W d t I�� )III I)i �) r ii ii h (I�i ( i (i (i� rVr W) ZE Households with Se,�ere °,y' aE„m � �J_urisdictio � � ',�� v u�y,4 Ho,usmg Cost B lyden� � . rx M. ::.. . R 10 Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households %with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 140 1,619 8.65% Black,Non-Hispanic 70 370 18.92% Hispanic 175 709 24.68% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 340 2,148 15.83% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 0 30 0.00% Total 725 4,876 14.87% Household Typ"e and Size � - � � r � Family households,<5 people 325 3220 10.09% Family households,5+people 160 765 20.92% Non-family households 75 930 8.06% 213 648 Table 13: Housing Problems,Laguna Niguel 12 OWN _� s + -emographics¢of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs' _ Disproportionate Ho s ng' w .:r „ 7r N �n ' " m a� _ i Jurisdiction G Needs� i, — ° F 11 Oil Households experiencing any of % with 4 housing problems #with problems # households problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 7,480 18,280 40.92% Black,Non-Hispanic 145 395 36.71% Hispanic 2,010 3,210 62.62% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 835 2,350 35.53% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 65 85 76.47% Total 10,535 '24,320 43.32% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 6000 15965 37.58% Family households,5+people 815 1680 48.51% Non-family households 3975 6930 57.36% ,, " i ta`i .�N i11 it ") iP =_ uP'ry't Hous�ehioldsr experiencing any of #withp lsevere „IpN� ' d °l°wthseerei ''�, Mi i� r#�houselloldS .I iiri " w' ,- -4 SevereHousing Problems problems d rt problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 3445 18,280 18.85% Black,Non-Hispanic 65 395 16.46% Hispanic 1210 3,210 37.69% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 390 2,350 16.60% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 15 85 17.65% Total 5,125 24,320 21.07% Demographics�of Households wifh�Severe Housing CostiBurden � � �� k Households witli Severe � Jurisdiction'", r t Housin Cost Burden : � „ Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households %with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 3310 18,280 18.11% Black,Non-Hispanic 35 395 8.86% Hispanic 905 3,210 28.19% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 325 2,350 13.83% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 15 85 17.65% 214 649 Total 4,590 24,320 18.87% onSOl�T�ype and Size ; I, ti �r a �' d Family households,<5 people 1745 15965 10.93% Family households,5+people 265 1680 15.77% Non-family households 900 6930 12.99% Table 14: Housing Problems,Lake Forest ME �-�rs :§�. .tr � T — r $ r 4 t 1 Demo ra hits of Househ lds with Dis ro ortionate Housin Needs i i hl �i g - ° P ��gal �,n IN 6� r,pp� ,� pC�tiV 4 ° 2='i ."@I�'zP r,<. 'i i��ril��iN',���i -``.-.� � a �N�� iiii ii p n q ])ispr�opor ionate Housmg �B d (I[ " .�Ir� ' a Jurisdiction _ �n � �� Needs lam. = `T �x Households experiencing any of % with 4 housing problems #with problems # households problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 6,230 18,240 34.16% Black,Non-Hispanic 235 535 43.93% Hispanic 2,700 4,370 61.78% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 1,310 3,870 33.85% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 15 19 78.95% Total 10,490 27,034 38.80% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 5800 17525 33.10% Family households,5+people 1640 3165 51.82% Non-family households 3340 6660 50.15% ME - -� Hoholdse�xperiencing anyof -#Witt►severe #Shy ," — %with severe, ouseholdsm 4 Severe Housing Problems problems _ r� problems 1rYgY�'1tiUi sa4 tN Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 2740 18,240 15.02% Black,Non-Hispanic 135 535 25.23% Hispanic 1855 4,370 42.45% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 660 3,870 17.05% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 15 19 78.95% Total 5,405 27,034 19.99% 215 650 Demographics,of Households with Severe,�!Iiousng GostBurden Households with Severex, _ ��ti�� � � � � � - Jur�isdichon �� Housing Cost Burden , x _ _ Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households %With severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 2395 18,240 13.13% Black,Non-Hispanic 100 535 18.69% Hispanic 1340 4,370 30.66% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 435 3,870 11.24% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 15 19 78.95% Total 4,285 27,034 15.85% Household�Type and Size � 3 t I hill, I Family households,<5 people 1825 17525 10.41% Family households,5+people 445 3165 14.06% Non-family households 804 6660 12.07% Table 15: Housing Problems,Mission Viejo ON 03 .. Demographics of Households'with Dispro orhonate Housmg Needs 4i a�n . _ ° M ° ._air a� � � _ ME Disproportionate Housing _ - Needs � Households experiencing any of %with 4 housing problems #with problems # households problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 8,690 25,265 34.40% Black,Non-Hispanic 199 389 51.16% Hispanic 2,105 4,099 51.35% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 955 3,050 31.31% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 20 30 66.67% Total 11,969 32,833 36.45% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 7265 22375 32.47% Family households,5+people 950 3305 28.74% Non-family households 4055 7870 51.52% 216 651 H seehreo Hldso�uexsmpegriPernocbmlegm asn y of4 ,w�#p rwblem jLm rowbiltehmo h S se NS�v ver`e"Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 3779 25,265 14.96% Black,Non-Hispanic 79 389 20.31% Hispanic 995 4,099 24.27% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 465 3,050 15.25% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 20 30 66.67% Total 5,338 32,833 16.26% 25 Demographicsof Households withSevere,HousinC�osttBurden " � ,i! iai Hauseholds'with Severe 'T' ay��r aFyip� `. nul�F �JUriShcctlon` ' him �HousmgCost��Burden �r'��; � F?�, ��, 'I O"Iio'm iF�11 .raWimr 6 Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households % with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 3505 25,265 13.87% Black,Non-Hispanic 60 389 15.42% Hispanic 865 4,099 21.10% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 335 3,050 10.98% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 20 30 66.67% Total 4,785 32,833 14.57% x " n fi," a � e, F L _ �t4`il �U��iii yii V Household Type and Size _ �, �� „�r"� 4� Family households,<5 people 1770 22375 7.91% Family households,5+people 245 3305 7.41% Non-family households 725 7870 9.21% Table 16: Housing Problems,Orange(City) mr, t. Demographics of H ortionate Housing Needs �F` # -�`+-' '. m r�Disproportionate�Housmg �) Gu ��i�' , &rNeeds _ fip; ki _` " t ( ({Jurisdtctio�n �; b 56i ��I��i��l�mI'MiR Households experiencing any of #with problems #households % with 4 housing problems problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 8,845 24,095 36.71% Black,Non-Hispanic 365 530 68.87% Hispanic 7,255 12,030 60.31% 217 652 Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- Hispanic 1,810 4,979 36.35% Native American,Non-Hispanic 45 75 60.00% Total 18,320 41,709 43.92% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 8815 23870 36.93% Family households,5+people 4080 6705 60.85% Non-family households 5800 11369 51.02% Households egperiencmg any off #-withwith sever e Whouseholds 4 Severe Housing Prolilems4, ,problems ryu � Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 4580 24,095 19.01% Black,Non-Hispanic 235 530 44.34% Hispanic 5105 12,030 42.44% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 1130 4,979 22.70% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 4 75 5.33% Total 11,054 41,709 26.50% Demographics of Households withF Severe Housing CosBurdenn, r - ka yt'!r a g d d5 ! + Households with Severe j Cs ' uv , � UrisdlGtloII' Housing Cost Burden 'e N6a�1 ��iyihN Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households %with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 4155 24,095 17.24% Black,Non-Hispanic 195 530 36.79% Hispanic 2935 12,030 24.40% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 795 4,979 15.97% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 4 75 5.33% Total 8,084 41,709 19.38% nK" i � 1 Family households,<5 people 3145 23870 13.18% Family households,5+people 1105 6705 16.48% Non-family households 2185 11369 19.22% 218 653 Table 17: Housing Problems,Rancho Santa Margarita De nographics of Household with Disproportionate HousingW..eds — . Rg d 9�1'I�ir£ Disproportionate Housing 7 (G 15 t Jurisdxction ;; �i�;r rIt Fq 1L �L - HI lYeeds� � u� . ! ol!pIk �Iiil', r - " Households experiencing any of #with problems #households % With 4 housing problems problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 4,505 11,890 37.89% Black,Non-Hispanic 140 285 49.12% Hispanic 1,629 2,674 60.92% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 565 1,855 30.46% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 0 0 0% Total 6,839 16,704 40.94% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 4000 11285 35.45% Family households,5+people 745 1720 43.31% Non-family households 2250 3975 56.60% useholds experienc g any of #with severe %withsevWROMere W hos 4 SevereHousing Problems problems s ^" r t ; m;; profile„ms r Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 2000 11,890 16.82% Black,Non-Hispanic 84 285 29.47% Hispanic 720 2,674 26.93% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 175 1,855 9.43% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 0 0 #DIV/0! Total 2,979 16,704 17.83% ah�" aty�.m Denographics ofHouseholds wrt>ir5evere HousingCostBurden ,a 'N'4� Households withSevere ,- Jarisdiction:Housing°Cost} urdens _ -- 0--ft I Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households % with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 1860 11,890 15.64% Black,Non-Hispanic 85 285 29.82% Hispanic 500 2,674 18.70% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 130 1,855 7.01% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 0 0 #DIV/0! 219 654 Total 2,575 16,704 15.42% Household Typeiand W 3 -_4 Family households,<5 people 1220 11285 10.81% Family households,5+people 140 1720 8.14% Non-family households 570 3975 14.340/. Table 18: Housing Problems, San +Clemente Demographics of Households,with Disproportionate Housmg Needs °°� � � �����, �� �Disproporhonate Ott Jurisdiction qua , 9u� Ii� », �,i �� s ° Needs Households experiencing any of #with problems #households % with 4 housing problems problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 7,940 19,490 40.74% Black,Non-Hispanic 30 125 24.00% Hispanic 2,005 3,264 61.43% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 310 970 31.96% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 10 20 50.00% Total 10,295 23,869 43.13% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 5670 14590 38.86% Family households,5+people 1240 2445 50.72% Non-family households 3689 7229 51.03% s aae mw4 4 r x I,pi 'r o o l"6141l i li f Households experiencing any of �#withsevere 1 a / with severe'E ar #households _ 4'Severe Housin Problems �'7j `problemsi I',. '^ °roblems,� I g� . � a. Iry . ,� I _P _e Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 4055 19,490 20.81% Black,Non-Hispanic 20 125 16.00% Hispanic 1375 3,264 42.13% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 145 970 14.95% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 10 20 50.00% Total 5,605 23,869 23.48% 220 655 `Demographics of Households wrth O ere$oasinlnul'Cost�Burden =:- g'n r r Households with Severe _ �� � � = � e = �ri Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households % with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 3685 19,490 18.91% Black,Non-Hispanic 20 125 16.00% Hispanic 960 3,264 29.41% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 95 970 9.79% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 10 20 50.00% Total 4,770 23,869 19.98% a n IFr � Househ`o1d Type an'd Size ��# EI �,� �i rH :,20 1 f,r — `'r1�a m Family households,<5 people 1855 14590 12.71% Family households,5+people 405 2445 16.56% Non-family households 1149 7229 15.89% Table 19: Housing Problems, San Juan Capistrano IF 101 Demographics of Households�wwithrDispr`opornonate Housing Needs p �' i pp `d - ( �F4*," i4i "R',11r ki ie bpi q "h (ko t I�I qE yl � ���v ,Plil�ll § i �. „Disproporttonafe�Hoismg nr1f�' '� . + .Turisdiction Households experiencing any of #with problems #households % with 4 housing problems problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 3,805 8,630 44.09% Black,Non-Hispanic 0 0 #DIV/0! Hispanic 1,915 2,725 70.28% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 115 340 33.82% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 30 80 37.50% Total 5,865 11,775 49.81% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 2945 6970 42.25% Family households,5+people 1425 1925 74.03% Non-family households 1590 2915 54.55% 221 656 °Households experiencmg any of ;#with severe' Gi w °lowith severe MI IG Ii qi x wiii911i1' n, #households,, 9 ^d NN „"4 Severe HousingProblems �� problems��� it „A 'ii ', �liva ',, pr'ofblems Ni ;a 61i.wwni i �- ai '�nnaua d� �'�` t�wwi ��� Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 2070 8,630 23.99% Black,Non-Hispanic 0 0 #DIV/0! Hispanic 1650 2,725 60.55% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 70 340 20.59% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 30 80 37.50% Total 3,820 11,775 32.44% Demographics of Households with Severe�Iiou"sing Coss Burd ,, , � �",�_-� HoOr— useholdswith Severe u Housing Cost Burden ! ' 4mN, Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households %with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 2015 8,630 23.35% Black,Non-Hispanic 0 0 #DIV/0! Hispanic 1070 2,725 39.27% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 65 340 19.12% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 30 80 37.50% Total 3,180 11,775 27.01% Household Type and Size _- =a .t Family households,<5 people 1100 6970 15.78% Family households,5+people 555 1925 28.83% Non-family households 275 2915 9.43% Table 20: Housing Problems, Santa Ana Demographics of Households-,with Disproportionate Rousing Needs EMLM, IA ME Disproportionate Housing = ����l"11, � � � q "j durisdietion i a 4 �ey Gillt ui Pti rt Households experiencing any of % with 4 housing problems #with problems # households problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 4,650 12,430 37.41% Black,Non-Hispanic 435 899 48.39% Hispanic 36,965 50,935 72.57% 222 657 Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 5,440 9,959 54.62% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 63 128 49.22% Total 47,553 74,351 63.96% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 18765 34015 55.17% Family households,5+people 22140 27010 81.97% Non-family households 7055 13590 51.91% - 7. _ ry Households experiencing any off #with=severe' %iw,rthsevere ouseholds �mq� > m¢SevereHousingP'roblems ,problems ••�;a���ll�8� ,;a 4, problemsi .o�cw m,aum;r,ac:r Aux. t.rw ._ eli hzM .ern. << Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 2495 12,430 20.07% Black,Non-Hispanic 234 899 26.03% Hispanic 29395 50,935 57.71% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 3450 9,959 34.64% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 8 128 6.25% Total 35,582 74,351 47.86% Demographicsof HouseholdswithSevere Housing�CostBurden A � LIA NO WO Households with Severe 3 Jurisdiction r 01 Housing Cost Bprden - _ � = � , Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households %with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 2130 12,430 17.14% Black,Non-Hispanic 195 899 21.69% Hispanic 12800 50,935 25.13% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 2155 9,959 21.64% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 10 128 7.81% Total 17,290 74,351 23.25% P a HOtllsehol"y nx S�_z �_ � - � � = _ Family households,<5 people 8010 34015 23.55% Family households,5+people 4990 27010 18.47% Non-family households 1809 13590 13.31% 223 658 Table 21: Housing Problems,Tustin �0 11 0`7 ographicsof Households with"Disproportionate Housing'Needs." _ s; 4 -s _- Disproportionate Housing - g. jurisdiction Needs Households experiencing any of #with problems # households % with 4 housing problems problems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 4,465 10,495 42.54% Black,Non-Hispanic 380 609 62.40% Hispanic 5,485 7,705 71.19% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 2,644 6,089 43.42% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 60 120 50.00% Total 13,034 25,018 52.10% Household Type and Size Family households,<5 people 6690 14315 46.73% Family households,5+people 2840 3775 75.23% Non-family households 3825 7465 51.24% .,ina9 ' D t� Households experiencing any�of #with severe , %with severe = #-households 4 Sever�eHousing Pro> lems �prollems Race/Ethnicity White,Non-Hispanic 2085 10,495 19.87% Black,Non-Hispanic 205 609 33.66% Hispanic 3915 7,705 50.81% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 1519 6,089 24.95% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 10 120 8.33% Total 7,734 25,018 30.91% T r i,�; -."a. �0 " its "� "� �'" (i e�e Demo ra hics of Households_with,;Se�ere HousmgCosfBurden�i,; a g ,p �'. sp 'iHiL„rd6ii��f � iia, tti I��@p tla�u , II� „ �i Households witli Severe �;y t� � � Rail: � .lurlShcCtlon��ili l p i � r G ���� � Housm Cost Burdens rs Race/Ethnicity #with severe #households %with severe cost burden cost burden White,Non-Hispanic 1840 10,495 17.53% Black,Non-Hispanic 170 609 27.91% Hispanic 1975 7,705 25.63% Asian or Pacific Islander,Non- 969 6,089 15.91% Hispanic Native American,Non-Hispanic 0 120 F 0.00% 224 659 Total 4,954 25,018 19.80% pp i i Househoi"Ml' peiand Size �I,!i�u � ���i p';�h� �il,i4 �� AN t o Family households,<5 people 2300 14315 16.07% Family households, 5+people 589 3775 15.60% Non-family households 1025 7465 13.73% A few trends are immediately clear in housing needs in Orange County. The housing problems data displayed in the charts above include houses that have 1 of 4 housing problems by race/ethnicity and family type, 1 of 4 severe housing problems by race/ethnicity, and severe housing cost burden by race/ethnicity and family type. Overall, across the County, Black and Hispanic residents are more likely to face all of these housing problems, with varying rates across different jurisdictions. Some figures in the data above may be inaccurate depending on the number of households of a particular group in a jurisdiction. For example, 0 Black households are listed in San Juan Capistrano. It may be that this figure was lower than the margin of error, so figures with low or no households should carry less weight in indicating frequency of problems. However, the County data overall gives an idea of housing needs for smaller populations. In the County, 45.84% of residents overall face at least 1 of 4 housing problems. White and Asian or Pacific Islander residents have slightly lower rates of housing problems, at 38.22% and 45.26% respectively, while Black residents have a slightly higher rate of 48.29%. Hispanic residents have the highest rates at 63.16% countywide. Native American residents have a rate similar to the average at 48.74%, but the low populations of Native American residents across jurisdictions may lead to misleading data(which is why they are not as frequently discussed here).Housing problems are found in differing rates across family types, with 39.66% for families of 5 or less, 65.59% for families of 5 or more, and 50.53% for non-family households. Housing problems occur more frequently in more populated areas of the County, including in Anaheim and Santa Ana in particular. There are some more obvious discrepancies in rates of housing problems across different demographic groups. Black residents in Aliso Viejo experience housing problems at a rate of 61.84%, in Orange (city) at 68.87%, in Tustin at 62.40%, and in Buena Park at 54.49%. Hispanic residents experience rates of housing problems that are high overall, but significantly higher in central and southern Orange County, at 72.57% in Santa Ana, 71.19% in Tustin, and 70.28% in San Juan Capistrano. Asian residents generally experience average or lower rates of housing problems, with exceptions in Garden Grove and Santa Ana, where they experience housing problems at rates of 55.94% and 54.62% respectively. Rates of severe housing problems are overall lower than housing problems at 27.10%, but more drastic discrepancies exist compared to the white population. White residents face severe housing problems at a rate of 19.29%. Black residents experience them at a rate of 28.81%, Hispanic residents at 44.55%, Asian or Pacific Islander residents at 26.99%, and Native American residents at 24.97%. Rates of severe housing problems are especially high in parts of Orange County, including Anaheim, Buena Park, Garden Grove, Orange, San Juan Capistrano, and Santa Ana. 225 660 Black residents experience severe housing problems at rates of 36.84% in Aliso Viejo and 44.34% in Orange (city). Hispanic residents face severe housing problems at significantly high rates of 49.60% in Anaheim, 60.55% in San Juan Capistrano, and 50.81% in Tustin, but also higher than average in Buena Park,Costa Mesa,Garden Grove,La Habra,Laguna Niguel,Lake Forest,Orange and San Clemente. Asian residents face noticeably high rates of severe housing problems in Garden Grove, at 36.78%. Severe housing cost burden is a large but not as frequent problem for residents in Orange County. The average rate of residents experiencing severe housing cost burden is 19.70%across the county. Overall, White residents have a rate of 17.30%, Black residents 22.57%, Hispanic residents 24.78%, Asian American or Pacific Islander residents 19.82%, and Native American residents 19.83%. Families of 5 or less have a rate of 13.8%, families of 5 or more 16.95%, and non-family households 14.39%. Discrepancies across race/ethnicity or family type are much lower than for housing problems or severe housing problems in the County. Black and Hispanic residents still face higher than average rates of severe housing cost burdens in some individual jurisdictions, however. In Orange (city), Black residents experience severe housing cost burden at a rate of 36.79%. Hispanic residents experience rates of housing cost burden at 39.58% in Buena Park, and 39.27% in San Juan Capistrano. Table 17: Percentage of Overcrowded Households by Race or Ethnicity, 2013-2017 American Community Survey Geography _ White `" Black Native` Asian , Hispanic. Non- American American a r . -, u E„ i° i E - i, 3'x'„ 4u C` e y �1Iili chit (ii "H1Span1C ':�o�Er� ,� ��i' r or Pacific i M, ,w � L4lilnder...v ....air i . Orange County, California 1.95% 6.52% 11.38% 7.76% 25.72% Aliso Viejo city, California 1.47% 0.00% 0.00% 2.79% 7.47% Anaheim city, California 3.20% 5.94% 27.51% 9.81% 29.07% Buena Park city, California 4.33% 8.11% 17.03% 7.17% 23.11% Costa Mesa city, California 2.70% 9.01% 16.30% 7.20% 25.16% Fountain Valley city, 1.93% 0.00% 0.00% 6.46% 15.37% California Fullerton city, California 2.63% 4.20% 23.42% 6.42% 23.52% Garden Grove city, 3.46% 9.69% 15.77% 12.23% 30.05% California Huntington Beach city, 1.50% 6.45% 0.00% 3.16% 14.59% California Irvine city, California 4.21% 11.78% 0.00% 6.79% 6.30% Laguna Niguel city, 0.67% 2.91% 0.00% 1.52% 13.74% California La Habra city, California 3.86% 0.00% 5.30% 11.84% 22.09% Lake Forest city, California 1.95% 8.93% 17.17% 4.68% 16.52% La Palma city, California 1.70% 0.00% 0.00% 6.63% 14.91% Mission Viejo city, California 0.72% 5.35% 0.00% 3.76% 6.30% 226 661 Orange city, California 1.67% 11.81% 5.02% 8.05% 21.46% Rancho Santa Margarita 1.40% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 8.33% city, California San Clemente city, 1.36% 0.00% 0.00% 3.52% 18.12% California San Juan Capistrano city, 0.11% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 26.44% California Santa Ana city, California 3.88% 7.82% 26.59% 14.75% 42.93% Tustin city, California 1.35% 10.52% 4.35% 7.35% 28.28% The tables above indicate overcrowdedness in the County and its jurisdictions. Some of these numbers are inaccurate, due to low populations in a given jurisdiction (especially for Black or Native American residents). In the County, White residents experience an overcrowdedness rate of 1.95%, Black residents 6.52%, Native American residents 11.38%, Asian American or Pacific Islander residents 7.76%, and Hispanic residents 25.72%. Hispanic residents face especially high rates of overcrowdedness. This is especially true in Anaheim and Santa Ana, where their overcrowdedness rates are 29.07% and 42.93%, respectively. Which areas in the jurisdiction and Region experience the greatest housing burdens? Which of these areas align with segregated areas, integrated areas, or R/ECAPs and what are the predominant race%thnicity or national origin groups in such areas? 227 662 Ma 1: Housing Problems in North Orange County, Race 1 Dot- 75� + , t ` a ♦ >t` ..'"` •• • • 'Alhlte ♦` �+ 'i► 9♦ •♦ Legend • •! ► ♦f ♦LV�� 4 Black > #«•f• ++ • yl ♦• Percentage of Houses with Housing Problems • Native American orAmerican Indian •. r •• '# � �`f` • 0-20 • Asian '�• `.,••fit ; * . .•• • �is� 21 -40 • Pacific Islander •• • •� 0,sat'1. ,� .1 = .•�; . • - 41 -60 • Hispanic • ♦Sy • •� • I • '� • P + a• • 61-80 F I . % `�►a-q • o 40 i -�a• _ rz • a ��-,� i i..r,' � • a �� aa�I. .L; • $ 1'yy� • a : + .r, ►r••3 i x '• -� '.�y • �3--yet -,t,' �"s., +ia•'•'► + + +• _ i<► • �i' • NIT • ♦< » ' • • t ^N, 1 Y.. w • �.`�• • + .3"°. HCENA PA RS b." c ♦,,,.���` FAA #i• y, �, ��' �` 1*�,*,y�'�' .. r w • —',A • �t'`t,s�1`-(►•t'� � .�`,1�+iS d'+a t'.. +� t �i�4i_� 's`�-'o�1'♦•�'- ' ���'� :.r.::•'ate• ��: ;,;=s '`i, "�"� 't �_ �• - i L + �:.'���14 i=��►� ♦ ��y: • �R �Ga 'GR.��L y�i�i.�• i � �'��u t 0 SHA 'BEACH a+ .i 4��� 3 �. ;. •• ► r - j a• ♦, r�• `�'� •i -,., .,. • ` 1, y• t• 1•• ,3t+•i ;i • SA NTA ANAL ► µ • • • + • �� a*-a. ;�, _ ++►`-� � � TL'STIIV ►`..• s a a • ` s • �` a a , i� � •��• ++• '�r� �. I ILL�•y ft ♦ tint t'�E ?i �1 ♦ „►,i, w fiC'NTLrVGTON 88A£EI seaa-Romer �F • � �`i • ; w�'1 + . s • 9# 228 663 Ma 2. Housing Problems in Central Oran County, Race • .._ PLA_CE—_N�-TIA - - _ ''�- "- �� �� � �� �� ♦ + ��� �D R8.9 �i0 80 A'vAHEIDl �+-♦AI�:'�` 1`f� •- try s:�.�� i•", ,jz u d -i R s . . r , �y + • • ?�r. '7•++.• +,if_�YI�IYODT �../avtp•�ir� OR+�eG£CO ••++��� •.���,,j�,{1�`4 .t�..�LQ �L4\f:T,.O. 4 f �f •l �+ ,iS �w Viy, ORANGE�.ri Y wiM1 -.. #o�R ♦ Z+ to a +.�► , + .1• v�.r BEACH ' /► �A;!+ ;t. + • w i • y+ � ! + ♦ e + r ►__+ ANA M {At rTi► 04, �"'i •• ^ir ;�, 1 FOUNELrar 1 Dot= 150 L++*• : s * White • _ Black .j + tanTMG C CH • Native American or American Indian ,k nsGmrE Asian Pacific Islander Hispanic a'►. � '� 1e end +•� -.'`'EWrMT BEACHHi' !' tra�wwoons 11 Percentage of Houseswltb Housing Problems ' • I�i��, + •+ • � 0-20 +�'�i • +•• a �* 21-40 +.x 41-60 :? 61 -80 - 81 -100 IAiGL"�A BEACH " 229 664 Map 3: Housing Problems in South Orange County, Race srart►3rls TLISrIN - -_ a • 4 f wvnvE TAIM roasT FLk CHO SANT f • N_BAPCfItTREACH o- !� • � - LAG[IVA HILIS ♦t • • _•. V ,•►4� + ORANGE CO . i ♦� 1� + t f ♦ f♦ • • f Lif�N� •* • f♦ f i LAGLWA NIGtEL • 4 • w • • L3" SANS JLxN GPlS'PRANO ♦ •+ Legend 'CLE.'LIEN'IE �` • .• 1 Dot= 150 Percentage of Houses with Housing Problems • White 0-20 j+ � � Black 21- 60 ,• • Native American or American Indian 61 -80 .` Asian 81 -100 Pacific Islander Hispanic 230 665 Map 4: Housing Problems in North Orange County, National Origin • Vietnam Legend Philippines Percentage of Houses with Housing Problems India Q0-20 • Korea 21 -40 Japan 41 -60 China, including Hong Kong and Taiwan - 61 -80 - 81 -100 . . , . . f• L.A HABRA FL'LI.ER ( :a •• . ' �• A �!?� :.L\^".'-.� s BLENA PARS a. 1lYJY# r I AHIAFIEIItd � • � • . PARS t r 3Ti N MN --h. (3AANGE d .l, cwxnewcaays a� a�trsco F. + yypp SANTAANA �`"-,'• •�tl.�' .'••�••''• 2+ tiJflPTi'B�BG'I+OBFB�AC1i a' a�► F• « 1Ot71V'�i QAI.iBY '���. � , � • tea, ct s. j LAKE FORE ST 231 666 Map 5: Housing Problems in Central Orange County, National Origin ALAWMS ANAIMM i II' M" It�4 41 ' �����`Yi"a� �TAtv'norty ORANGE h i 6 iip I. BEAM A SANTAANA a • �.,, TtTST� `� ��'� t � s • � IOVNI'A1N VALLEY 7 TR ice+ . q� R't ,:'♦ TON BEACH '= Y• w 5'\ CU$;;.ASE=SA IRS INE' , LAGLAdA. • Vietnam NEWPORTBBAM Philippines 110°d India • Korea GRC0 si�ovn�o Japan `�- • China, including Hong Kong and Taiwan Percentage of Houses with Housing Pmbiems 0-20 I AGT3vAffiACH 21-40 fi1-80 81-100 �`-,, mINA POIIVT. 232 667 Map 6: Housing Problems in South Orange County, ;,National Origin • tiPH� LAZE FOREST S►Pl'!7A t�t6iP�Ta6ICEi Ii6CStipOOOa U�Oi�t VI8j0 L�Id lIIIIi P� OR-CNGSCO LGi3dl RRAGB • Vietnam Philippines SAN JsS►x CAPtsiRAxU India • Korea DAMCP03W Japan • China, including Hong Kong and Taiwan suvcss�v� rememavevi nvusesvnm musing rroutems 0-20 21-40 � 41 -60 61 -so ---- - 81-100 2>j 668 Map 7: Housing Problems in North Orange County,National Origin Legend Percentage of Houses with Housing Problems 0-20 21 -40 � k 41-60 ` - 61 -so >u>El4> BRSA 81 -100 1 Dot= 25 Iran >iEzraN svtaa i nvn�' • M ex i c o _ _z._ esutivt j 1 El Salvador Canada • Guatemala United Kingdom C VIISJ PAC CSCO i Ltx AlAltiD03 Ca WESIA�VSI'EtA - e &BAL'REAM UNTAANA MUMMOG70N RUAt33 FBUNGSV�AII Et tX�r ►I�SA 234 669 Map 8: Housing Problems in Central Orange County, National Origin a»c varaPAM ius Aumrros srR oRAxcEco GARDEN GROF$ • UrEms STER RBJ►L'�i SANTA'ANA 1Z7YI'83 e� PDL`NTAIId oAI1FY >„"�, F i HL-NTLNGTON BEACH �`- IRV L-t-E`. 1 Dot= 25 Iran Mexico c `; ` IJi�PDRElI k El Salvador Canada ` N EvrpcWTBF-4 cx► ns • Guatemala ,.��; '�...•-_�. ��..^`'''y,r United Kingdom _ s Legend Percentage of Houses with Housing Problems 0-20 0 Ili 21 -40 LAGUNABEACK 41 -60 61 80 LAGL'NA riTFGi�. � 81-100 0 235 670 Map 9: Housing Problems in South Orange County, National Origin rxrnv r.rF FOREs> .,. ? RkNCH6 SAN bfARGARRA \"EA-POR?SE�CH XAGLWA -' a� -- Yf LiC�VIl'ffid3 u.sor�o ORUNGECO LAGUNA EACH I.IYt:[g+FAI�L�L -- 1 Dot= 25 Legend + Iran Percentage of Houses with Housing Problems Mexico —f 0-20 0 21 ao C Salvador _ a1_� Canada 61-80 -- • Guatemala 81 -100 United Kingdom 236 671 Patterns in housing problems described earlier are present in the maps above. While housing problems are generally evenly dispersed throughout the County, there are some exceptions, which tend to have higher numbers of Hispanic residents. This is seen in the high number of Hispanic residents in Anaheim and Santa Ana, both of which have slightly higher percentages of housing problems. In Central Orange County, cast Fountain Valley also has higher percentages of households with housing problems in areas with higher numbers of Hispanic residents. The same is the case for Hispanic residents in San Juan Capistrano, Lake Forest and Laguna Woods. While the charts above suggested that Black residents similarly had higher rates of housing problems than White and Asian residents, those patterns are more difficult to view in maps due to the lower population of Black residents overall. Asian or Pacific Islander residents generally live in areas with fewer housing problems, with one notable exception. Garden Grove, which has slightly higher rates of housing problems than its surroundings, also has a noticeably high population of Asian or Pacific Islander residents. These patterns are further explained by national origin maps. Map 4 shows that high numbers of Vietnamese residents are found in Garden Grove,which does have slightly higher rates of housing problems. Filipino residents in the areas between Buena Park and Anaheim, similarly reside in areas with higher rates of housing problems. The same holds for Filipino residents in Lake Forest and Laguna Hills, as seen in Map 6. Mexican residents have the most noticeable pattern of living in areas with higher rates of housing problems. Mexican residents in Santa Ana, Anaheim, Costa Mesa, and San Juan Capistrano live in areas with higher rates of housing problems, as seen in Maps 7, 8 and 9. Additional Information Beyond the HUD provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about disproportionate housing needs in the jurisdiction and Region affecting groups with other protected characteristics. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of disproportionate housing needs. For PHAs, such information may include a PHA's overriding housing needs analysis. Contributing Factors of Disproportionate Housing Please see the Appendix for the following Contributing Factors to Disproportionate Housing Needs: • Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes • Displacement of residents due to economic pressures • Displacement of and/or lack of housing support for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking • Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs • Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods • Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities 237 672 • Land use and zoning laws • Lending discrimination • Loss of affordable housing • Source of income discrimination 238 673 C. PUBLICLY SUPPORTED HOUSING ANALYSIS Overview of Housing Authorities in Orange County Orange County Housing_Authority The Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) operates numerous special housing programs. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program provides subsidies to help qualifying participants .pay for homeownership expenses. The Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program helps HCV program participants gain employment to support themselves and their families by working with other agencies for employment assistance. The Family Unification Program (FUP) promotes family unification by providing HCV assistance specifically to families for whom housing represents a barrier to children and parents living together. The Non-Elderly Disabled (NED) program provides HCV for non-elderly disabled families with demonstrated need for supportive services. Finally, the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program, run jointly through the Department of Housing and the Department of Veteran Affairs, provides housing subsidies and other services to homeless veterans with mental and addictive disorders. Most HCV programs are offered with a focus on guaranteeing freedom of choice as to where families can live or use HCV program assistance. Some additional HCV"Project-Based"vouchers are also available with HCV vouchers tied to specific housing units. Anaheim Housing Authority The Anaheim Housing Authority (AHA) operates multiple housing programs. The Anaheim Housing Choice Voucher(HCV)program allows participating families to move into units of their choice so long as property owners agree to participate in the HCV program. They also operate a Project-Based Voucher(PBV)program that provides rental assistance at specific complexes within the city. The AHA also maintains an affordable housing list for individuals and families looking to rent units at an affordable rate. Additionally, the AHA operates several programs run through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program delivers funding to agencies and businesses that provide benefits to low-and-moderate income persons. The Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) program funds non-profit organizations sponsoring projects for low-and-moderate income persons. The HOME Investments Partnerships program provides funding for local government for plans designed to increase the supply of affordable housing. Finally the Housing Opportunity for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program provides funding for low-to-moderate income persons living with HIV or AIDS. Garden Grove Housing Authority The Garden Grove Housing Authority (GGHA) operates several housing programs. GGHA maintains information for landlords and tenants on their website. Additionally, GGHA operates a rental subsidy program (HCV) for eligible participants based on income. Finally, applicants who 239 674 have qualified for housing assistance in Garden Grove are permitted to maintain assistance through mobility and portability programs when such an applicant leaves the city of Garden Grove. Santa Ana Housing Authority The Santa Ana Housing Authority (SAHA) operates several housing programs. SAHA operates an HCV program for Housing Choice Vouchers within the City. Additionally, SAHA operates a project-based voucher program with HCV vouchers tied to specific complexes within the City. SAHA also has numerous resources for landlords and tenants, including a database of affordable housing and pocket resources for homeless services. SAHA was also recently recognized by HUD for the work done by the "Foster Youth to Independence Initiative"which targets housing assistance to young people aging out of foster care who are at extreme risk of experiencing homelessness. This project was done in tandem with the United Way. 1. Analysis a. Publicly Supported Housing Demographics The Publicly Supported Housing section analyzes federally funded affordable housing and other types of affordable housing, to determine whether the level of need is being met and whether patterns of affordable housing siting concentrate minorities in low opportunity areas, among other things. In Orange County, each category of publicly supported housing (public housing, Project- Based Section 8, Other Multifamily Housing, Housing Choice Vouchers, and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit [LIHTC] units) is represented, although that representation varies greatly depending on the individual municipality. Affordable housing (including LIHTC) makes up 5% or less of the total housing stock in all but six of the entitlement jurisdictions in this analysis (Anaheim, Garden Grove, Irvine, La Palma, Santa Ana, and Westminster; incomplete data is available for Buena Park, which likely counts among these as well). In each of these jurisdictions, LIHTC and Housing Choice Voucher units tend to predominate, and there is no Public Housing at all, indicating an overall preference for private housing development. Overall, the amount of publicly supported housing available in Orange County does not rise to meet the level of need, although progress is being made. Table 1: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Orange County 14 al Hous><n Units3 x . ,� f # ra /o ,w Total housing units 219,058 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 429 0.20% Other Multifamily 33 0.02% 14 Data from Inventory Management System(IMS)/PIH Information Center(PIC), https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-(AFFHT0004a)-March-2018.pdf 240 675 HCV Program 2,286 1.04% LIHTC 2,110 0.96% Table 2: Publicly Supported ousing Units by Program Category, Aliso Viejo q ousin a I�J # 1 lW ,ii ar i �IY� % ;;U MINE rH Total housing units 19,786 - LIHTC 128 0.65% Table 3: Publicly Supported,Housin Units b Program Category, Anaheim V ^ � M ( i�i i i� � �Sin „��I Total housing units 103,787 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 279 0.27% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 5,089 4.90% LIHTC 3,017 2.91% Table 4: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Buena Park a ,: y -� gm I N i' su, � (,, ✓' - '� iiM"W-77 HOUSm `Un1tS��n^,^ �� # �. Total housing units 24,741 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 110 0.44% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 762 3.08% LIHTC 185 0.75% Table 5: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Costa Mesa i Ho sin Units, t! Total housing units 41,933 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 110 0.26% Other Multifamily N/a N/a 241 676 HCV Program 604 1.44% LIHTC 266 0.63% Table 6: Publicly Supported HousingUnits b Program Category, Fountain Valle t _ -17 - = g HousinUnitsr w � ' # r 1m Total housing units 19,050 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 71 0.37% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 502 2.64% LIHTC 154 0.81% Table 7: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Fullerton � i� I�ousin =Units .: # .. _. n Total housing units 47,991 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 101 0.21% Other Multifamily 48 0.10% HCV Program 715 1.49% LIHTC 858 1.79% Table 8: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Garden Grove Housin ,Units _ PTO Total housing units 48,499 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 225 0.46% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 2,681 5.53% LIHTC 671 1.3 8% 242 677 Table 9: Publicly Supported ousing Units by Program Cate or , Huntington Beach RM y 'a Housin r�iu7mts =P OF E # - Total housing units 78,583 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 377 0.48% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 976 1.24% LIHTC 607 0.77% Table 10: Publicly Supported ousing Units by Program Cate or , Irvine Aw Housin IInits nAtIm km Total housing units 83,616 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 717 0.86% Other Multifamily 23 0.03% HCV Program 1,146 1.37% LIHTC 2,329 2.79 Table 11: Publicly Supported ousing Units by Program Cate or , La Habra WE -- n Total housing units 19,932 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 148 0.74% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 178 0.89% Table 12: Publicly Supported ousing Units by Program Cate or , La Palma li Mil SO- Alaw Total housing units 5,039 - LIHTC 304 6.03% 243 678 Table 13: Publicly Supported ousing Units by Program Cate or , Laguna Niguel 9 19 r 11 �'�'= t 61 I',, III HousiriUmts ' o ,, ; r #fl k« "r59 Total housing units 25,565 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 156 0.61% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 102 0.40% Table 14: Publicly Supported ousing Units by Program Catelgor , Lake Forest �mMA bT �Iiii 4iV r tli i'ifit All �' °�O NW Total housing units 27,044 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 N/a N/a Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 275 1.02% LIHTC 187 0.69% Table 15: Publicly Supported ousing Units by Program Cate or , Mission Viejo it' l W&gj k = HOUSIII `Un1tS ( ' �r # OF �� jr O 01- ,Tii� �o�4 M, �' Total housing units 34,177 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 N/a N/a Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 226 0.66% LIHTC 296 0.87% Table 16: Publicly Supported ousing Units by Program Cate or , Newport Beach _ IIou$Il'Units' i' d y #itryic 77 % y il _ ��'iY a �IaGY �u �' s. _ ';. .�-. �" 4._._ Total housing units 44,242 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 100 0.23% Other Multifamily N/a N/a 244 679 HCV Program 139 0.31% LIHTC 205 0.46% Table 17: Publicly Supported ousing Units by Program Cate or , Orange (City) -91 Y'�N tit ( h ° Housin Units; ��� ��Nii� � �iilii� o # m Total housing units 45,363 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 197 0.43% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 642 1.42% LIHTC 964 2.13% Table 18: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Rancho Santa Margarita t r r II r IN Grt I'u (4�I AIR sin UnitsFal Total housing units 17,408 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 N/a N/a Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 138 0.79% Table 19: Publicly Supported ousing Units by Program Cate or , San Clemente Housin °Units Total housing units 25,556 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 72 0.28% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 123 0.48% LIHTC 393 1.54% Table 20: Publicly Supported ousing Units by Program Cate or , San Juan Capistrano a HousinUnits w # , ° " Total housing units 12,905 - 245 680 LIHTC 215 1.67% Table 21: Publicly Supported ousing Units by Program Cate or , Santa Ana "FI ,� a )IME 'ph�����0. � ,. Dili ix Total housing units 76,075 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 801 1.05% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 2,773 3.65% LIHTC 1,092 1.44% Table 22: Publicly Supported ousing Units by Program Cate or , Tustin � - ` 00, — ii°� �I �i ili � I Hi lousing, n1tSi �;)hfiH MIw �i�il(li� �0 (�Pqi. ' Total housing units 26,633 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 100 0.38% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 524 1.97% LIHTC 672 2.52% Table 23: Publicly Supported ousing Units by Prog ram Cate or , Westminster - = ° HIg g "I " {{, `� LU i, n Htuw ��p p H d �TM ti 1p Housln ITnits „u PN 7 IbbF ii x # 6lidp 'ilA Total housing units 27,695 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 97 0.35% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 2,169 7.83% LIHTC 439 1.59% LIHTC According to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee,there are 175 LIHTC developments in Orange County, some of which are designated for specific populations. These developments include 15,092 low-income units, with 2 reserved for At-Risk populations, 79 for large families, 30 Non-Targeted, 46 for Seniors, 8 for Special Needs populations, 4 Single Room Occupancy 246 681 (SRO), and 6 which are not categorized. There are no active LIHTC developments in La Habra, Laguna Niguel, or Rancho Santa Margarita. i. Are certain racial/ethnic groups more likely to be residing in one program category of publicly supported housing than other program categories (public housing, project- based Section 8, Other Multifamily Assisted developments, and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) in the jurisdiction? Please note: rows for which all values are zero or n/a have been deleted for space Table 24: Pub icly Supported Housing Demographics, range Count 57 iIF,Nlsli' i e° II i i' TAN P�np i�k .: 1�Ifik F i " ' NRe111 Orange � � �= Aslanor Pac fiC C un White Black<< His anic Islander ;r ,. _ p Y,I ...I' 1W, . o_ M� O _ O" �#T e /mH , Project-Based 164 40.80% 9 2.24% ° ° Section 8 88 21.89/0 138 34.33/o Other 22 95.65% 0 0.00% 1 4.35% 0 0.00% Multifamily HCV Program 808 35.96% 156 6.94% 412 18.34% 866 38.54% LIHTC 1352 25.12% 254 4.72% 1621 30.11% 991 18.41% Total 140,530 67.71% 2,907 1.40% 30,185 14.54% 29,767 14.34% Households 0-30% of AMI 14,094 61.62% 259 1.13% 4,388 19.18% 3,541 15.48% 0-50% of AMI 23,293 50.78% 503 1.10% 9,148 19.94% 6,728 14.67% 0-80% of AMI 43,952 56.98% 926 1.20% 14,322 18.57% 11,131 14.43% � AsraniorPac'ific Re o Wte fr�Black 3 w . t= >FIis anic Islander a4 `4 a,. Iiu ��Housm T :u` e tt^u§j Wq yg O %' !! '���'3. !a" O': �.{ I Public Housing 683 6.99% 2,627 26.90% 6,110 62.56% 344 3.52% Project-Based 9,154 23.86% 6,942 18.10% 10,365 27.02% 11,753 30.64% Section 8 Other 1,707 33.38% 465 9.09% ° ° Multifamily1,094 21.39/0 1,839 35.96/0 HCV Program N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Total 1,766,510 41.80% 333,080 7.88% 1,405,070 33.25% 629,349 14.89% Households 0-30% of AMI 215,775 29.59% 86,225 11.83% 305,885 41.95% 105,314 14.44% 247 682 0-50% of AMI 343,565 26.07% 135,740 10.30% 587,685 44.60% 175,814 13.34% 0-80% of AMI 590,895 28.77% 195,155 9.50% 905,370 44.09% 272,549 13.27% Table 25: Publicly Sup orted Housing Demographics,Al so Viejo 15 k Ink Pacific AhSO Vl O' „ii �,rWii Whitey i�lll ii° y2 Black, 'Ah'` H15 ari1C !ISlallder 'iii I;ir WSW MOU . .fi �] a �.3] ,1 - iilllM , LIHTC 239 75.39% 22 1 6.94% 91 28.71% 15 4.73% Table 26: Publicly Sup orted Housing Demo ra hics, Anaheim ` r ss z t3IJ E�Slan Or -_ J r ,� Anaheim Black His anic _a�Pacifc Islandepr` 'I0"1 vrF o IiN J p ray #I �O Project-Based Section 8 60 22.22% 19 7.04% 50 18.52% 141 52.22% HCV Program 1,328 27.62% 412 8.57% 1,849 38.46% 1,210 25.17% LIHTC 2029 23.08% 506 5.76% 4720 53.70% 792 9.01% Total Households 38,125 38.49% 3,014 3.04% 39,630 40.01% 16,470 16.63% 0-30% of AMI 5,245 28.95% 755 4.17% 8,675 47.88% 3,070 16.94% 0-50% of AMI 8,870 25.76% 1,305 3.79% 17,310 50.28% 5,005 14.54% 0-80% of AMI 15,335 28.28% 1,845 3.40% 26,855 49.52% 7,835 14.45% Table 27: Publicly Sup orted HousingDemo ra hics, Buena Park =_ . t ` ,.,.. ,�� MITT or=PaEW cific c " „-. �'` ,u,F' 2 �°.., - (fir BuenaPark s,, 39 a White ,,,HBlack His ariic = F Islander #9,:' % Project-Based Section 8 16 13.91% 1 0.87% 4 3.48% 94 81.74% HCV Program 194 25.80% 167 22.21% 229 30.45% 161 21.41% LIHTC 287 21.91% 135 10.31% 374 28.55% 306 23.36% Total Households 7,755 33.70% 1 1,120 4.87% 7,060 30.68% 6,669 28.98% 15 HUD-provided demographic data for residents of publicly supported housing in Aliso Viejo was not available,but data from CTAC reflecting the demographics of LIHTC residents is reflected above. 248 683 0-30% of AMI 740 21.76% 200 5.88% 1,270 37.35% 1,160 34.12% 0-50% of AMI 1,645 23.40% 285 4.05% 2,885 41.04% 1,864 26.51% 0-80% of AMI 3,015 26.03% 570 4.92% 4,435 38.28% 3,084 26.62% Table 28: Publicly Supported Housing Demo ra hics, Costa Mesa 11; AN OF Asianor00 Pacific Costa Mesa � j, ,_„ Whiter Black His anc ;, Y Island€erIF _ 3 h HOw ousin � / { Project-Based Section 8 78 72.22% 0 0.00% 16 14.81% 14 12.96% HCV Program 377 60.32% 18 2.88% 107 17.12% 122 19.52% LIHTC 174 52.73% 7 2.12% 34 10.30% 58 17.58% Total Households 25,410 62.60% 509 1.25% 9,730 23.97% 4,021 9.91% 0-30% of AMI 3,010 50.00% 140 2.33% 2,140 35.55% 600 9.97% 0-50% of AMI 4,980 44.19% 165 1.46% 4,225 37.49% 1,102 9.78% 0-80% of AMI 8,995 48.10% 290 1.55% 6,530 34.92% 1,897 10.14% Table 29: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Fountain Valle (N�iI _asa INa9,� iri °I� �i 'Ii tilt, flr�i itil°NIN 3 ( I��N���N a �, € �W fit IIN d4"P". s� �d ,' �r ) a Ihi _ � ,� Asian an Islander i HO i� i U$ln `NT e P4�t Project-Based Section 8 10 14.93% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 57 85.07% HCV Program 107 20.66% 3 0.58% 37 7.14% 369 71.24% LIHTC 98 49.00% 1 0.50% 24 12.00% 92 46.00% Total Households 10,548 56.47% 255 1.37% 2,194 11.75% 5,339 28.58% 0-30% of AMI 1,044 48.45% 0 0.00% 215 9.98% 849 39.40% 0-50% of AMI 1,649 41.29% 25 0.63% 519 12.99% 1,354 33.90% 0-80% of AMI 3,388 47.27% 125 1.74% 1,059 14.77% 2,084 29.07% 249 684 Table 30: Publicly Supported HousingDemo ra hics, Fullerton acc,I,P `5 4hill q' = a iok Asian or PaclfiC. Fgllerton a ; T= White =Black _ His anic ,Islander p ,� MR Rl "Eiiai."' Iil��i�� iIi ( d 9 'mac F n AL I Project-Based Section 8 9 8.91% 0 0.00% 1 0.99% 91 90.10% Other Multifamily 35 76.09% 3 6.52% 6 13.04% 2 4.35% HCV Program 308 43.08% 88 12.31% 235 32.87% 81 11.33% LIHTC 919 35.02% 77 2.93% 1212 46.19% 197 7.51% Total Households 20,560 1 46.53% 1,338 3.03% 11,365 25.72% 9,904 22.41% 0-30% of AMI 2,625 35.02% 254 3.39% 2,490 33.22% 1,835 24.48% 0-50% of AMI 4,560 34.43% 364 2.75% 4,465 33.71% 2,985 22.54% 0-80% of AMI 7,445 36.45% 544 2.66% 6,935 33.95% 4,420 21.64% Table 31: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Garden Grove " d - Asian or Pacific Garden Gr�o�e , �� White Blacks _ His anc �,IT- Tslander�'.I - Hous n T e _ #- �% �' # � % ' „% # A �,... n�N . �, �� Project-Based Section 8 11 4.91% 2 0.89% 2 0.89% 209 93.30% HCV Program 140 5.14% 33 1.21% 243 8.92% 2,303 84.51% LIHTC 192 11.15% 29 1.68% 431 25.03% 552 32.06% Total Households 14,423 31.41% 549 1.20% 13,059 28.44% 17,061 37.16% 0-30% of AMI 1,685 1 18.36% 195 2.12% 2,744 29.89% 4,409 48.03% 0-50% of AMI 2,920 18.20% 230 1.43% 5,164 32.19% 6,964 43.41% 0-80% of AMI 5,765 22.38% 335 1.30% 8,594 33.36% 10,128 39.32% 250 685 Table 32: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Huntin ton Beach j 7i' i irv9% ii 1�4� r' ar Mill li r (i����H�i 'i.m e- li' f'w' ., � III' f�Slall Or P1c1f1C 9 s- a White , Blacker. k,„ I3is ,anrc Islander �Hunfin ton€Beach ;, 41 �„ _ il i NT` ii i9 C „�( ,III� ii P ri NNI Ik r�uir i„ .- w 9nl (h ( 7 i! �i _ t t. W 44 #�� IN�O will alN; ' O w! - 7 Ali t` I•i r'. Housin T' e , o tt o --. # _ Project-Based Section 8 150 39.68% 4 1.06% 41 10.85% 182 48.15% HCV Program 448 43.92% 35 3.43% 163 15.98% 370 36.27% LIHTC 580 53.51% 50 4.61% 356 32.84% 45 4.15% Total Households 54,285 73.20% 558 0.75% 10,165 13.71% 7,589 10.23% 0-30% of AMI 5,115 65.03% 4 0.05% 1,565 19.90% 1,075 13.67% 0-50% of AMI 8,815 57.45% 43 0.28% 3,075 20.04% 1,725 11.24% 0-80% of AMI 17,035 61.80% 108 0.39% 5,505 19.97% 2,960 10.74% Table 33: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Irvine my M, N '�j, «!' ilk Irvine„r `W!hite III lack ,;,PaClc ISIander,, Housin T y' e FF # ®% # % s # °o' _ .. E�` a = III r ��` V #" � /O Project-Based Section 8 433 60.99% 20 2.82% 1 39 5.49% 217 30.56% Other Multifamily 12 52.17% 6 26.09% 0 0.00% 5 21.74% HCV Program 588 49.45% 212 17.83% 195 16.40% 191 16.06% LIHTC 1176 25.79% 175 3.84% 1 568 12.46% 614 13.46% Total Households 42,999 53.05% 1,485 1.83% 6,714 8.28% 27,793 34.29% 0-30% of AMI 5,079 46.30% 245 2.23% 895 8.16% 4,155 37.88% 0-50% of AMI 7,409 44.73% 465 2.81% 1,665 10.05% 5,460 32.96% 0-80% of AMI 12,664 48.96% 575 2.22% 2,524 9.76% 8,339 32.24% 251 686 Table 34: Publicly Supported HousingDemo ra hics,La Habra GG: J1 711 'Asian o'r P�acific;�, J9 1k, LaHabra e. _ a "'White, _ Black= His "anic Islander ,311F _ p - ., " ,'„ +" a i'��III n(�i �1� � III , ' ` i' P �,".a" , i� t��� D CV�� (�� �i0 4 tl ar O f f� p� lil HouSing T , e a #r,� �.� �© �, �Flo, �,� Project-Based Section 8 46 31.72% 0 0.00% 51 35.17% 48 33.10% HCV Program 41 24.85% 4 2.42% 113 68.48% 7 4.24% Total Households 7,415 39.82% 430 2.31% 8,895 47.77% 1,565 8.40% 0-30% ofAMI 1,015 34.00% 75 2.51% 1,590 53.27% 255 8.54% 0-50% of AMI 1,645 27.51% 160 2.68% 3,415 57.11% 410 6.86% 0-80% of AMI 3,315 33.60% 205 2.08% 5,305 53.78% 650 6.59% Table 35: Publicly Supported HousingDemo ra hics,La Palma16 "r cRKY A �, 6 !1 Asianuor Paif c� LaPalma __ White Blacko . _ His anic Islander -- m WE I Ogg `'� s ri o „ o o" HOU$ln T„, e !d n lid O 161� ������om 0 „�fNO "'iih��0 ��III�I�I�� �.�ii iw ����N��O� �„� fia..�� LIHTC 144 15.62% 35 3.80% 156 16.92% 454 49.24% Table 36: Publicly Su orted Housin Demo ra hics, Laguna Niguel =a s 'r'' h is w _ oc �4Asianhor'Pacific" a :a, ex ' ems•, p = a. ; La una;Ni uel , _, ,; White` ,Black u g AHis anic _ Islander 1A IRON 1 I�� �0 ` 01 0� HOusingType _ = # /o #�.. Project-Based Section 8 122 82.99% 3 2.04% 12 8.16% 10 6.80% HCV Program 81 79.41% 5 4.90% 11 10.78% 4 3.92% Total Households 18,550 76.09% 410 1.68% 2,575 10.56% 2,085 8.55% 0-30% of AMI 1,435 68.99% 55 2.64% 235 11.30% 210 10.10% 0-50% of AMI 2,150 52.83% 100 2.46% 485 11.92% 320 7.86% 0-80% of AMI 4,325 59.00% 155 2.11% 1,015 13.85% 600 8.19% 16 As with Aliso Viejo,HUD-provided demographic data for residents of publicly supported housing was not available for La Palma. 252 687 Table 37: Publicly Su ported HousingDemo ra hics,NNL��ake Forest Wlif'Ms =4 ..��,„� ,. �;ki � ( i��� U6 - mC iF;'.a'i iiiyl�i'ii _ �{ � ,..'i �. `i '"li li r l ��u Asiaor Pacific White Black I=Ii`s' 'anc Islande bake Forest� r r _ i .0i'�.vi ._. �r.._ _ I... rt ` 00 im HCV Program 170 62.04% 36 13.14% 48 17.52% 20 7.30% LIHTC 38 7.45% 38 7.45% 188 36.86% 28 5.49% Total Households 17,714 1 65.95% 560 2.08% 4,310 16.05% 3,539 13.18% 0-30% ofAMI 1,129 56.17% 25 1.24% 510 25.37% 319 15.87% 0-50% of AMI 1,954 44.16% 105 2.37% 1,125 25.42% 599 13.54% 0-80% of AMI 4,144 49.57% 235 2.81% 2,135 25.54% 1,134 13.56% Table 38: Publicly Supported HousingDemo ra hics, Mission Viejo cA " i Niii�� t ��i 4r; �Inii p iin�i Y o'i II8 �I �n �� Asianyor Pacific y His anc Islander- ailA dr` Mission o �aK_ FWhite �� Blackn r ol rHosnTe ,# W # M HCV Program 166 73.45% 20 8.85% 28 12.39% 12 5.31% LIHTC 201 44.47% 4 0.88% 112 24.78% 47 10.40% Total Households 25,645 77.02% 585 1.76% 3,739 11.23% 2,504 7.52% 0-30% of AMI 1,935 75.73% 45 1.76% 365 14.29% 124 4.85% 0-50% of AMI 3,295 58.84% 70 1.25% 920 16.43% 314 5.61% 0-80% of AMI 6,680 64.11% 270 2.59% 1,635 15.69% 719 6.90% Table 39: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Newport Beach _ qpk � ;4 . tip, AA Asian.or Pacific - = _ New ort,Beach_ N yte Black His anic Islander s _ k AI 4 n 3E N HquSingT e" ., r�j,�w�ltim � Project-Based Section 8 85 87.63% 0 0.00% 3 3.09% 9 9.28% HCV Program 99 70.21% 14 9.93% 15 10.64% 13 9.22% LIHTC 238 59.20% 8 1.99% 147 36.57% 12 2.99% 2,47 Total Households 32,490 84.94% 135 0.35% 2,485 6.50% 7 6.48% 253 688 0-30% of AMI 3,130 78.54% 0 0.00% 400 10.04% 404 10.14% 0-50% of AMI 4,940 70.07% 0 0.00% 730 10.35% 653 9.26% 0-80% of AMI 8,355 74.90% 40 0.36% 1,030 9.23% 893 8.01% Table 40: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, range (City) �� MI MIL, "iw ' n ___ 3ni�7 F. Illl h; r ya,,� :Asian,!or Pacif c Black Ora e.(Ci._ t d; �Vhteru 1 His �anic w Islander:' _ v % OF �#... !iiPi Project-Based Section 8 89 49.17% 2 1.10% 76 41.99% 13 7.18% HCV Program 221 35.25% 44 7.02% 218 34.77% 144 22.97% LIHTC 943 39.03% 47 1.95% 1347 55.75% 104 4.30% Total Households 24,840 57.94% 430 1.00% 11,370 26.52% 5,535 12.91% 0-30% of AMI 2,880 50.79% 50 0.88% 1,880 33.16% 740 13.05% 0-50% of AMI 4,290 41.67% 65 0.63% 3,785 36.77% 1,270 12.34% 0-80% of AMI 8,130 45.70% 200 1.12% 6,635 37.30% 1,800 10.12% Table 41: Publicly Supported Housing Demo ra hics, Rancho Santa Margarita mr L ho = Asian orPacific .,_ His anic r Islander , =Mar ar�ta ,+ White Black _ ,n AA �.Fa Hoting T. HCV Program 90 64.29% 20 14.29% 22 15.71% 8 5.71% Total Households 11,575 70.36% 228 1.39% 2,580 15.68% 1,800 10.94% 0-30% of AMI 735 68.37% 24 2.23% 265 24.65% 30 2.79% 0-50% of AMI 1,060 48.07% 64 2.90% 570 25.85% 130 5.90% 0-80% of AMI 2,595 57.10% 114 2.51% 1,110 24.42% 290 6.38% 254 689 Table 42: Publicly Supported HousingDemo ra hics, San Clemente or r:.v-sx ;y-w Asian SanClementee � _t White Black Ids anic Pacif_icIslander 4 F'.. s" Li iNF ki E b(1 aE ii li xtN:TMIT i �p �, ° P'� °� p a Housing T" e i„ # h � /0 4tlE� # �/o h� # � �%� m ' # % n, g.r Hai a r 1 GN �� �� 1 a r t< . Project-Based Section 8 56 78.87% 0 0.00% 10 14.08% 5 7.04% HCV Program 98 78.40% 4 3.20% 20 16.00% 3 2.40% LIHTC 592 59.80% 13 1.31% 432 43.64% 34 3.43% Total Households 19,935 82.43% 130 0.54% 2,658 10.99% 880 3.64% 0-30% of AMI 1,795 72.38% 35 1.41% 364 14.68% 125 5.04% 0-50% of AMI 3,080 62.41% 35 0.71% 843 17.08% 190 3.85% 0-80% of AMI 5,730 69.29% 55 0.67% 1,358 16.42% 270 3.26% Table 43: Publicly Supported HousingDemo ra hics, San Juan Ca istranol7 Nkli ai r., 'w,' �YN� �l i�� �P it " �I�DI��Nit ir N ratla a � Asia�t 6 Pacifica, San,=Clemente ;16Tp hte Black, � 4 n His anic" � " Is arider �'I MW LIHTC 207 81.50% 3 1.18% 30 11.81% 5 1.97% Table 44: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Santa Ana 4 , r �r RI ii� Santa Ana x _ :White , lack� � His anrc .a, �,I_slande ��� dj - - ''" i. Housing T e w= # %o #` = % # %o Project-Based Section 8 45 5.70% 7 0.89% 195 24.68% 496 62.78% HCV Program 181 10.20% 49 2.76% 557 31.38% 986 55.55% LIHTC 1659 48.24% 44 1.28% 2990 86.94% 88 2.56% Total Households 12,725 17.47% 1,299 1.78% 48,985 67.26% 9,002 12.36% 0-30% of AMI 1,370 9.10% 140 0.93% 11,260 74.77% 2,155 14.31% 0-50% of AMI 2,635 8.81% 310 1.04% 22,620 75.66% 3,594 12.02% 0-80% of AMI 5,370 11.10% 685 1.42% 35,940 74.29% 5,523 11.42% "As with Aliso Viejo and La Palma,HUD-provided demographic data for residents of publicly supported housing in San Juan Capistrano was not available. 255 690 Table 45: Publicly Supported HousingDemo ra hies, Tustin � x s � ' Asian orPacific ,I� jaiF� ustin �'00White� ���.' .Black=� �� �9His an ¢�= ��� Islander�Swim, p � � �y.yL Project-Based Section 8 29 28.71% 0 0.00% 12 11.88% 60 59.41% HCV Program 181 34.74% 82 15.74% 194 37.24% 62 11.90% 480 24.33% 85 4.31% 1052 53.32% 223 11.30% LIHTC Total Households 10,755 43.06% 693 2.77% 7,365 29.49% 5,633 22.55% 0-30% of AMI 1,115 35.07% 104 3.27% 1,385 43.57% 494 15.54% 0-50% of AMI 2,075 31.64% 189 2.88% 2,995 45.66% 974 14.85% 0-80% of AMI 3,635 32.59% 318 2.85% 5,125 45.95% 1,684 15.10% Table 46: Publicly Supported HousingDemo ra hies, Westminster, 12 @ p " IV ipiIGl € - r'4 '� �, °? a Asian_or�r!Pacifc�' .:. L tmins ` {tBlackT His anic - Islander = TMOM uu �{ 11ouSin „rT e, ��1 Fu m n . ` tlen k�l ul�ltli Project-Based Section 8 2 2.08% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 94 97.92% HCV Program 146 6.33% 17 0.74% 1 93 4.03% 2,044 88.56% LIHTC 104 15.16% 18 2.62% 118 17.20% 400 58.31% Total Households 9,604 35.42% 190 0.70% 5,115 18.86% 11,769 43.40% 0-30% of AMI 1,429 23.80% 25 0.42% 1,080 17.99% 3,445 1 57.37% 0-50% of AMI 2,359 21.85% 35 0.32% 2,115 19.59% 5,820 53.91% 0-80% of AMI 3,859 24.49% 90 0.57% 3,460 21.96% 7,684 48.77% In Project-Based Section 8 developments, the majority racial/ethnic group in every entitlement jurisdiction is either White or Asian American and Pacific Islander. In San Clemente, Newport Beach, Laguna Niguel, and Costa Mesa, White residents make up a substantial majority, while in Irvine they make up a majority and in Orange (City) and Orange County they make up a plurality. In La Habra, Hispanics make up a plurality, but Asian American or Pacific Islanders and White residents trail them by 2 and 4 percentage points,respectively.Asian American or Pacific Islanders make up a supermajority in Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, and Westminster, a majority in Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Tustin, and a plurality in Huntington Beach. In Other 256 691 Multifamily Housing, White residents make up a majority in Irvine and a supermajority in Fullerton and Orange County. By far, Housing Choice Voucher households are the most evenly distributed across racial/ethnic groups. Asian American or Pacific Islanders make up a supermajority of HCV units in Westminster, Fountain Valley, and Garden Grove, and a majority in Santa Ana. They also make up a plurality in Orange County, followed closely by White residents. White residents make up a supermajority in Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, and Newport Beach, a majority in Lake Forest, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Costa Mesa, and a plurality in Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Irvine, and Orange (City, followed closely by Hispanics). Hispanics make up a plurality of HCV residents in Anaheim, Buena Park, and Tustin, and a majority of residents in La Habra. LIHTC developments are also quite diverse, with Hispanics predominating in Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton, Lake Forest, Orange (City), Santa Ana, and Tustin, and Asian American or Pacific Islanders predominating in Garden Grove, La Palma, and Westminster, and bringing up a close second in Fountain Valley; the other cities have predominantly-White LIHTC demographics. ii. Compare the racial/ethnic demographics of each program category of publicly supported housing for the jurisdiction to the demographics of the same program category in the region. In the region, there are several important differences in occupancy between various types of publicly supported housing.Firstly,there is Public Housing in the broader Los Angeles-Long Beach- Anaheim region,which is predominantly Hispanic,with Black residents making up the next highest share (at a rate that far outstrips the general population). Project-Based Section 8 Housing in the region is fairly evenly spread out across racial/ethnic group, with the largest group (Asian American or Pacific Islanders)making up only 31%. Other Multifamily units are less diverse, and split fairly evenly between White (33%) and Asian American or Pacific Islander(36%) residents, with Hispanic (21%) and Black (9%) residents trailing farther behind. Housing Choice Voucher and LIHTC data are not available at the regional level. iii. Compare the demographics, in terms of protected class, of residents of each program category ofpublicly supported housing (public housing,project-based Section 8, Other Multifamily Assisted developments, and HCV) to the population in general, and persons who meet the income eligibility requirements for the relevant program category of publicly supported housing in the jurisdiction and region. Include in the comparison, a description of whether there is a higher or lower proportion of groups based on protected class. In comparison to the demographics of the Urban County and each of the entitlement cities, White residents tend to be either proportionally represented in Project-Based Section 8 and Other Multifamily housing and to be either proportionally represented or underrepresented among Housing Choice Voucher holders, including when controlling for household income. Data for LIHTC does not offer an apples-to-apples comparison because the state does not disaggregate White, Hispanic residents from White, Non-Hispanic residents. Meanwhile, Hispanics tend to be underrepresented in Project-Based Section 8 developments and among Housing Choice Voucher holders and to be participate in the LIHTC program proportion to their share of the income-eligible population. This may result from eligibility rules for Project-Based Section 8 and the Housing 257 692 Choice Voucher program that exclude undocumented immigrants. By contrast, the LIHTC program does not bar undocumented immigrants. Asian American or Pacific Islanders tend to be either proportionally represented or overrepresented across types of publicly supported housing, with the greatest overrepresentation in Project-Based Section 8 developments. Black residents make up a disproportionate share of Housing Choice Voucher holders but participate in other programs in proportion to their share of the income-eligible population. There are a few cities with somewhat more stark contrasts between the income-eligible population and the occupancy of particular types of publicly supported housing. In Anaheim, Black residents make up a disproportionate share of occupants of all types of publicly supported housing,not just of Housing Choice Voucher holders. In Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, and Westminster, the proportion of Project-Based Section 8 residents that is Asian or Pacific Islander is particularly extreme. In Costa Mesa, White residents are highly overrepresented in Project-Based Section 8 housing, which includes a 204-unit predominantly-white senior housing development. In Fullerton, White residents are highly overrepresented in Other Multifamily housing. In La Habra, Hispanic residents are slightly overrepresented among Housing Choice Voucher holders despite being underrepresented in most places. In Laguna Niguel,White residents are strongly overrepresented in both types of publicly supported housing that are present. In the city of Orange, unlike in most cities, Asian or Pacific Islander residents are underrepresented among residents of Project-Based Section 8 housing. b. Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy i. Describe patterns in the geographic location ofpublicly supported housing by program category (public housing, project-based Section 8, Other Multifamily Assisted developments, HCV, and LIHTC) in relation to previously discussed segregated areas and R/ECAPs in the jurisdiction and region. Map 1: Publicly Supported Housing and Race/Ethnicity There are four R/ECAPs in Orange County, and only one LIHTC development located within one of them. Overall, publicly supported housing in the County is far more likely to be concentrated in the northernmost part, nearer to Los Angeles, than in the southern part. Developments are concentrated along the main thoroughfare of Highway 5, and are particularly prevalent in Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine. It should be noted that there is a particularly high concentration of Housing Choice Voucher use in the Garden Grove-Westminster area, which does not seem to have a particularly high concentration of hard units of publicly supported housing. These areas correspond with areas of high Hispanic and Asian American or Pacific Islander segregation and concentration. In the broader region, Public Housing is concentrated in the cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles and particularly in South LA and East LA. There is also some public housing in West Hollywood as well as in the eastern Los Angeles County cities of Baldwin Park and La Puente. With the exception of West Hollywood, these tend to be areas of concentrated Black and/or Hispanic population. In South LA, East LA, and Long Beach, there is a significant overlap between the location of Public Housing developments and R/ECAPs. Other Multifamily developments are 258 693 proportionally concentrated in Los Angeles County as opposed to Orange County but are well integrated throughout Los Angeles County. There is a significant number of Other Multifamily developments in communities with West LA and the San Fernando Valley that tend to have relatively little publicly supported housing overall. The part of the region (outside of Orange County) with the least Other Multifamily housing is actually the predominantly Hispanic far eastern portion of Los Angeles County. Project-Based Section 8 developments are also relatively integrated throughout the region,albeit with a slightly higher concentration in Los Angeles County than in Orange County. LIHTC developments are relatively integrated throughout the region but with some concentration near Downtown LA. Downtown LA is fairly segregated and has a concentration of R/ECAPs but is also subject to the most intense gentrification pressures in the region.Housing Choice Voucher utilization is concentrated in South LA and adjacent communities like Westmont, in Norwalk in southeastern Los Angeles County, in Lancaster and Palmdale in northeastern Los Angeles County, and in Anaheim and Westminster within Orange County. There is some overlap with the location of R/ECAPs although the pattern is not as pronounced as for Public Housing. Areas with concentrations of voucher holders in Los Angeles County are especially likely to be areas of Black population concentration. i. Describe patterns in the geographic location for publicly supported housing that primarily serves families with children, elderly persons, or persons with disabilities in relation to previously discussed segregated areas or RIECAPs in the jurisdiction and region. Families with children Non-Targeted and Large Family developments are the most plentiful in the County, and are most often concentrated in diverse,metropolitan pockets of the County.However,families with children are more likely to occupy LIHTC units or use a Housing Choice Voucher than to reside in Other Multifamily or Project-Based Section 8 units. In the broader region, publicly supported housing for families with children across categories is comparatively likely to be located in RECAP areas than in more integrated areas or predominantly White areas. Elderly In terms of elderly populations, a significant proportion of Project-Based Section 8 units house elderly residents. Additionally, in Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and San Juan Capistrano, all publicly supported housing is either specifically reserved for seniors or records 90-100% elderly residents in their statistics. Each of these communities are near the coast, driving up the cost of real estate. San Juan Capistrano and Costa Mesa are more heavily White and Hispanic, while Fountain Valley is more diverse and have a more significant Asian American or Pacific Islander population. In the broader region, publicly supported housing for elderly residents across categories is comparatively likely to be located in non-RECAP areas. Persons with disabilities In terms of residents with disabilities, there are LIHTC developments specifically reserved for people with special needs in the Urban County (Jackson Aisle Apartments),18 Anaheim (Avenida 'S The Orange County Urban County Program is comprised of the County unincorporated area and thirteen cities. The participating cities include Placentia,Yorba Linda,Brea,Cypress,Dana Point,Laguna Beach,Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods,La Palma,Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Stanton,and Villa Park. 259 694 Villas,Casa Alegre,Diamond Aisle Apartments),Fullerton(Fullerton Heights),Huntington Beach (Pacific Sun Apartments), and Santa Ana (Guest House, Vista Del Rio). Additionally, the percentage of people with disabilities occupying Other Multifamily units in the Urban County, Fullerton,and Irvine is very high compared to the rest of the County.In the broader region,publicly supported housing for persons with disabilities across categories is comparatively likely to be located in non-RECAP areas. ii. How does the demographic composition of occupants ofpublicly supported housing in RECAPS compare to the demographic composition of occupants ofpublicly supported housing outside of RECAPs in the jurisdiction and region? Only jurisdictions which contain R/ECAPs have been included below. Rows with only 0 and/or N/A values have been deleted for space Table 48: Irvine 30 Total % Asian % _ 7 ni 5 ui units " � ;�'; or Families♦ III m ���� ,l� i m � ]ib �-- �i �iili a tiff ( a ,iin, iil�o ICI�i • � �' OCCUp %� % " % ;� Pacific with % s%�With1,�I� rZI Irene ied White LL$lack His _amc ' Islancler� childrenElderl disabih Project W based4 � �, a { 'a (� Ap t'J ii - i) I(4N 17� �) ���("y � hl Pr RECAP tracts 98 60.00% 2.00% 9.00% 29.00% 16.83% 68.32% 6.93% Non RECAP tracts 619 61.15% 2.95% 4.92% 30.82% 14.04% 60.45% 14.04% Other : 11 _ y 1Vldltlfaniili = 1 }' V x 4i"in a � lil ylir fiitil RECAP tracts N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Non RECAP tracts � 22 52.17% 26.09% 0.00% 21.74% 0.00% 50.00% 1 70.83% =g-`➢'�"'"a Lb j ��4 ,{fit ' . i[;N, i "NIN4 Pro ram _ k _ _ y �, Ww RECAP tracts 18 85.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 0.00% 56.52% 43.48% Non RECAP tracts 955 48.79% 18.08% 16.65% 16.20% 34.88% 36.00% 22.48% There are only four R/ECAPs in Orange County, and they are all located in Irvine or Santa Ana. However, there is only one publicly supported housing development located within one of those R/ECAPs - Wakeham Grant Apartments (LIHTC), in Santa Ana. The data presented by HUD is outdated, as it does not identify the same exact R/ECAPs as this analysis, but it is nevertheless presented as it may give insight into former R/ECAPs which exhibit similar characteristics. Using the former Irvine R/ECAPs, the occupancy of Project-Based Section 8 units was remarkably similar both within and outside those tracts, with the exception of residents with a disability, who were more plentiful outside of R/ECAPs. With regard to the Housing Choice Voucher Program, the results were markedly different. Surprisingly, the proportion of all voucher holders that were White within RECAPS was nearly double that outside of R/ECAPs. This is likely an aberration 260 695 resulting from the extremely small number of voucher holders in R/ECAPs in Irvine. The percentages of elderly and disabled residents, which often coincide, were similarly high. Table 49: Santa Ana G '�s4 ,Total a r* 9n . ., h . _:# n t % Asian Families occu /o /o /o or Pacific � t p r �' q �' Santa Ana a�, iedj .' ' Whitey Black,, His amc Islander chiIdrena Elden` disabili.r _� q v�o p Pr oje c t based ^�„ y � ' R/ECAP tracts N/a N/a 0.00% N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Non RECAP tracts 790 5.70% 0.89% 24.68% 62.78% 3.60% 92.31% 14.64% +1 a it 1 `liti. i �� IiUIINSaE 4 I iUi III' RECAP tracts 130 6.02% 3.61% 26.51% 63.86% 22.35% 47.06% 25.88% Non RECAP tracts 2,512 10.40% 1 2.72% 31.62% 55.14% 25.97% 50.88% 21.17% RECAP tracts 126 8.83% 1.42% 84.33% 5.98% N/A N/A N/A Non RECAP tracts 966 52.72% 1.26% 87.24% 2.17% N/A N/A N/A Like the analysis of Irvine above, the HUD tables provided here are outdated and utilize old R/ECAPs, but they are nevertheless useful in comparing tracts with similar characteristics. The LIHTC data is accurate, however, and reflects the only publicly supported housing development within a RECAP—Wakeham Grant Apartments. The outdated data on Housing Choice Vouchers shows a general tendency for the demographic composition of voucher holders to be quite similar inside and outside R/ECAPs, with a slight tendency toward higher Asian American or Pacific Islander representation in R/ECAPs. The LIHTC demographics tell a similar story. It should be noted that LIHTC demographic information has been self-reported to the California state treasurer, and does not always match the way HUD reports demographics, especially when it comes to race versus ethnicity. This might account for the extremely high co-incidence of White and Hispanic residents. Overall, it seems there is not much difference within and outside R/ECAPs for LIHTC units in Santa Ana. i. Do any developments of public housing, properties converted under the RAD, and LIHTC developments have a significantly different demographic composition, in terms of protected class, than other developments of the same category for the jurisdiction? Describe how these developments differ. See Tables in Appendix In Westminster,the Royale Apartments stand out for having a plurality-Hispanic population,while every other LIHTC development has a strong majority of Asian American or Pacific Islander 261 696 residents. In Orange (City), Casa Ramon stands out as the only Project-Based Section 8 development with a supermajority-Hispanic population, while the others are majority-White. In Newport Beach, Lange Drive Family and Newport Veterans Housing stand out for their majority- Hispanic and large Black populations,respectively, compared to the other far larger developments in the city which are supermajority-White. In Irvine, The Parklands stands out among Project- Based Section 8 developments for its large Asian American or Pacific Islander population, compared to all the other developments which are predominantly White. Similarly, four LIHTC developments have large Asian populations (The Arbor at Woodbury, Montecito Vista Apartment Homes, Doria Apartment Homes Phase I, Anesi Apartments) compared to the other predominantly-White developments. In Huntington Beach, the two Project-Based Section 8 developments are polar opposites, with one 60% White while the other is 63%Asian. Meanwhile, most of the LIHTC developments in Huntington Beach are predominantly White, while Hermosa Vista Apartments is predominantly Hispanic. In Garden Grove,Briar Crest+Rosecrest Apartments and Malabar Apartments stand out at LIHTC developments with large Hispanic populations,while the other developments are predominantly Asian American or Pacific Islander. In Fullerton, Ventana Senior Apartments stands out for its large Asian American or Pacific Islander population, while every other LIHTC development is predominantly White or Hispanic. In Buena Park, Park Landing Apartments and Emerald Gardens Apartments stand out for their large White and Hispanic populations, respectively, compared to the other LIHTC developments which are predominantly Asian American or Pacific Islander. The Project-Based Section 8 developments are markedly different as well, with 73%White residents at Newport House and 91%Asian American or Pacific Islander residents at Casa Santa Maria. In Orange County, Continental Gardens Apartments and Tara Village Apartments stand out for their large Asian American or Pacific Islander populations, while the rest of the LIHTC developments are predominantly White or Hispanic. i. Provide additional relevant information, if any, about occupancy, by protected class, in other types of publicly supported housing for the jurisdiction and region. Effective January 2020, the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, a statewide rent gouging law, restricts rent increases to 5%plus the local rate of inflation per year.As of January 2020,the rate of inflation in the region was 3.1%. Additionally, San Juan Capistrano has a Mobile Home Rent Control Ordinance, working to preserve access to a source of unsubsidized affordable housing. However, cutting in the opposite direction, Ellis Act evictions of rent-controlled units have the potential to counteract rent control laws. Data about Ellis Act evictions in the area is not widely available, so it is difficult to estimate the effect they may have. In October 2019, Governor Newsom signed into law SB 329,prohibiting discrimination in housing based on source of income statewide. San Clemente, Irvine, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach all have inclusionary zoning programs. The Anaheim Housing Authority implements the Affordable Housing Program, which consists of multifamily apartment complexes that include affordable units.19 These units maintain rents at levels below regular market rent rates through agreements with the City, but is not a mandatory program. People on the Interest List are notified as affordable units become available. 19 https://www.anaheim.net/770/Affordable-Housing 262 697 The Orange County Housing Authority maintains a similar list of deed-restricted units for the entire county.20 In addition to these housing authorities, several cities maintain similar lists of deed-restricted units and many provide development incentives to develop affordable housing units. i. Compare the demographics of occupants of developments in the jurisdiction,for each category ofpublicly supported housing(public housing,project-based Section 8, Other Multifamily Assisted developments, properties converted under RAD, and LIHTC) to the demographic composition of the areas in which they are located. For the jurisdiction, describe whether developments that are primarily occupied by one race%thnicity are located in areas occupied largely by the same race%thnicity. Describe any differences for housing that primarily serves families with children, elderly persons, or persons with disabilities. See table in Appendix There is quite a bit of inconsistency when comparing the individual demographics of publicly supported housing developments to the census tracts where they are located. In the Urban County, for example, the tracts tend to be predominantly White, but the developments themselves are far more likely to be majority-Hispanic or majority-Asian American or Pacific Islander. In Anaheim, the developments are consistently located in majority-Hispanic tracts, but the developments themselves do not always mirror those demographics. In Buena Park, on the other hand, the developments tend to be mostly Asian American or Pacific Islander, while located in mostly Hispanic tracts. Similarly, Costa Mesa's developments are located in Hispanic tracts, but the developments are predominantly Asian American or Pacific Islander. Fountain Valley and Fullerton both stand out, with their singular Project-Based Section 8 developments being supermajority Asian American or Pacific Islander, but located in majority-White tracts. In Garden Grove, nearly every LIHTC has an inverse relationship between its tract and development population, with majority-Hispanic developments located in Asian American or Pacific Islander tracts, and vice versa. Huntington Beach has two specific standouts in Huntington Villa Yorba, which is majority-Asian American or Pacific Islander in a White tract, and Hermosa Vista Apartments, majority-Hispanic in a White tract. In Irvine, several Project-Based Section 8 developments are predominantly White while located in Asian American or Pacific Islander tracts; for LIHTC developments this trend holds. In La Habra, Casa El Centro Apartments is predominantly Asian American or Pacific Islander,while located in a Hispanic tract.Newport Beach is home to Newport Veterans Housing, which is 15% Black(far greater than the general Black population) in a White tract. In Orange (City), the Project-Based Section 8 development Casa Ramon is predominantly Hispanic, while located in a White tract. Meanwhile, Casa Del Rio is predominantly-White but located in a Hispanic tract.Nearly every tract containing a LIHTC development is predominantly- Hispanic,while several of the developments'populations are mostly White. In San Clemente,there are three LIHTC developments that are predominantly-Hispanic but are located in White tracts. In San Juan Capistrano, all three LIHTC developments (each restricted to seniors), have predominantly-White populations in Hispanic tracts. In Santa Ana, every development is located 21 http://www.ochousing.org/civicax/filebankiblobdload.aspx?B1obID=39906 263 698 in a Hispanic tract, but there are four predominantly-Asian American or Pacific Islander developments and one predominantly-White development. In Tustin, the only Project-Based Section 8 development is predominantly-Asian American or Pacific Islander in a White tract, and every LIHTC development is predominantly-Asian American or Pacific Islander, but located in a White or Hispanic tract. In Westminster, every tract is predominantly-Asian American or Pacific Islander, but the Royales Apartments are predominantly Hispanic. C. Disparities in Access to Opportunity i. Describe any disparities in access to opportunity for residents of publicly supported housing in the jurisdiction and region, including within different program categories (public housing, project-based Section 8, Other Multifamily Assisted Developments, HCV, and LIHTQ and between types (housing primarily serving families with children, elderly persons, and persons with disabilities) of publicly supported housing. Disparities in access to opportunity, when compared to publicly supported housing, cut in conflicting directions. School proficiency, for instance, is very good in the Urban County, along the coast, in the southern part of the County, and on the northeast edge; this cuts out most of the more urban areas, where publicly supported housing is concentrated. Job proximity is far more variable, although with a general tendency to be located along the main thoroughfares —the same as publicly supported housing. The entire County has good low transportation cost index scores, with slightly better scores in the northern part of the County where most of the publicly supported housing is clustered. Environmental health is very poor overall,but better to the south,where there is far less publicly supported housing. Contributing Factors of Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to,perpetuate, or increase the severity offair housing issues related to publicly supported housing, including Segregation, RIECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs. For each contributing factor that is significant, note which fair housing issue(s) the selected contributing factor relates to. Please see the Appendix for the following Contributing Factors to Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy: • Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported housing • Community opposition • Displacement of residents due to economic pressures • Displacement of and/or lack of housing support for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking • Impediments to mobility • Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs • Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency • Lack of local or regional cooperation 264 699 • Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods • Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods, including services and amenities • Land use and zoning laws • Loss of affordable housing • Occupancy.codes and restrictions • Quality of affordable housing information programs • Siting selection policies, practices, and decisions for publicly supported housing, including discretionary aspects of Qualified Allocation Plans and other programs • Source of income discrimination 265 700 D. Disability and Access Population Profile Map 1: Disability by Type, North Orange County t Ebt=75 ata • HEAR ING • VISION . cAGNrcivE • AMULATOR V • SELfGME • i'2 •f 'i iw' .y HCLN 3 3� i 201�0!tfp f. � ,�, � t.die�� '� 7' jai• . �?t f'.O'1'Oi7T EL•CN '�—.•• 266 701 Map 1: Disability by Type, Central Orange County „� casx •• ��t`K XAWZ 1 Dot=75 • HEuewo \'\ • wSfok COGNRIVE • AMBULATORY \ • SELFC ARE NDLN R M11Mtw 267 702 Map 1: Disability by Type, South Orange County t� ' EMI, �' • �.1 Ll� �� r• • ; co / �_• a..wkr sa a l �� s re !�1 Dot=75 � • IEARiNG • Y1510N \,` CAGNRIVE � _ • SELFCARE NDW \ t Z0t'/_00 via 268 703 Table 4: Disability by Type, Orange County,Region �i Hearing Difficulty 81,297 2.59% 333,537 2.53% Vision Difficulty 51,196 1.63% 247,670 1.88% Cognitive Difficulty 99,317 3.16% 480,601 3.65% Ambulatory Difficulty 133,232 4.24% 677,592 5.14% Self-Care Difficulty 61,615 1.96% 327,895 2.49% Independent Living Difficulty 104,705 3.34% 526,534 4.00% Table 5: Aliso Viejo DisabilituyyType # «% I��i Hearing Difficulty 914 1.80% Vision Difficulty 503 0.99% Cognitive Difficulty 1,140 2.25% Ambulatory Difficulty 1,148 2.27% Self-Care Difficulty 669 1.32% Independent Living Difficulty 913 1.80% Table 6: Anaheim DisabilityTypeWOO! � # a % �I Hearing Difficulty 7,308 2.11% Vision Difficulty 4,967 1.43% Cognitive Difficulty 11,360 3.27% Ambulatory Difficulty 15,684 4.52% Self-Care Difficulty 7,324 2.11% Independent Living Difficulty 12,332 3.55% Table 7: Buena Park Disability Type Hearing Difficulty 2,403 2.90% Vision Difficulty 1,387 1.68% Cognitive Difficulty 2,290 2.77% Ambulatory Difficulty 4,242 5.13% Self-Care Difficulty 1,843 2.23% Independent Living Difficulty 2,793 3.38% Table 8: Costa Mesa Disab wit yType '"5 # %o Hearing Difficulty 2,462 2.19% Vision Difficulty 1,967 1.75% 269 704 Cognitive Difficulty 3,899 3.47% Ambulatory Difficulty 4,401 3.91% Self-Care Difficulty 1,737 1.54% Independent Living Difficulty 3,278 2.91% Table 9: Fountain Valle a h Disability Type;a , r#�,, �%. Hearing Difficulty 1,842 3.26% Vision Difficulty 685 1.21% Cognitive Difficulty 2,394 4.24% Ambulatory Difficulty 3,093 5.48% Self-Care Difficulty 1,266 2.24% Independent Living Difficulty 2,261 4.01% Table 10: Fullerton _ Disability Hearing Difficulty 3,344 2.40% Vision Difficulty 2,406 1.73% Cognitive Difficulty 4,478 3.220o Ambulatory Difficulty 6,425 4.62% Self-Care Difficulty 2,683 1.93% Independent Living Difficulty 4,992 3.59% Table 11: Garden Grove Disabibty Type - ff /, " Hearing Difficulty 5,132 2.95% Vision Difficulty 3,044 1.75% Cognitive Difficulty 6,805 3.91% Ambulatory Difficulty 8,226 4.73% Self-Care Difficulty 3,996 2.30% Independent Living Difficulty 7,328 4.21% Table 12: Huntington Beach DisatiihtyType m #i n % � Al Hearing Difficulty 5,818 2.91% Vision Difficulty 3,392 1.70% Cognitive Difficulty 7,239 3.62% Ambulatory Difficulty 9,226 4.61% Self-Care Difficulty 3,952 1.98% Independent Living Difficulty 6,816 3.41% 270 705 Table 13: Irvine Disability Types ° # �1 �� , °10° =- _ _ Hearing Difficulty 4,154 1.62% Vision Difficulty 2,032 0.79% Cognitive Difficulty 5,481 2.14% Ambulatory Difficulty 6,719 2.62% Self-Care Difficulty 3,527 1.37% Independent Living Difficulty 5,713 2.23% Table 14: La Habra Di abilitytType MW R�M Hearing Difficulty 1,803 2.92% Vision Difficulty 1,044 1.69% Cognitive Difficulty 2,272 3.68% Ambulatory Difficulty 3,659 5.93% Self-Care Difficulty 1,530 2.480o Independent Living Difficulty 2,354 3.81% Table 15: La Palma kDis bthty�Tsype' # WF 7m s Hearing Difficulty 421 2.66% Vision Difficulty 262 1.66% Cognitive Difficulty 476 3.01% Ambulatory Difficulty 825 5.22% Self-Care Difficulty 496 3.14% Independent Living Difficulty 547 3.46% Table 16: Laguna Niguel `Type i�IIIIiNh; ilm '' Hearing Difficulty 1,815 2.78% Vision Difficulty 807 1.23% Cognitive Difficulty 1,965 3.00% Ambulatory Difficulty 1,943 2.97% Self-Care Difficulty 938 1.43% Independent Living Difficulty 1,910 2.92% Table 17: Lake Forest Hearing Difficulty 2,141 2.62% Vision Difficulty 715 0.88% Cognitive Difficulty 2,001 2.45% Ambulatory Difficulty 2,705 3.31 271 706 Self-Care Difficulty 1,371 1.680o Independent Living Difficulty 2,451 3.00% Table 18: Mission Viejo Disability Typed r # o jp ., ,_ w . - , Hearing Difficulty 3,325 3.46% Vision Difficulty 1,719 1.79% Cognitive Difficulty 3,474 3.61% Ambulatory Difficulty 5,015 5.22% Self-Care Difficulty 2,574 2.68% Independent Living Difficulty 3,937 4.10% Table 19: Newport Beach 72 17 Hearing Difficulty 2,487 2.87% Vision Difficulty 1,341 1.55% Cognitive Difficulty 2,265 2.62% Ambulatory Difficulty 31243 3.75% Self-Care Difficulty 1,330 1.54% Independent Living Difficulty 2,619 3.03% Table 20: Orange (City) Disabilit y Type; . � A -- Ron 1� Hearing Difficulty 2,921 2.14% Vision Difficulty 1,841 1.35% Cognitive Difficulty 4,106 3.01% Ambulatory Difficulty 5,357 3.93% Self-Care Difficulty 2,762 2.02% Independent Living Difficulty 4,334 3.18% Table 21: Rancho Santa Mar arita Disability Type " f#,, Hearing Difficulty 677 1.38% Vision Difficulty 442 0.90% Cognitive Difficulty 838 1.71% Ambulatory Difficulty 1,108 2.26% Self-Care Difficulty 477 0.97% Independent Living Difficulty 715 1.46% Table 22: San Clemente Hearing Difficulty POO 272 707 Vision Difficulty 783 1.21% Cognitive Difficulty 1,581 2.44% Ambulatory Difficulty 2,060 3.18% Self-Care Difficulty 929 1.43% Independent Living Difficulty 1,675 2.59% Table 23: San Juan Ca istrano Disability Type " ;" 1;# %°3 Hearing Difficulty 1,181 3.29% Vision Difficulty 744 2.07% Cognitive Difficulty 1,134 3.16% Ambulatory Difficulty 2,144 5.97% Self-Care Difficulty 1,251 3.48% Independent Living Difficulty 1,653 4.60% Table 24: Santa Ana Hearing Difficulty 61745 2.04% Vision Difficulty 9,075 2.74% Cognitive Difficulty 9,177 2.77% Ambulatory Difficulty 11,321 3.42% Self-Care Difficulty 5,603 1.69% Independent Living Difficulty 9,146 2.76% Table 25: Tustin Disability Type,?& TO ' Hearing Difficulty 1,749 2.19% Vision Difficulty 11216 1.52% Cognitive Difficulty 2,308 2.89% Ambulatory Difficulty 2,894 3.63% Self-Care Difficulty 1,162 1.46% Independent Living Difficulty 2,353 2.95% Table 26: Westminster P � Disablllt3TYP .,;:: , Nenh 'P Hearing Difficulty 3,399 3.71% Vision Difficulty 1,959 2.14% Cognitive Difficulty 5,517 6.02% Ambulatory Difficulty 6,308 6.89% Self-Care Difficulty 2,964 3.24% Independent Living Difficulty 5,665 6.19% 273 708 How are people with disabilities geographically dispersed or concentrated in the jurisdiction and region, including RIECAPs and other segregated areas identified in previous sections? ACS Disability Information According to the 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 81,297 residents of Orange County have hearing disabilities, which represents 2.59% of the county's population; 51,196 residents (1.63%) have vision disabilities; 99,317 residents (3.16%) have cognitive disabilities; 133,232 residents (4.24%) have ambulatory disabilities; 61,615 residents (1.96%) have self-care disabilities; and 104,705 residents (3.34). have independent living disabilities. Across the cities collaborating on this Analysis, concentrations of persons with particular types of disabilities vary widely. In Aliso Viejo, Irvine, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, Santa Ana, and Tustin, concentrations of persons with various types of disabilities are generally lower than they are countywide. In Anaheim, Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, La Habra, Mission Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, and Westminster, concentrations of persons with various types of disabilities are generally higher than they are countywide. In Costa Mesa,Fullerton, Huntington Beach, La Palma,Newport Beach, and Orange, concentrations of persons with various types of disabilities are generally similar to countywide levels. There are partial exceptions to these overall trends. For example, in Santa Ana, a higher proportion of residents have vision disabilities than is the case countywide despite concentrations of persons with other types of disabilities being lower.Additionally, although some cities have much lower or much higher concentrations of residents with particular types of disabilities, differences in others are more modest. For example, concentrations of persons with various types of disabilities in Westminster are much higher than in Mission Viejo, another city that has higher concentrations of persons with various types of disabilities than Orange County as a whole. Communities with higher concentrations of persons with disabilities are somewhat more likely to be located in the more racially and ethnically diverse northern portion of the county than they are in the southern portion of the county. Six out of the eight cities that have higher concentrations of persons with disabilities across most types of disabilities are located in the northern part of the county.At the same time,the two exceptions to this trend—Mission Viejo and San Juan Capistrano — are notable in that they are both majority-White cities. Additionally, diverse cities in northern Orange County, like Santa Ana and Tustin, have relatively low concentrations of persons with disabilities. This may stem in part from the fact that these communities have relatively youthful populations and disability status is highly correlated with age. There is no overlap between areas of concentration of persons with disabilities and R/ECAPs. 17.1% of people with disabilities have incomes below the poverty line, as opposed to 11.7% of individuals without disabilities. Although a breakdown of poverty status by type of disability is not available through the American Community Survey (ACS), it is clear that the need for affordable housing is greater among people with disabilities than it is among people without disabilities. Another indicator of disability and limited income are the number of people receiving Supplemental Social Security (SSI) which is limited to people with disabilities. According to the 2013-2017 ACS, 44,540 of households receive SSI (4.3% of total households), which is such a 274 709 small subsidy that all of the recipients are extremely low-income. Not all SSI recipients have the types of disabilities that necessitate accessible units. The broader region, which includes Los Angeles County in addition to Orange County,has higher concentrations of persons with all types of disabilities than Orange County with one exception. The percentage of persons with hearing disabilities is marginally higher in Orange County than in the broader region. Describe whether these geographic patterns vary for people with each type of disability or for people with disabilities in different age ranges for the jurisdiction and region. In addition to the broader patterns described above, there are some other patterns of concentration based on both type of disability and disability status by age. Garden Grove has higher concentrations of persons with self-care and independent living disabilities, as well as higher concentrations of elderly persons with disabilities.La Habra has elevated concentrations of persons with ambulatory disabilities while Laguna Niguel has lower concentrations of persons with ambulatory disabilities. All categories of disabilities become more prevalent as individuals age, with the number of people in Orange County 65 and over (131,765) with a disability nearly matches the amount of people under 65 (139,497) with a disability. Housing Accessibility Describe whether the jurisdiction and region have sufficient affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes. Accessibility Requirement for Federally-Funded Housing HUD's implementation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (24 CFR Part 8)requires that federally financed housing developments have five percent (5%) of total units be accessible to individuals with mobility disabilities and an additional two percent (2%) of total units be accessible to individuals with sensory disabilities. It requires that each property, including site and common areas, meet the Federal Uniform Accessibility Standards (UFAS) or HUD's Alternative Accessibility Standard. In Orange County, there are 104 Other Multifamily Housing and 4,090 Project-Based Section 8 units that are subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 81 people with disabilities reside in Multifamily Housing, and 549 reside in Project-Based Section 8 units. At this time, we do not know how many accessible units are in Project Based Section 8 units. The HOME Partnership Program is a grant of federal funds for housing, therefore, these units are subject to Section 504. HUD regularly publishes Performance Snapshots of HOME program participants' activities over time. Of HOME program participants in Orange County, Anaheim has produced 16 Section 504 compliant units, Costa Mesa has produced four Section 504 compliant units, Fullerton has produced three Section 504 compliant units, Garden Grove has not produced any Section 504 compliant units, Huntington Beach has produced seven Section 504 compliant units, Irvine has produced 123 Section 504 compliant units, Orange County has produced 27 Section 504 compliant 275 710 units, Orange has produced three Section 504 compliant units, Santa Ana has produced 16 Section 504 compliant units, and Westminster has produced one Section 504 compliant unit. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Units According to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC)'s LIHTC database,there are 158 LIHTC developments currently in service. In these 158 developments, there are 16,201 affordable units. All of these developments were put into service after 1991, meaning that they have all been built according to 1991 Fair Housing Act accessibility requirements. LIHTC developments are categorized as non-targeted, large family, senior, SRO, special needs, and at risk. Non-targeted: 32; Large family: 70; Senior: 44; SRO: 4; special needs: 6; at risk: 2; 158 total. Within Orange County, LIHTC developments are not evenly distributed as there are far fewer in the southern portion of Orange County with entire cities such as Rancho Santa Margarita, Mission Viejo, and Lake Forest not having any LIHTC developments. Communities in central and northern Orange County have higher concentrations of LIHTC developments, including in Anaheim,Irvine, and Santa Ana. In 2015, CTCAC has issued guidance stating that the accessibility requirements of the California Building Code (CBC) for public housing (Chapter 11B) apply to LIHTC developments. Chapter 11B is the California equivalent of the 2010 ADA Standards. Section 1.9.1.2.1. of the CBC states that the accessibility requirements apply to "any building, structure, facility, complex ...used by the general public." Facilities made available to the public, included privately owned buildings. CTAC has expanded the requirement so that 10% of total units in a LIHTC development must be accessible to people with mobility disabilities and that 4% be accessible to people with sensory (hearing/vison) disabilities. Also, effective 2015, CTCAC required that 50% of total units in a new construction project and 25% of all units in a rehabilitation project located on an accessible path will be mobility accessible units in accordance with CBC Chapter 11 B. CTAC also provides incentives for developers to include additional accessible units through its Qualified Allocation Plan. LIHTC units comprise an important segment of the supply of affordable, accessible units in Orange County. Housing Choice Vouchers 5,045 people with disabilities reside in units assisted with Housing Choice Vouchers in Orange County,but this does not represent a proxy for actual affordable, accessible units. Rather,Housing Choice Vouchers are a mechanism for bringing otherwise unaffordable housing, which may or may not be accessible, within reach of low-income people with disabilities. Unless another source of federal financial assistance is present, units assisted with Housing Choice Vouchers are not subject to Section 504 although participating landlords remain subject to the Fair Housing Act's duty to provide reasonable accommodations and to allow tenants to make reasonable modifications at their own expense. 276 711 Fair Housing Amendments Act Units The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) covers all multifamily buildings of four or more units that were first occupied on or after March 13, 1991 — not just affordable housing developments. The FHAA added protections for people with disabilities and prescribed certain basic accessibility standards, such as one building entrance must be accessible; there must be an accessible route throughout the development, and public rooms and common rooms must be accessible to people with disabilities. Although these accessibility requirements are not as intensive as those of Section 504, they were a first step in opening many apartment developments to people with disabilities regardless of income level. The FHAA was also very helpful for middle- income and upper-income people with disabilities also need accessible housing. It is important to note that FHAA units are not the same as accessible units under Section 504 or ADA Title Il. Therefore, utilizing FHAA units as a proxy for the number of accessible housing units available or required under Section 504 or ADA Title II does not produce an accurate count. Although they are not fully accessible, these units are an important source of housing for people with disabilities who do not need a mobility or hearing/vision unit. In Orange County, 39,047 units in structures with 5 or more units have been built from 2000 to the present. Additionally, 81,362 units in structures with 5 or more units were built from 1980 through 1999. If it is assumed that 45% of such units were constructed from 1991 through 1999,then there would be an additional 36,613 units in multifamily housing that was subject to the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act at the time of its construction. Combined with the total built from 2000 to the present, that totals a potential 75,660 units in structures covered by the Fair Housing Act's design and construction standards. Affordable, Accessible Units in a Range of Sizes Data breaking down affordable,accessible units by number of bedrooms is not available for private housing. For Publicly Supported Housing, a supermajority (74.67%) of Project-Based Section 8 units are 0-1 bedroom units, as are Other Multifamily units (84.54%, the other 15% having 2 bedrooms). A plurality of Housing Choice Vouchers are also limited to 0-1 bedroom units (43.97%). 5,561 households or 26.20%of Housing Choice Voucher occupants are also households with children, the highest of any category of publicly supported housing (followed by Project- Based Section 8, with 9.62%). It appears that affordable, accessible units that can accommodate families with children or individuals with live-in aides are extremely limited in Orange County. Although data reflecting the percentage of families with children that include children with disabilities is not available, about 2.9% of all children in the County have a disability. If children with disabilities are evenly distributed across families with children, about 9,500 families in the County include a child with a disability. Summary Based on available data,the supply of affordable, accessible units in Orange County is insufficient to meet the need. In the County, some 81,297 residents have hearing difficulty, 51,196 residents have vision difficulty, and 133,232 residents have ambulatory difficulty, potentially requiring the use of accessible units. Meanwhile,the data indicates there may be roughly 75,660 units that have 277 712 been produced subject to the Fair Housing Act's design and construction standards and approximately 4,000 units within developments that must include accessible units subject to Section 504. There is,without question, some overlap between these two categories, some of these units are likely non-compliant, and some accessible units are occupied by individuals who do not have disabilities. Describe the areas where affordable, accessible housing units are located in the jurisdiction and region. Do they align with R/ECAPs or other areas that are segregated? Relying on the discussion of Publicly Supported Housing to guide the assessment of which types of housing are most likely to be affordable and accessible, such housing is highly concentrated in the central and northern portions of the county. In particular, units are concentrated in Anaheim, Garden Grove, Irvine, and Santa Ana. Additionally, accessible housing is most likely to be located in places with newer construction and many units, thus conforming to the Fair Housing Act's accessibility standards. Areas with newer construction include the central and southern portions of the county. 278 713 Map 4: Median Year Structure Built by Census Tract, Orange County (� I Legend I 1 Data Classes Riverside Years 1,W-1.962 : 1,963-1,970 y � Corona 1,971-1,979 © 1,9w-1.991 Till 1.992-2,010 P Boundaries Beach No legend Hu to k ari a' aq Murneta z San to t r l To what extent are people with different disabilities able to access and live in the different categories ofpublicly supported housing in the jurisdiction and region? Table 27: Disability by Publicly Supported Housing Program Category, Orange County Orange County People with a Disability Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 31 7.47% Other Multifamily 24 72.73% HCV Program 610 25.33% Region Public Housing 1,407 14.32% Project-Based Section 8 5,013 12.71% Other Multifamily 869 15.62% HCV Program N/a N/a 279 714 Table 28: Anaheim Peo° le with w,,Mabin Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 60 21.82% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 1,100 22.32% Table 29: Buena Park Peo le with a Disabili Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 15 12.71% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 165 21.07% Table 30: Costa Mesa Peo le with4a DNabili own-6s- Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 6 5.36% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 192 29.40% Table 31: Fountain Valle Peo le with aDisabili " ,� '° - _i OF Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 14 20.59% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 157 29.40% Table 32: Fullerton Peo 'le=with a Disaliili ' _ Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 4 3.92% Other Multifamily 40 80.00% HCV Program 203 26.68% 280 715 Table 33: Garden Grove a yPeo le,�wih a Diab�li, � . t ii Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 4 1.76% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 516 18.46% Table 34: Huntington Beach >_ .., Peo le4with a Disabili`i pz Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 50 13.19% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 270 25.64% Table 35: Irvine OiEi4ie with a Disal%i1ity Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 95 13.05% Other Multifamily 17 70.83% HCV Program 286 23.08% Table 36: La Habra Peo `le'with a'Disabili71 °"' } Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 6 4.08% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 34 17.62% Table 37: Laguna Niguel V `.t yI k 'Ntli I) sd 7Fk� la� a (+ Peo 1e wrth axDisabih ;�i,� ti� Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 45 29.61% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 44 40.00% 281 716 Table 38: Lake Forest Peo 'le wi't�h�a Disabili ` ar m:+:�.c Y � .a•:�O Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 N/a N/a Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 95 32.20% Table 39: Mission Viejo z ^M P1 r - Peo le,,wit h,a Disabili ,pIP i6il� . :k'y� . :c8 tt, a Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 N/a N/a Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 92 37.86% Table 40: Newport Beach 'Peo le,wrth a Disabili B PI 000 m �,; k uw p �� , ._ _ _ _ Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 3 3.03% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 42 27.81% Table 41: Orange (City) Peo le with a Disabili Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 71 36.98% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 167 24.52% Table 42: Rancho Santa Margarita with a Disabili Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 N/a N/a Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 56 37.84% 282 717 Table 43: San Clemente a,�s - I a-.�iii ii i r {i IYa i i i � ,��i hi llV ii i i I ��r l hP ge I)i � I� �I; ���iti1��l,�,�. Peo le with al Disabili a � Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 11 15.07% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 52 39.10% Table 44: Santa Ana ` , Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 118 14.64% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 397 21.39% Table 45: Tustin Pi�i�il�r r T a 4r Y�iii 4 wiq JiVf�eo_ le wlth�ar a���l.Sablh r ' , M YiII s x A N Y11 ii 4i'(- `0 III a II Tt ..( .� �197a r� laiil4 �O NI i. Y ii r. s Public HousingN/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 11 10.68% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 108 19.82% Table 46: Westminster ,: � ' ��v,PeoT"`le witha Disabili �� Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 5 5.10% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 459 19.60% In Orange County, according to the 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 11.1% of the civilian noninstitutionalized population has a disability. As the tables above reflect, the proportion of people with disabilities with Housing Choice Vouchers exceeds the overall population concentration of people with disabilities. For other programs, the data is more idiosyncratic with disproportionately low concentrations of persons with disabilities in Project- Based Section 8 and Other Multifamily housing in some cities and disproportionately high concentrations in others. This inconsistency likely results from the differing natures of individual developments that fall under those umbrellas, with some supportive housing — including Section 202 and Section 811 housing — encompassed in Other Multifamily housing and many age- restricted Project-Based Section 8 developments.21 The table below shows that the extremely low- 2' Elderly individuals are significantly more likely to have disabilities than non-elderly individuals. 283 718 income population, which is eligible for publicly supported housing across a range of programs, contains a much higher proportion of persons with disabilities than does the population as a whole. Table 47: Percentage of the population that is income eligible (0-30% AMI) and has a disabilit , Oran a Count Type of Percentage Nii' ber of Disability of Cost People in �.� _.FP M MEN Eligible Cost- Er" 5 s _ Population 11Eligible- k _ �� �r�Population pq nwith ax abih Hearing or 9.97% 20,220 Vision Ambulatory 13.80% 27,990 Cognitive 8.97% 18,195 Self-Care or 12.02% 24,375 Independent Living No 55.23% 111,985 Disability Total 202,765 Integration of People with Disabilities Living in Institutions and Other Segregated Settings To what extent do people with disabilities in or from the jurisdiction or region reside in segregated or integrated settings? Up until a wave of policy reforms and court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s, states, including California, primarily housed people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and individuals with psychiatric disabilities in large state-run institutions. In California,institutions for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are called developmental centers, and institutions for people with psychiatric disabilities are called state hospitals. Within these institutions, people with disabilities have had few opportunities for meaningful interaction with individuals without disabilities, limited access to education and employment, and a lack of individual autonomy. The transition away from housing people with disabilities in institutional settings and toward providing housing and services in home and community-based settings accelerated with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1991 and the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Olmstead v. L.C. in 1999. In Olmstead, the Supreme Court held that, under the regulations of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) implementing Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA),if a state or local government provides supportive services to people with disabilities, it must do so in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of a person with a disability and consistent with their informed choice. This obligation is not absolute and is subject to the ADA defense that providing services in a more integrated setting would constitute a fundamental alteration of the state or local government's programs. 284 719 The transition from widespread institutionalization to community integration has not always been linear, and concepts of what comprises a home and community-based setting have evolved over time.Although it is clear that developmental centers and state hospitals are segregated settings and that an individual's own house or apartment in a development where the vast majority of residents are individuals without disabilities is an integrated setting, significant ambiguities remain.Nursing homes and intermediate care facilities are segregated though not to the same degree as state institutions. Group homes fall somewhere between truly integrated supported housing and such segregated settings, and the degree of integration present in group homes often corresponds to their size. Below, this assessment includes detailed information about the degree to which people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and individuals with psychiatric disabilities reside in integrated or segregated settings. The selection of these two areas of focus does not mean that people with other types of disabilities are never subject to segregation. Although the State of California did not operate analogous institutions on the same scale for people with ambulatory or sensory disabilities, for example, many people with disabilities of varying types face segregation in nursing homes. Data concerning people with various disabilities residing in nursing homes is not as available as data relating specifically to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and people with psychiatric disabilities. Table 48: Performance of Re ional Center of Oran a Count , December 2018 D��iaitin � 1 i1° t � iN �,•, !i ', p, of ec2018 Performance �f I ;Ii Fewer Vlore a = l�lore °CIE,' ,; wer l ewer F'e mEglilpiP G '�h1111pl�hJ�i, iJ; �i�INH !r Iiiily �- VIM' Reports 4iI� �' � "consumers hve children adults! children =adults in - ire wither " -7 l" 1 hve m dive jn �ive mom- 3 develo Amental2 anvil es- homed��molar e - Q lar e ccenters = : , settin s fik =facilities �rfacilities t g ai " s y1 {more= {More Ithan6All������{7,(ut'� an 6 12 � � � • u a s�si r a, eo le) State Average 0.12% 99.38% 80.20% 0.04% 2.31% Regional Center of Orange 0.26% 99.32% 77.45% 0.03% 2.93% County In California,a system of regional centers is responsible for coordinating the delivery of supportive services primarily to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The regional centers serve individuals with intellectual disabilities, individuals with autism spectrum disorder, individuals with epilepsy, and cerebral palsy. These disabilities may be co-occurring. Individuals with intellectual disabilities and individuals with mild/moderate intellectual disability and individuals with autism spectrum disorder make up the lion's share of consumers. All data regarding the regional centers is drawn from their annual performance reports. On an annual basis, regional centers report to the California Department of Developmental Services on their performance in relation to benchmarks for achieving community integration of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. As reflected in the table above, the Regional Center of Orange County closely tracks the statewide average data though individuals with developmental disabilities in Orange County are slightly more segregated than statewide. 285 720 The Fairview Developmental Center was the primary institution serving the region but is now in the process of closing. Psychiatric Disabilities In Orange County, Behavioral Health Services (part of the County Health Agency) is responsible for coordinating the provision of supportive services for people with psychiatric disabilities. The Department provides Full Service Partnership programs to allow for the provision of supportive services that facilitate community integration for Children, Transitional Age Youth, Adults, and Older Adults. Data regarding participation in the Full Service Partnership by individuals is not available. As a result of Proposition 63, a successful 2004 statewide ballot initiative, funding is available for permanent supportive housing for people with psychiatric disabilities through the Mental Health Services Act(MHSA). The Department operates its No Place Like Home, Special Needs Housing, and Mortgage Assistance Programs to increase access to community-based housing for persons with psychiatric disabilities. Describe the range of options for people with disabilities to access affordable housing and supportive services in the jurisdiction and region. There are four housing authorities operating within Orange County: Orange County Housing Authority, Anaheim Housing Authority, Garden Grove Housing Authority, and the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Ana. One of the easiest ways for people with disabilities to access affordable housing is for the local housing authorities to implement disability preferences in their HCV programs. The housing authorities for Anaheim and Garden Grove administer preferences that provide a significant advantage in admissions to persons with disabilities. The housing authority for the county has a preference that is weighted relatively lightly in comparison to other factors while Santa Ana's housing authority does not have a preference. Preferences for homeless individuals and for veterans may significantly overlap with persons with disabilities and thereby reduce concerns about the weakness of existing disability preferences. Supportive services are primarily provided through programs administered by the Regional Center of Orange County and the Orange County Behavioral Health Department. Additionally, particularly for individuals with types of disabilities other than intellectual and developmental disabilities and psychiatric disabilities, services may be available through a range of health care providers, paid by Medi-Cal, Medicare, or private insurance, or through nursing homes. Payment for supportive services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities is typically structured as Home and Community-Based Services Medicaid Waivers. These Waivers pay for a wide variety of services necessary to empower individuals to maintain stable residence in home and community-based services. There are, however, only as many Waivers available as there is funding from the federal government and the State of California. 286 721 Disparities in Access to Opportunity To what extent are people with disabilities able to access the following in the jurisdiction and region?Identify major barriers faced concerning: i. Government services and facilities This Analysis did not reveal any specific barriers that persons with disabilities face in accessing government services and facilities. ii. Public infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, pedestrian crossings,pedestrian signals) This Analysis did not reveal any specific barriers persons with disabilities face in accessing public infrastructure. iii. Transportation The relative lack of public transportation, particularly in the southern and coastal portions of the county, disproportionately burdens persons with disabilities who are more likely to rely on public transportation than are individuals who do not have disabilities. iv. Proficient schools and educational programs This Analysis did not reveal current systemic policies and practices that contribute to educational disparities for students with disabilities in Orange County; however, data shows that, although suspension rates are lower in Orange County than statewide, students with disabilities still face suspension at twice the rate of other students. v. Jobs Data in the table below from the Regional Center of Orange County shows that persons with developmental disabilities obtain earned income at higher rates than individuals with developmental disabilities statewide but that rate is still very low in comparison to the proportion of all adults with earned income. Table 49: Employment Metrics for Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities by Regional Center Regional Center Percentage,of ! Pegrcentage of Adults;wy;pith6 ryryli�l� i� �i�5 JN µ;�S�!III� AW i t � 1h 1 ,Consumers,w th (I GG''Inte rated Ein toys env as a� oam� ! (i iY g . p .7"`,y qN,E Earned Inceime .'I1n their Individual P.rog��am Plan. 110 State Average 17% 27% Regional Center of 21% 30% Orange County 287 722 Describe the processes that exist in the jurisdiction and region for people with disabilities to request and obtain reasonable accommodations and accessibility modifications to address the barriers discussed above. i. Government services and facilities Government websites generally have accessibility information on them regarding the accessibility of the websites themselves, but there is not clear, public information regarding how individuals can request accommodations. ii. Public infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, pedestrian signals) There is no clear, public information regarding how individuals with disabilities can request accommodations relating to public infrastructure. iii. Transportation By contrast,the Orange County Transportation Authority and Metrolink have clear,easily findable information about their accommodation and modification policies. iv. Proficient schools and educational programs School districts are more disparate in how they display information relating to their accommodation policies, with some making that information easy to find but others not. v. Jobs This Analysis did not reveal information suggesting patterns in how major employers do or do not provide required accommodations in Orange County. Describe any difficulties in achieving homeownership experienced by people with disabilities and by people with different types of disabilities in the jurisdiction and region. Persons with disabilities in Orange County are less able to access homeownership than individuals who do not have disabilities, primarily because of the high cost of homeownership and relative differences in income between persons with disabilities and individuals who do not have disabilities. This pattern is slightly undercut by the prevalence of elderly homeowners with disabilities that began in old age. Many of these individuals earned relatively high incomes prior to the onset of their disabilities. Disproportionate Housing Needs Describe any disproportionate housing needs experienced by people with disabilities and by people with certain types of disabilities in the jurisdiction and region. 288 723 Table 50: Residents experiencing I or more housing problems by Disability Type, Orange ounty Disability Type Hasor more housing To at 1 = Kr�en „� �_ problems I - ' � yMA r� 1a�li,. Hearing or Vision 43,325 93,875 46.15% Ambulatory 52,675 106,370 49.52% Cognitive 39,405 72,515 54.34% Self-Care or 46,695 90370 51.67% Independent Living CHAS data does not disaggregate data relating to persons with disabilities experiencing overcrowding, incomplete plumbing and kitchen facilities, and cost burden. However, it does disaggregate persons experiencing one or more of those housing problems by type of disability (although it groups together hearing and vision, and self-care and independent living disabilities). The data above indicate that people with disabilities experience very high rates of housing problems, clustering around 50%, and there are no serious differences across the different disability types. Although it is not possible to disaggregate the individual housing problems by disability, given the age distribution of people with disabilities, it would seem to be unlikely that people with disabilities are disproportionately subject to overcrowding. Just 2.1% of households with elderly heads of household are overcrowded while 5.3% of households with nonelderly heads of household are overcrowded. By contrast, in light of the relatively low earnings of people with disabilities, it is likely that people with disabilities are disproportionately subject to cost burden and severe cost burden. Additional Information Beyond the HUD provided data,provide additional relevant information, if any, about disability and access issues in the jurisdiction and region including those affecting people with disabilities with other protected characteristics. This Assessment has made extensive use of local data throughout the Disability and Access section. The sources of data other than HUD-provided data are noted where appropriate. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of disability and access issues. The discussion above provides a comprehensive overview of information relevant to this Analysis. Disability and Access Issues Contributing Factors Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to,perpetuate, or increase the severity of disability and 289 724 access issues and the fair housing issues, which are Segregation, R/ECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs. For each contributing factor, note which - fair housing issue(s) the selected contributing factor relates to. • Access for persons with disabilities to proficient schools • Access to publicly supported housing for persons with disabilities • Access to transportation for persons with disabilities • Inaccessible government facilities or services • Inaccessible public or private infrastructure • Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs • Lack of affordable in-home or community-based supportive services • Lack of affordable, accessible housing in range of unit sizes • Lack of affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive services • Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications • Lack of assistance for transitioning from institutional settings to integrated housing • Lack of local or regional cooperation • Land use and zoning laws • Lending discrimination • Location of accessible housing • Loss of affordable housing • Occupancy codes and restrictions • Regulatory barriers to providing housing and supportive services for persons with disabilities • Source of income discrimination • State or local laws,policies, or practices that discourage individuals with disabilities from living in apartments, family homes, supportive housing and other integrated settings 290 725 E. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity and Resources List and summarize any of the following that have not been resolved: • A charge or letter of finding from HUD concerning a violation of a civil rights-related law; • A cause determination from a substantially equivalent state or local fair housing agency concerning a violation of a state or local fair housing law; • Any voluntary compliance agreements, conciliation agreements, or settlement agreements entered into with HUD or the Department of Justice; • A letter of findings issued by or lawsuit filed or joined by the Department of Justice alleging a pattern or practice or systemic violation of a fair housing or civil rights law; • A claim under the False Claims Act related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, or civil rights generally, including an alleged failure to affirmatively further fair housing; • Pending administrative complaints or lawsuits against the locality alleging fair housing violations or discrimination. o Watts v. City of Newport Beach, 790 Fed.Appx. 853 (9th Cir. 2019): The City of Newport Beach was recently sued by a young woman who alleged excessive force, unlawful entry, and unlawful arrest. Upon the decline of her card for a taxi fare, the driver called the police, who threatened to take Watts to jail if she could not produce additional funds to pay. She asked to go to her apartment to get another form of payment, and officers escorted her. When she objected to their entry into her apartment to retrieve the funds,they handcuffed her to the point of injury to her wrists, kicked her legs out from under her,pushed her head into a wall, and took her to jail overnight. The 9th Circuit ruled affirmed that officers were not covered by qualified immunity for unlawful arrest and unlawful entry, but that they were covered for the excessive force claim. o A. K. H by and through Landeros v. City of Tustin, 837 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2016): In 2014, the city of Tustin was sued by the family of a minor who was shot and killed by a Tustin police officer. The city moved for summary judgement based on qualified immunity. The district court denied that motion. On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed the lower court decision, holding that the shooting violated the 4th Amendment, and that the officer was not covered by qualified immunity. Describe any state or local fair housing laws. What characteristics are protected under each law? California Laws The State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) enforces California laws that provide protection and monetary relief to victims of unlawful housing practices. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Government Code Section 12955 et seq.) prohibits discrimination and harassment in housing practices, including: • Advertising • Application and selection process • Unlawful evictions • Terms and conditions of tenancy 291 726 • Privileges of occupancy • Mortgage loans and insurance • Public and private land use practices (zoning) • Unlawful restrictive covenants The following categories are protected by FEHA: • Race or color • Ancestry or national origin • Sex, including Gender, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression • Marital status • Source of income • Sexual orientation • Familial status (households with children under 18 years of age) • Religion • Mental/physical disability • Medical condition • Age • Genetic information In addition, FEHA contains similar reasonable accommodations, reasonable modifications, and accessibility provisions as the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act. FEHA explicitly provides that violations can be proven through evidence of the unjustified disparate impact of challenged actions and inactions and establishes the burden-shifting framework that courts and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing must use in evaluating disparate impact claims. The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and accommodations, because of age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. While the Unruh Civil Rights Act specifically lists "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, and medical condition" as protected classes, the California Supreme Court has held that protections under the Unruh Act are not necessarily restricted to these characteristics. In practice,this has meant that the law protects against arbitrary discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of personal appearance. Furthermore, the Ralph Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 51.7) forbids acts of violence or threats of violence because of a person's race, color,religion, ancestry,national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or position in a labor dispute. Hate violence can include: verbal or written threats; physical assault or attempted assault; and graffiti, vandalism, or property damage. The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) provides another layer of protection for fair housing choice by protecting all people in California from interference by force or threat of force with an individual's constitutional or statutory rights, including a right to equal access to housing. The Bane Act also includes criminal penalties for hate crimes; however, convictions under the Act may not be imposed for speech alone unless that speech itself threatened violence. 292 727 Finally, California Civil Code Section 1940.3 prohibits landlords from questioning potential residents about their immigration or citizenship status. In addition, this law forbids local jurisdictions from passing laws that direct landlords to make inquiries about a person's citizenship or immigration status. In addition to these acts, Government Code Sections 11135, 65008, and 65580-65589.8 prohibit discrimination in programs funded by the State and in any land use decisions. Specifically, recent changes to Sections 65580-65589.8 require local jurisdictions to address the provision of housing options for special needs groups, including: • Housing for persons with disabilities (SB 520) • Housing for homeless persons, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing (SB 2) • Housing for extremely low-income households, including single-room occupancy units (AB 2634) • Housing for persons with developmental disabilities (SB 812) Jurisdiction-Specific Laws Aliso Viejo In 2013, the city of Aliso Viejo adopted housing and reasonable accommodation regulations and procedures. Buena Park As part of the zoning code, the city of Buena Park describes specific procedures for reasonable accommodations in land use, zoning regulations, rules,policies, practices and procedures through the completion of a Fair Housing Accommodation Request form. Costa Mesa As part of the zoning code, the city of Costa Mesa allows for reasonable accommodations in land use and zoning regulations. Fountain Valley The City of Fountain Valley provides reasonable accommodation in the application of its zoning and building laws, policies and procedures for persons with disabilities. Huntington Beach In 2013, the city of Huntington Beach adopted reasonable accommodations procedures. Irvine The Irvine Municipal Code prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age,marital status or physical handicap of any individual in the realms of employment, real estate transactions, and educational institutions. Regarding housing, it is prohibits discrimination in financial transactions, advertising, or give differential treatment and terms. 293 728 La Palma La Palma specifically provides for reasonable accommodations for person with disabilities in"land use, zoning and building regulations,policies, practices and procedures of the City."22 Laguna Niguel Laguna Niguel provides for reasonable accommodations in the application of zoning laws for persons with disabilities. Newport Beach Newport Beach requires provision of reasonable accommodation during the permit review process for new development. Orange The city of Orange provides for reasonable accommodations in the application of land use and zoning laws for those with disabilities. Rancho Santa Margarita Rancho Santa Margarita allows for reasonable accommodations in the application of land use and zoning laws for those with disabilities. Santa Ana The Santa Ana municipal code allows for modification of land use or zoning regulations if necessary to provide a reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities. Tustin Tustin allows for reasonable accommodations in the land use and zoning process for developers of housing for persons with disabilities. Westminster Westminster allows for reasonable accommodations in land use and zoning when necessary to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. Additional Information Provide additional relevant information, if any, about fair housing enforcement, outreach capacity, and resources in the jurisdiction and region. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) DFEH accepts, investigates, conciliates, mediates, and prosecutes complaints under FEHA, the Disabled Persons Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the Ralph Civil Rights Act. DFEH investigates complaints of employment and housing discrimination based on race, sex, including gender, gender identity, and gender expression, religious creed, color, national origin, familiar status, medical condition (cured cancer only), ancestry, physical or mental disability, marital 22https://Iibrary.municode.com/ca/la palma/codes/code of ordinances?nodeId=COOR CH44ZO ARTVPEPLCE DIV 15REACRE 294 729 status, or age (over 40 only), and sexual orientation,DFEH established a program in May 2003 for mediating housing discrimination complaints, which is among the largest fair housing mediation program in the nation to be developed under HUD's Partnership Initiative with state fair housing enforcement agencies. The program provides California's tenants, landlords, and property owners and managers with a means of resolving housing discrimination cases in a fair, confidential, and cost-effective manner. Key features of the program are: 1) it is free of charge to the parties; and 2) mediation takes place within the first 30 days of the filing of the complaint, often avoiding the financial and emotional costs associated with a full DFEH investigation and potential litigation. Fair Housing Council of Orange County Founded in 1965,the Fair Housing Council of Orange County is a non-profit operating throughout the county with a mission of ensuring access to housing and preserving human rights. The council provides a variety of services including community outreach and education,homebuyer education, mortgage default counseling, landlord-tenant mediation, and limited low-cost advocacy. Their services are provided in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. In addition to these client services, the Fair Housing Council investigates claims of housing discrimination and assists with referrals to DFEH. The Council may also occasionally assist with or be part of litigation challenging housing practices. Fair Housing Foundation The Fair Housing Foundation serves parts of Los Angeles County and several cities in Orange County. Of the jurisdictions included in this analysis, the following are covered by the Fair Housing Foundation's service area: Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach,Irvine,La Habra,Mission Viejo,Newport Beach, Orange(city), San Clemente, Tustin, and Westminster. The Foundation provides landlord-tenant counseling and mediation, rental housing counseling, and community outreach and education. In addition, the Foundation screens fair housing complaints, investigates through testing, and will engage in conciliation or mediation efforts or refer the complaints to the appropriate administrative agencies where appropriate. Community Legal Aid SoCal Community Legal Aid SoCal is a holistic legal services provider serving low-income people Orange County and Southeast Los Angeles County. Overall, community legal aid provides direct representation, as well as engaging in policy advocacy and impact litigation. The advocates in the housing program provide legal assistance across a broad range of fair housing issues, including "eviction, federally or otherwise publicly subsidized housing, substandard housing, landlord/tenant issues, homeownership issues, homeowners association issues mobile homes, housing discrimination,an predatory lending practices."23 The main office is located in Santa Ana, with additional offices in Norwalk, Anaheim, and Compton. Across four offices, the organization has 100 staff members and 30 attorneys. Like other Legal Aid offices, Community Legal Aid SoCal is funded by the Legal Services Corporation, which carries restrictions against representing undocumented clients. 23 https://www.communitylegalsocal.org/programs-services/area-of-law/housing/ 295 730 Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Contributing Factors Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the lack of fair housing enforcement, outreach capacity, and resources and the severity of fair housing issues, which are Segregation, R/ECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs. For each significant contributing factor, note which fair housing issue(s) the selected contributing factor impacts. • Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement • Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations • Lack of state or local fair housing laws 296 731 VI. FAIR HOUSING GOALS AND PRIORITIES If implemented, the goals and strategies below will serve as an effective basis for affirmatively furthering fair housing by reducing patterns of segregation, mitigating displacement, addressing disproportionate housing needs, and increasing access to opportunity for members of protected classes. The first six overarching goals below, multiple of which have several strategies listed for implementation, are cross jurisdictional goals. Orange County and the participating jurisdictions all have a role to play in implementing those goals. Following those goals, this section includes individual goals for Orange County,the participating jurisdictions, and the housing authorities that may not be applicable to other jurisdictions because they respond to local circumstances. Cross-Jurisdictional Goals Goal l:Increase the supply of affordable housing in high opportunity areas. Orange County's high and rapidly rising housing costs, along with the unequal distribution of affordable housing across its communities, may be some of the leading drivers of fair housing issues for members of protected classes in the area. Data indicates that Hispanic residents, Vietnamese residents, and persons with disabilities experience these problems most acutely. Many households are rent burdened, and some households pay more than 50% of their incomes towards rent. In many high opportunity areas, current payment standards are far too low for families with housing choice vouchers to move to these areas. Additionally, there has been vocal community opposition to affordable housing throughout the county. These data reflect a need to expand the both the supply and geographical diversity of affordable housing. a. Explore the creation of a new countywide sources of affordable housing. The State of California has approved several measures to issue bonds for affordable housing. Orange County should consider the issuance of affordable housing bonds to meet the widening gap for affordable rental housing through a ballot initiative or other county-wide or local means. b. Using best practices from other jurisdictions, explore policies and programs that increase the supply affordable housing, such as linkage fees, housing bonds, inclusionary housing, public land set-aside, community land trusts, transit-oriented development, and expedited permitting and review. The above policies and practices have resulted in an increase in affordable housing in jurisdictions throughout the country and in California in particular. In Orange County, there has been an increase in the supply of affordable housing in cities that have adopted these best practices. c. Explore providing low-interest loans to single-family homeowners and grants to homeowners with household incomes of up to 80% of the Area Median Income to develop accessory dwelling units with affordability restriction on their property. In 2019, the California Legislature passed AB 68 and AB 881 which permit the placement of two accessory dwelling units (ADUs), including one "junior ADU," on a lot with an existing or 297 732 proposed single-family home statewide.Due to high construction costs and high demand,the small size of ADUs may not be sufficient to ensure that they will be affordable by design. Local governments may choose to provide financial assistance in order to incentivize homeowners to make their ADUs affordable to lower income tenants at or below 80% of the area median income. Because it can be difficult for homeowners to access bank financing to build ADUs, there may be a need for such incentives among homeowners.As a condition of receiving assistance,jurisdictions should also require homeowners to attend fair housing training and to maintain records that facilitate audits of their compliance with non-discrimination laws. The need to educate individual homeowners, who do not have experience as landlords and knowledge of the law, may prevent unintentional and intentional violations of fair housing laws. d. Review existing zoning policies and explore zoning changes to facilitate the development of affordable housing. In several jurisdictions in Orange County,the prevalence of single-family residential zoning makes it challenging to develop housing that could offer housing opportunities to members of protected classes. Many cities across the country are increasing higher density zoning near transit. Increased higher density zoning near transit in high opportunity areas, coupled with an affordable housing set-aside, would provide additional mixed-income rental housing. e. Align zoning codes to conform to recent California affordable housing legislation. California passed several affordable housing bills that became effective on January 1, 2020. Examples include as AB 1763, which expands existing density bonus law for 100% affordable housing projects to include unlimited density around transit hubs with an additional three stories or 33 feet of height, and AB 68, which allows two ADUs on a single lot, as well as multiple ADUs on multifamily lots with limited design requirement that cities can impose and an approval process of 60 days. This and other legislation necessitate changes to each jurisdiction's zoning code. Goal 2: Prevent displacement of low- and moderate-income residents with protected characteristics, including Hispanic residents, Vietnamese residents, seniors, and people with disabilities. a. Explore piloting a Right to Counsel Program to ensure legal representation for tenants in landlord-tenant proceedings, including those involving the application of new laws like A.B. 1482. Thousands of residents in the county are displaced annually due to evictions. According to legal services and fair housing organizations, many evictions occur because tenants do not understand their rights and/or their obligations. It is estimated that only a small percentage of tenants facing eviction have legal representation, and those without representation almost always are evicted, regardless of a viable defense. Recently, other high cost cities such as New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and soon Los Angeles have guaranteed a right to counsel at eviction hearings. There are several legal providers in the county such as Community Legal Aid SoCal and Public Law Center that are well-positioned to serve low-income tenants with financial support. Although there would be an up-front investment, legal representation is less costly than serving homeless families. 298 733 Goal 3:Increase community integration for persons with disabilities a. Conduct targeted outreach and provide tenant application assistance and support to persons with disabilities, including individuals transitioning from institutional settings and individuals who are at risk of institutionalization. As part of that assistance, maintain a database of housing that is accessible to persons with disabilities. Lack of access to housing is a significant impediment to full community integration for persons with disabilities in the county. Stakeholders expressed frustration with the lack of information on accessible affordable housing units and are required to call individual landlords to obtain this information. b. Consider adopting the accessibility standards adopted by the City of Los Angeles, which require 15 percent of all new units in city-supported LIHTC projects to be ADA-accessible with at 4 percent of total units to be accessible for persons with hearing and/or vision disabilities. In order to align with the Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA) between the City of Los Angeles and HUD,24 Orange County should consider adopting the same standards. The City of Los Angeles' adopted accessibility standards resulting from this VCA will address deficiencies related to the physical accessibility of designated accessible units and public/common areas in connection with the certain housing developments and program policies and procedures. Goal 4: Ensure equal access to housing for persons with protected characteristics, who are disproportionately likely to be lower-income and to experience homelessness. a. Reduce barriers to accessing rental housing by exploring eliminating application fees for voucher holders and encouraging landlords to follow HUD's guidance on the use of criminal backgrounds in screening tenants. Stakeholders reported that high application fees for rental housing are a significant barrier for voucher holders. Additionally, some landlords continue to refuse rental housing to prospective tenants based on decades-old criminal background checks or minor misdemeanors. b. Consider incorporating a fair housing equity analysis into the review of significant rezoning proposals and specific plans. At times, large scale development and redevelopment efforts have not sufficiently addressed the needs of large families with children, persons with disabilities, and Hispanic and Vietnamese residents, in particular. By incorporating a fair housing analysis in the review process for redevelopment plans at an early stage, planning staff from participating jurisdictions could catch issues such as the distribution of unit sizes in proposed developments while it is still feasible to amend plans. z4 https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Main/documents/f UD-City-of-Los-Angeles-VCA.pdf 299 734 Goal 5:Expand access to opportunity for protected classes. a. Explore the voluntary adoption of Small Area Fair Market Rents or exception payment standards in order to increase access to higher opportunity areas for Housing Choice Voucher holders. A significant barrier in the county is the lack of affordable housing and the sufficiency of payment standards to provide geographic options to voucher holders. Orange County Housing Authority has three payment standards; basic, central, and restricted. HUD's Small Area FMRs for Orange County permit certain zip codes to have higher payment standards than those currently used. b. Continue implementing a mobility counseling program that informs Housing Choice Voucher holders about their residential options in higher opportunity areas and provides holistic supports to voucher holders seeking to move to higher opportunity areas. The housing authorities located in Orange County currently lack funding to implement full-scale housing mobility programs.A formal counseling program, as found in Chicago,Dallas,Baltimore, and elsewhere, can make a significant difference in the settlement patterns of HCV households. These programs generally identify opportunity areas, while assisting voucher holders to find new residences within them. Workshops and information sessions allow for participants to ask questions, find higher-performing schools and locate areas of lower crime. Individual counselors may provide assistance to families to find units in opportunity areas, while also following up post- move to ensure the family is adjusting well to their new neighborhood. c. Study and make recommendations to improve and expand Orange County's public transportation to ensure that members of protected classes can access jobs in employment centers in Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine. There are few viable and reliable public transportation options in Orange County. It is important that there is a match between where low- and moderate-income members of protected classes,who are more likely to use public transportation, are able to commute to county job centers. Part of this study should include ensuring that people with disabilities are able to access transportation to jobs and services. d. Increase support for fair housing enforcement, education, and outreach. Nonprofit fair housing organizations and legal services providers play a critical role in fair housing enforcement, education, and outreach but struggle to meet the full needs of victims of discrimination due to limited financial and staff capacity. By supporting these organizations, jurisdictions can help ensure that these organizations can address existing and critical emerging issues, like those that have stemmed from the passage of S.B. 329,which extends source of income protections to Housing Choice Voucher holders, and A.B. 1482, which caps annual rent increases in at five percent plus the regionally-adjusted Consumer Price Index and requires landlords to have "just cause" in order to evict tenants. It would also make proactive audit testing of housing providers rather than reactive complaint-based testing more feasible. 300 735 Jurisdictional-Specific Goals City of Aliso Viejo 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. City of Anaheim Goal 1 Contributing Metrics, Milestones, Responsible Increase the supply of Factors and Timeframe for Program affordable housing through Achievement Participant(s) the following strategies: 1. Explore creative land use Lack of access to Introduce land use City staff, and zoning policies that opportunity due to policies that facilitate Housing facilitate the development of high housing costs; affordable housing; 1-5 Commission, affordable housing, examples Location and type of years; analyze the city's Planning include a housing overlay affordable housing; current ADU and Commission, zone or religious institutions Availability of Density Bonus City Council amendment. affordable, accessible ordinances to ensure 2. Review Anaheim's current units in a range of compliance; 1-2 years; Density Bonus and Accessory unit sizes; Land use Recommend the Dwelling Unit (ADU) and zoning laws supporting of legislation Ordinances to ensure that removes CEQA compliance with state requirements; 2 years; Study the feasibility of requirements. allocating city owned land for housing development; 2-3 years. Continue to support and 301 736 3. Support legislation that explore expanding city removes CEQA requirements supported tenant based for affordable housing. rental assistance 4. Identify and explore programs; 1-5 years. allocating city-owned sites that may be well suited for housing for which there are no other development plans. 5. Continue to support tenant based rental assistance programs that facilitates additional affordable housing for homeless and low-income individuals. Goal 2 Contributing Metrics, Milestones, Responsible Preserve the existing stock Factors and Timeframe for Program of affordable rental housing Achievement Participant(s) and rent stabilized housing through the following strategies: 1. Strengthen and expand Displacement of Documentation of City staff, education and outreach of residents due to outreach services, Housing tenants and owners of economic pressures; education efforts, Commission, affordable rental housing at Lack of access to termination notices Planning risk of conversion to market opportunity due to received and enforced, Commission, rents. high housing costs; 1-5 years; offer City Council 2. Extend affordability Location and type of incentives to city restrictions through loan affordable housing; restricted properties extensions, workouts and buy- Availability of expiring in the next 5 downs of affordability affordable, accessible years; Assist in the units in a range of preservation of at-risk 3. Preserve at-risk housing unit sizes units through the through the issuance of Tax issuance of Tax-Exempt Exempt Bond financing. Bond Financing, 1-5 4. Explore the development of years; Introduce the a rental rehabilitation loan creation of a rental program. rehabilitation program and target at-risk housing projects; 1-3 years. 302 737 Goal 3 Contributing Metrics,Milestones, Responsible Expand the access to fair Factors and Timeframe for Program housing services and other Achievement Participant(s) housing services through the following strategies: 1. Dedicate eligible Displacement of Continue to utilize City staff, Fair entitlement dollars (CDBG, Residents Due to entitlement dollars to Housing HOME, etc.) and explore Economic Pressures, support fair housing Agencies, local, state and federal Private services; Continue to Housing resources to expand fair discrimination, include testing services Commission, housing services. accessible housing in as part of the required City Council 2. Continue to support fair a range of unit sizes; scope of work for city housing testing and Admissions and support fair housing investigation to look for occupancy policies providers; Years 1-5; evidence of differential and procedures, Require city supported treatment and disparate including preferences fair housing providers to impact, including providing in publicly supported provide its services on services to low income housing multiple platforms and tenants reporting fair housing in diverse locations. violations. 3. Continue to support fair housing presentations, mass media communications, and multi-lingual literature distribution; conduct fair housing presentations at accessible locations and conduct fair housing presentations for housing providers 4. Explore alternative formats for fair housing education workshops such as pre-taped videos and/ or recordings. Such formats could serve persons with one or more than one job, families with you children and other who find it difficult to attend meetings in person. 303 738 Goal 4 Contributing Metrics,Milestones, Responsible Continue efforts to build Factors and Timeframe for Program complete communities Achievement Participant(s) through the following strategies; 1. Maximize and secure Access to publicly Actively submit and City staff, funding from various state supported housing for compete for Affordable Transportation and federal sources, including persons with Housing and Sustainable Agencies, City the State of California's Cap disabilities; Communities (AHSC) Council and Trade Program Availability of program; Years 1-5; (Greenhouse Gas Reduction affordable, accessible Convene appropriate Fund), to improve housing units in a range of parties from the city and opportunities, increase unit sizes; Lack of transportation agencies economic investments and affordable, integrated to coordinate and address environmental factors housing for expand transportation in disadvantaged individuals who need efforts; Years 1-5; communities. supportive services; Introduce a policy that 2. The City will continue to Location of provides developers work with local transit accessible housing incentives that support agencies and other non-auto means of appropriate agencies to transportation; Years 1- facilitate safe and efficient 3; Coordinate with the routes of transportation, City's Workforce Center including public transit, to target workforce walking and biking. development resources; Years 1-5. 3. Explore development of a policy to encourage developers to provide residents with incentives to use non-auto means of transportation, including locating new developments near public transportation and providing benefits such as bus passes. 4. Prioritize workforce development resources in racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty to improve economic mobility. 304 739 City of Buena Park 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. City of Orange 1. Continue to follow current State Density Bonus law and further its implementation through a Density Bonus ordinance update. 2. Prepare a Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance to provide opportunities for development rights transfers to accommodate higher density housing in transit and employment-rich areas of the city. 3. Prepare and adopt a North Tustin Street Specific Plan with an objective of providing opportunities for affordable housing. 4. Amend the City's Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to be consistent with State Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) laws. 5. Prepare and adopt a small lot subdivision ordinance to streamline entitlement processing of housing development projects. 6. Continue providing CDBG funds to the Fair Housing Foundation to provide fair housing activities to the community. City of Costa Mesa 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): 305 740 a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. City of Fountain Valley 1. Explore an inclusionary zoning requirement for all new housing developments that requires at least 10-1 S percent of for-sale units be affordable to households with incomes 80 percent or below and rental units be affordable to households with incomes 60 percent or below. 2. Consider adopting an expedited permitting and review process for new developments with an affordable housing set-aside. City of Fullerton 1. Create a Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HOIZ). 2. Draft and Approve an Affordable Housing and Religious Institutions Amendment to the Municipal Code. 3. Work with the State to streamline or remove CEQA Requirements for Affordable Housing. 4. Require Affordable Housing in Surplus Property Sales. City of Garden Grove 1. Update Density Bonus Ordinance — Garden Grove will update the 2011 Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with current State law. The update will streamline the approval process, increase feasibility, and facilitate future housing development at all affordability levels. 2. Create Objective Residential Development Standards to allow for streamlined housing development in all residential zones. 306 741 3. Create Objective Development Standards for Supportive Housing. These standards would be for new construction of Supportive Housing. 4. Evaluate the creation of Objective Development Standards for Hotel/Motel/Office Conversion to Supportive Housing. S. Review and amend Garden Grove's current Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance to comply with State requirements and further increase housing supply. 6. Continue to invest in landlord and tenant counseling and mediation services, unlawful detainer assistance, housing discrimination services, homebuyer education and outreach, and local eviction prevention strategies. City of Huntington Beach 1. Modify the existing Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to increase the supply of affordable housing opportunities available to lower income persons and households. a. Study the current methodology of setting the maximum sales price and down payment requirements of an affordable home for ownership. b. Study requirements for the provision of inclusionary units through on-site units, dedication of land, in-lieu fees, and off-site development. c. Study the in-lieu fee structure. d. Explore the provision of incentives for developments that exceed inclusionary requirements and/or provide extremely low-income units on site. Incentives can be through the provision of fee waivers and deferrals, financial assistance, regulatory relief, and flexible development standards. 2. Update the density bonus ordinance to be consistent with state law, 3. Expand the TBRA program to help tenants impacted by Covid-19. Currently, an eviction moratorium is in place to prevent evictions due to lack of non-payment of rent due to Covid- 19. This moratorium ends on May 31, 2020. The moratorium does not end the obligation to pay the rent eventually. On June 1, 2020, there most likely will be an increased need from persons to receive rental assistance for the rents due prior to May 31 and going forward. The City would work with its current service providers to help tenants impacted by Covid-19. City of Irvine 1. Ensure compliance with their HCD-certified Housing Element. 2. Update Density Bonus Ordinance—Irvine will update the Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with current State law. 3. Review and amend Irvine's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, as necessary, to increase its effectiveness. 307 742 4. Review and amend Irvine's current Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU) Ordinance to comply with State requirements and further increase housing supply. 5. Create Objective Development Standards for Supportive Housing. These standards would be for new construction of Supportive Housing. 6. Working with the City's fair housing services provider, continue to invest in local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families in Irvine. 7. Working with the City's fair housing services provider, continue to invest in landlord and tenant counseling and mediation services, unlawful detainer assistance, housing discrimination services, and homebuyer education and outreach. City of La Habra 1. Explore the creation of an inclusionary housing ordinance to increase the number of affordable housing units. 2. Advocate for increasing the minimum percentage of affordable units at Park La Habra Mobile Home and View Park Mobile Home Estates from 20 percent to 50 percent. City of Laguna Niguel 1. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability,procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. 2. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. b. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 3. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths,presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities. d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. 308 743 e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider. 4. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. S. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law. 6. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority, provide community education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities. 7. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families (homelessness prevention services). City of Lake Forest 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities. d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider. f. Regularly consult with the City's fair housing contractor on potential strategies for affirmatively furthering fair housing on an on-going basis. 3. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority: a. Provide community education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities. b. Explore bus route options to ensure neighborhoods with concentration of low-income or protected class populations have access to transportation services. 309 744 4. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families (homelessness prevention services). 5. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 6. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law. City of Mission Viejo 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths,presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities. d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider. 3. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority: a. Provide community education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities. b. Explore bus route options to ensure neighborhoods with concentration of low-income or protected class populations have access to transportation services. 4. Monitor FBI data to determine if any hate crimes are housing related and if there are actions that may be taken by the City's fair housing service provider to address potential discrimination linked to the bias motivations of hate crimes. S. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families (homelessness prevention services). 310 745 6. Seek funding through State programs (SB2/PLHA) to expand affordable housing and or homelessness prevention services. 7. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 8. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law. City of Orange 1. Continue to follow current State Density Bonus law and further its implementation through a Density Bonus ordinance update. 2. Prepare a Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance to provide opportunities for development rights transfers to accommodate higher density housing in transit and employment-rich areas of the city. 3. Prepare and adopt a North Tustin Street Specific Plan with an objective of providing opportunities for affordable housing. 4. Amend the City's Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to be consistent with State Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) laws. S. Facilitate the development of housing along the North Tustin corridor by the way of a specific plan or rezoning measures. 6. Continue providing CDBG funds to the Fair Housing Foundation to provide fair housing activities to the community. City of Rancho Santa Margarita 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. 311 746 b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths,presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities. d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider. 3. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority: a. Provide community education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities. b. Explore bus route options to ensure neighborhoods with concentration of low-income or protected class populations have access to transportation services. 4. Monitor FBI data to determine if any hate crimes are housing related and if there are actions that may be taken by the City's fair housing service provider to address potential discrimination linked to the bias motivations of hate crimes. S. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families (homelessness prevention services). 6. Seek funding through State programs (SB2/PLHA) to expand affordable housing and or homelessness prevention services. 7. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 8. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law. City of San Clemente 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues. b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. 312 747 b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant- landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities. d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider. 3. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families (homelessness prevention services). 4. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 5. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law. 6. Offer a variety of housing opportunities to enhance mobility among residents of all races and ethnicities by facilitating affordable housing throughout the community through ])flexible development standards; 2) density bonuses; and 3) other zoning tools. 7. Review the type and effectiveness of current affordable housing development incentives, and amend/augment as may be necessary to increase the production of affordable housing units. City of San Juan Capistrano 1. Develop Strategies to Address Lack of Affordability and Insufficient Income a. Work with developers, and non-profit organizations to expand the affordable housing stock within San Juan Capistrano. b. Increase production of new affordable units and assistance towards the purchase and renovation of housing in existing neighborhoods. c. Seek housing program resources through the County of Orange Urban County CDBG Program, and others which may become available. 5. Increase Public Awareness of Fair Housing a. Increase fair housing education and outreach efforts. b. Investigate options for enforcement including local enforcement conducted by neighboring jurisdictions. 6. Develop Strategies to Address Poverty and Low-Incomes Among Minority Populations a. Expand job opportunities through encouragement of corporations relocating to the city, local corporations seeking to expand, assistance with small business loans, and other activities. 313 748 b. Support agencies that provide workforce development programs and continuing education courses to increase educational levels and job skills of residents. 7. Develop Strategies to Address Limited Resources to Assist Lower-Income, Elderly, and Indigent Homeowners Maintain their Homes and Stability in Neighborhoods a. Consider implementing a volunteer program for providing housing assistance to elderly and indigent property owners, including assistance in complying with municipal housing codes. b. Encourage involvement from volunteers, community organizations, religious organizations, and businesses as a means of supplementing available financial resources for housing repair and neighborhood cleanup. City of Santa Ana 1. Review and amend Santa Ana's inclusionary housing ordinance to increase its effectiveness. 2. Evaluate the creation of a motel conversion ordinance to increase the supply of permanent supportive housing similar to the City of Anaheim and Los Angeles. 3. Review Santa Ana's density bonus ordinance and explore adding a density bonus for transit- oriented development (TOD) similar to the City of Los Angeles. 4. Explore establishing a dedicated source of local funding for a Right to Counsel program for residents of Santa Ana to ensure that they have access to legal representation during eviction proceedings similar to the City of New York. S. Continue to invest in local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families in Santa Ana. City of Tustin 1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA): a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance TVoucherprogram and regional housing issues. b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five year and annual PHA plan certifications. c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. 2. Through the City's fair housing contractor: a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. 314 749 b. Conduct multi faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature. c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant- landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities. d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider. 3. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 4. Utilize funding through State programs (SB2) to support affordable housing and/or homeless prevention services. 5. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law. 315 750 VII. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS APPENDIX Access for Students with Disabilities to Proficient Schools Access for students with disabilities to proficient schools may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues. There are more than 600 public schools in Orange County,part of 27 school districts. There is a history of barriers to education for persons with disabilities in Orange County.25 These included issues with school districts in Garden Grove, Los Alamitos, and Orange, as well as the Capistrano Unified School District which crosses city boundaries. However, this Analysis did not reveal more recent systemic policies or practices driving disparities for students with disabilities. At the same time, school discipline data for Orange County reveals a 4.5% suspension rate for students with disabilities as compared to a 1.9% suspension rate for students who do not have disabilities. Both rates are lower than statewide but still show that students with disabilities face barriers in accessing education that others do not encounter. This data calls for affirmative strategies to reduce school discipline disparities and avoid unnecessary suspensions of students with disabilities. Access to Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Access to transportation for persons with disabilities may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. The main barrier to transportation for persons with disabilities in Orange County is the lack of public transportation infrastructure generally,including the lack of east-west rail service and rail service in coastal communities and long wait times for buses in the southern portion of the county. Because many persons with disabilities are dependent on public transportation,these problems hit persons with disabilities especially hard. This Analysis did not reveal any systemic problems with the accessibility of major providers' services, such as Metrolink or the Orange County Transportation Authority. Each agency's vehicles generally appear to meet accessibility requirements, and the Orange County Transportation Authority provides required paratransit service through OC Flex. Access to Financial Services Access to financial services may be a contributing factor to fair housing issues for Hispanic residents of Orange County. Although this Analysis did not undertake a comprehensive analysis of bank branch locations in Orange County, a limited review of the banks ranked as the three best in Orange County by the Orange County Register revealed disparities in locations served.26 The highest ranked bank, California Bank&Trust,has nine locations in Orange County,none of which are located in the cities of Anaheim and Santa Ana,27 the two largest cities in the county and areas with concentrations of Hispanic population. Although larger banks like Chase and Bank of America have branches in Anaheim and Santa Ana, there are still disproportionately few branches in those locations than in smaller, less heavily Hispanic cities like Irvine and Huntington Beach. For example, there are 16 Chase branches in Irvine and seven in Huntington Beach as opposed to five in Anaheim and one in Santa Ana. Bank of America's distribution of service is somewhat more balanced (though not when accounting for population)with six branches in Santa Ana, eight 25 Rex Dalton, OC Families Face Fierce Fight for Special Ed Services,VOICE OF OC(Sep. 25,2012), https://N,oiceofoc.ora/2012/09/oc-families-face-fierce-fight-for-special-ed-services/. 26 Kenya Barrett,Best of Orange County 2019:Best Bank,THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER(Sep. 19,2019), https://www.ocregi ster.com/2 019/09/19/best-of-orange-county-2019-best-bank/. 27 https://www.calbanktrust.com/locations/ 316 751 in Anaheim, eight in Irvine, and six in Huntington Beach. Lack of access to conventional financial services like those offered by banks can prevent residents of underserved neighborhoods from building credit that will help them attain homeownership and can leave residents with few options but to patronize predatory financial services providers like payday lenders. A 2016 report from the California Department of Business Oversight noted that, while 38.7% of California's population was Hispanic,the average percentage of Hispanic residents in zip codes with six or more storefront payday lenders was 53%.28 Payday loans often lead to a cycle of debt that impedes individuals' access to opportunity and economic mobility more generally. In Orange County,that phenomenon appears to be especially likely to harm Hispanic residents, particularly in Santa Ana. Access to Publicly Supported Housing for Persons with Disabilities Access to publicly supported housing for persons with disabilities may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Although persons with disabilities are generally able to access Housing Choice Vouchers at rates that are commensurate with their share of the income-eligible population, access to Project-Based Section 8 is more limited in many cities. For Project-Based Section 8, cities with disproportionately low concentrations of residents with disabilities include Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, La Habra, and Westminster. Admissions and Occupancy Policies and Procedures, Including Preferences in Publicly Supported Housing Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported housing may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. In particular,housing authorities,including the Orange County Housing Authority,provide live-work preferences to applicants for Housing Choice Vouchers. Given that Los Angeles County is significantly more heavily Black than Orange County, live-work preferences in Orange County may have the effect of disproportionately excluding Black families that might want to move to Orange County. Housing authorities also have some criminal background screening policies that might be overly restrictive. For example, the Orange County Housing Authority and the Anaheim Housing Authority consider violent criminal activity that occurred as long as five years ago, even if that activity consisted of minor misdemeanor conduct. The Garden Grove Housing Authority also denies assistance based on arrest records alone in certain cases, a policy that contradicts applicable HUD guidance. Availability of Affordable Units in a Range of Sizes The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Overcrowding, as defined by HUD, in Orange County is very high, at 9.51% overall, expanding to 15.97% for renters. Broken down by race, White,Black, and Asian American residents live in overcrowded conditions at a rate of 6 or 7%, while Hispanic residents are overcrowded at a rate of 26% countywide. For Publicly Supported Housing, a supermajority (74.67%) of Project-Based Section 8 units are 0-1-bedroom units, as are Other Multifamily units (84.54%, the other 15% having 2 bedrooms). A plurality of Housing Choice Vouchers are also limited to 0-1 bedroom units(43.97%). 5,561 households or 26.20% of Housing Choice Voucher occupants are also households with children, the highest of any category of 28 The Demographics of California Payday Lending. A Zip Code Analysis of Storefront Locations, CAUFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF BuSINEss OVERSIGHT(2016),https:Hdbo.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/296/2019/02/The- Demographic s-o f-CA-P ayday-Lending-A-Zip-Code-Analysis-of-Storefront-Locations.pdf. 317 752 publicly supported housing (followed by Project-Based Section 8, with 9.62%). Overall, most housing units in the county contain 2 (28%), 3 (30%), or 4 (21%) bedrooms, indicating that on paper, accessing housing units with enough bedrooms to house families or live-in aides using a voucher is likely. However,these numbers do not speak to affordability and/or whether these units are within the payment standards for vouchers. Source of income discrimination was recently outlawed statewide, so even more units within the payment standards should be available to voucher users in the future. Availability, Type, Frequency, and Reliability of Public Transportation The availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation may be contributing factors to fair housing issues in Orange County. Public transportation in Orange County primarily consists of bus service operated by the-Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and Metrolink light rail service. Additionally,more geographically limited service is available through Anaheim Resort Transportation's bus system and the OC Streetcar, connecting Garden Grove and Santa Ana. Paratransit service is available through OC Flex. This public transportation has two important shortcomings that have ramifications for fair housing issues. First, Metrolink does not provide service to coastal communities in the central and northern portions of Orange County. These communities, such as Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Laguna Beach are disproportionately White in comparison to the county as a whole. The relative lack of public transportation in these areas may deter members of protected classes who do not have cars and are reliant on public transportation from choosing to live there, thus reinforcing patterns of segregation. Second, although the OCTA offers bus service throughout the county, none of its high-frequency lines, which run every 15 minutes during weekday rush hour, serve the southern half of the county. As with the lack of light rail service in coastal communities,poorer quality bus service in the disproportionately White southern half of the county may deter households from making residential choices that would further integration. The low frequency and sparse bus lines in southern Orange County also burden low-income households that disproportionately consist of protected class members and make their lives more difficult. Community Opposition Community Opposition may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. The County is now only plurality White,29 but recent political and demographic change have not slowed opposition to affordable housing in Orange County, as residents have mobilized to delay and prevent affordable housing efforts. Some Orange County cities have voted to oppose or are preparing to oppose statewide plans to add 22,000 affordable housing units in the County.30 For the most part, residents, community planners, and elected officers opposed to the plan have cited procedural concerns such as insufficient concern for local participation.31 Opposition to multifamily housing and housing for the homeless and affordable housing generally betrays a wider opposition to such initiatives based on "NIMBY" ("Not In My Backyard") sentiments. In Fullerton,for example,residents recently mobilized to stop the creation of an affordable housing complex, citing concerns that the complex would reduce property values, create danger to children, 29 QuickFacts: Orange County, California,UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU, littps://www.census.gov/quickfacts/orangecountycalifomia(last visited Jan. 16,2020). "See,e.g.,Hosam Elattar and Noah Biesiada, OC Cities Pushing Back Against Housing Target Increases,VOICE OF OC(Jan. 14,2020),https://voiceofoc.ora/2020/01/oc-cities-pushinQ-back-a.gainst-housingget-increases/. 31 Id. Complaints included that the state plan's"methodology was unfair"and not done in"good faith." 318 753 and"attract people from other cities"that would become the responsibility of Fullerton residents.32 Additionally, in early 2019, opposition to state plans to increase affordable housing forced California to sue the City of Huntington Beach to force compliance.33 Finally, State and regional landlord associations have organized to oppose rent control and anti-eviction legislation.34 Overall, despite demographic and political changes, community opposition to fair housing in Orange County remains robust. Deteriorated and Abandoned Properties Deteriorated and abandoned properties are not a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Although there was a surge in deteriorated and abandoned properties in the wake of the foreclosure crisis, particularly in heavily Hispanic areas and with significant harmful consequences for communities,35 that issue has gradually abated over the ensuring years. The table below reflects the proportion of vacant housing units in each city in Orange County that is categorized as "Other Vacant" in the American Community Survey. These are the vacant units that are most likely to be abandoned rather than capturing vacation rentals and units that are currently on the rental or sales market. Table: Other Vacant HousingUnits by City, 2013-2017 American Community Survey City Number of Other Vacant % of Vacant Units That Are Units Other Vacant Units Aliso Viejo 150 13.3% Anaheim 599 14.1% Brea 74 14.3% Buena Park 447 47.5% Costa Mesa 300 15.6% Cypress 144 33.8% Dana Point 196 7.5% Fountain Valley 180 36.3% Fullerton 485 20.1% Garden Grove 373 30.5% 32 Jill Replogle, `Not In My Backyard': What the Shouting Down of One Homeless Housing Complex Means For Us All,LAiST(Oct. 15,2018), https://projects.scpr.org/interactives/fullerton-nimby/. 33 Don Thompson, California Sues Wealthy Coastal City Over Low-Income Housing,ASSOCIATED PRESS(Jan. 25, 2019),https://apnews.com/f5c6edc6bd3l442082f5b4964aObc51d. 34 Marisa Kendall, California-Wide Rent Cap Advances Despite Landlord Opposition, O.C.REGISTER(July 10, 2019), https://w-ww.ocregister.com/2019/07/10/ab-1482-set-for-senate-hearine/. 35 Alej andra Molina,No More Eyesores: Santa Ana Asks Courts to Intervene and Fix Abandoned Properties,O.C. REGISTER(Mar. 11,2015),https://www.oeregister.com/2015/03/11/no-more-eyesores-santa-ana-asks-courts-to- intervene-and-fix-abandoned-properties/. 319 754 Huntington Beach 835 18.9% Irvine 628 11.4% Laguna Beach 640 23.7% Laguna Hills 26 4.6% Laguna Niguel 453 27.8% Laguna Woods 327 22.4% La Habra 144 19.0% Lake Forest 120 11.8% La Palma 38 28.8% Los Alamitos 12 9.2% Mission Viejo 239 20.6% Newport Beach 982 14.6% Orange 548 33.7% Placentia 155 38.3% Rancho Santa Margarita 0 0.0% San Clemente 397 12.0% San Juan Capistrano 312 46.2% Santa Ana 599 30.3% Seal Beach 315 27.3% Stanton 109 25.7% Tustin 162 13.8% Villa Park 45 43.3% Westminster 213 24.9% Yorba Linda 173 21.0% These Other Vacant units do not appear to be disproportionately concentrated in communities with high concentrations of Hispanic households and low White Populations. Villa Park and Fountain Valley have relatively low Hispanic population concentrations while San Juan Capistrano and Buena Park have similar concentrations to the county as a whole. Additionally, although Santa Ana has a fairly high concentration of Other Vacant units among its vacant units, overall vacancy 320 755 is very low there in relation to the county as a whole. This is consistent with a picture of housing market that is very tight for low-income residents even in the lowest income parts of the area. Displacement and Lack of Housing Support for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking Displacement and lack of housing support for victims of domestic violence,dating violence,sexual assault, and stalking are not significant contributing factors to fair housing issues in Orange County. California state law protects victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking,human trafficking, or abused elder or dependent adult who terminates their lease early.36 The tenant must provide written notice to the landlord, along with a copy of a temporary restraining order, emergency protective order, or protective order that protects the household member from further domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or abuse of an elder or dependent adult. Alternatively, proof may be shown by submitting a copy of a written report by a peace officer stating that the victim has filed an official report, or documentation from a qualified third party acting in their professional capacity to indicate the resident is seeking assistance for physical or mental injuries or abuse stemming from the abuse at issue.Notice to terminate the tenancy must be given within 180 days of the issuance date of the qualifying order or within 180 days of the date that any qualifying written report is made. This Analysis did not reveal specific evidence of noncompliance with these requirements in Orange County or of other barriers faced by domestic violence survivors. Displacement of Residents Due to Economic Pressures Displacement of residents due to economic pressures may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County and, in particular, in parts of Orange County that have historically had concentrations of low-income Hispanic and Vietnamese residents. The map below from the Urban Displacement Project at the University of California Berkeley shows census tracts that experienced gentrification both between 1990 and 2000 and between 2000 and 2015 (in red), census tracts that experienced gentrification between 2000 and 2015 (in light blue), census tracts that experienced gentrification between 1990 and 2000 (in dark blue), and disadvantaged communities that have not gentrified(in tan).Although there are no census tracts in Orange County coded as having experienced gentrification in both time periods,there are several census tracts that have undergone gentrification at some point since 1990 including in Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Dana Point, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Orange, San Clemente, and Villa Park. Though the Urban Displacement Project does not map the risk of future gentrification in displacement in Southern California as it does in the Bay Area, the areas most vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in Orange County — going forward — are disadvantaged areas located near areas that have already gentrified and disadvantaged areas located near major transit assets as well as anchor institutions like universities and hospitals. Because the southern and coastal portions of Orange County have relatively few disadvantaged areas, displacement risk is therefore concentrated in inland portions of central and northern Orange County such as Anaheim, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Irvine, Orange, Santa Ana, and Westminster. These areas also tend to have higher Hispanic and Asian population concentrations than the county as a whole, illustrating the fair housing implications of displacement. s6 ttps://Ieginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1946.7 321 756 4U r aie— Genv➢6ed neighborhoods,t99.7-�755 LA Metro Ras) am.ml, ®s s.�:r,,.: _ H aithY Go uy Stl s mo:sw oa:.q c 4 PASADENA a SAN 6 r+c•r .yrn ERNARCi1N0 ly ¢unnte; t.4mntw ' LOS ANGELES- , v I s ns Monk y r. i .ixaw �, f ."( �t21VER51DE A a � cawna w t-' anre u- PALM SPRINGS LONG BEACH arcs d IRYINEqPxn coacrew tnarr�ea �I NI 4ll t i v� GENTRIFIED 999 015 P iil �I Ia M1 lr Impediments to Mobility Impediments to mobility may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Specifically, Housing Choice Voucher payment standards that make it difficult to secure housing in many, disproportionately White parts of the county contribute to segregation and disparities in access to opportunity. Some housing authorities within the county have gone to tiered rent systems that provide greater nuance than region-wide payment standards, but their payment standards still are not as generous as Small Area Fair Market Rents would be. For example, the Anaheim Housing Authority has two tiers, one for zip code 92808 and one for all other zip codes. In zip code 92808, the payment standard for a two-bedroom unit is $2,438 while, in all other zip codes, it is $2,106. Yet the hypothetical Small Area Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom unit in zip code 92808, which is located in the Anaheim Hills, would be $2,790. Additionally, zip codes 92806 and 92807, which also cover the eastern half of the city but do not benefit from the higher payment standard, would have Small Area Fair Market Rents of$2,380 and $2,660 respectively, far higher than $2,106. A similar phenomenon pervades the Orange County Housing Authority's administration of the voucher program. That agency has three tiers based on city rather than zip code,but the highest tier- $2,280 for two-bedroom units in selected cities—falls far short of Small Area Fair Market Rents and leaves some cities targeted for that payment standard out of reach. For example, in zip code 92660, located in Newport Beach,the Small Area Fair Market Rent for two- bedroom units would be $3,120. A Zillow search for that zip code revealed advertised two- bedroom units in only two complexes available for under$2,280 but many more available between $2,280 and $3,120. Inaccessible Government Facilities or Services Inaccessible government facilities or services are not a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. This Analysis did not reveal examples of government facilities or services in Orange County that are inaccessible. Inaccessible Public or Private Infrastructure Inaccessible public or private infrastructure is not a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. This Analysis did not reveal examples of public or private infrastructure in Orange County that is infrastructure. 322 757 Lack of Access to Opportunity Due to High Housing osts Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. In particular, as the Disparities in Access to Opportunity section of this Analysis reveals, coastal areas of Orange County as far eastern portions of the county have greater access to educational, economic, and environmental opportunity than do most areas in between,with the partial exception of Irvine.Additionally,environmental quality is higher in predominantly White southern Orange County than in the more diverse areas to the north. In general, the disproportionately White coastal and hillside communities with better educational, economic, and environmental outcomes are also areas with high housing costs. Increasing housing affordability in these areas would make it easier for low-income households, disproportionately including Hispanic and Vietnamese households, to access the types of services and amenities that further social mobility. Lack of Affordable, Accessible Housing in a Range of Unit Sizes Lack of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. As discussed in connection with several other contributing factors, there is a general shortage of affordable housing in the county. This is exacerbated by the fact that,as discussed in relation to the availability of affordable units in a range of sizes,the vast majority of publicly supported housing units are one-bedroom units. Low-income households that need larger units are dependent upon the Housing Choice Voucher program to access housing. However, unlike with Project-Based Section 8 units, for example, there is no requirement that privately owned and managed units that tenants use vouchers to rent meet the heightened accessibility requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This shortage has a particular effect on low-income families in which at least one member has a disability that requires accessibility features, and persons with disabilities who require the services of live-in aides. Lack of Affordable In-Home or Community-Based Supportive Services Lack of affordable in-home or community-based supportive services may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Due to the absence of any waiting list for Home and Community-Based Services for persons with developmental disabilities, this issue primarily affects people with psychiatric disabilities. A robust array of services, including the most intensive models of community-based services like Assertive Community Treatment,37 are available.Nonetheless,many people have trouble accessing needed services, and service providers are not always able to reach vulnerable populations through street outreach. Additionally, across types of disabilities, undocumented adults face barriers due to federal restrictions of Medicaid assistance for undocumented people. The California Legislature has approved state funding for Medi-Cal services for undocumented people until they reach the age of 26, a critical investment that exceeds that of any other state, but there remains a funding gap for services for most undocumented adults. Lack of Affordable, Integrated Housing for Individuals Who Need Supportive Services 37 Assertive community treatment(ACT)is a form of community-based mental health care that provides community-based,multi-disciplinary mental health treatment for individuals with severe and persistent mental illness. 323 758 Lack of affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive services may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. This is a significant contributing factor for two reasons.First,the shortage of permanent supportive housing throughout Orange County in comparison to the total need is characteristic of the broader shortage of affordable housing generally. Second, although there are some programs that specifically focus on providing permanent supportive housing to individuals with disabilities including developments built with Mental Health Services Act funds and Mainstream Housing Choice Vouchers,there has not been a concerted effort to raise local bond funds for affordable housing and then to prioritize permanent supportive housing with a portion of bond proceeds like there has been in some other California jurisdictions, including Los Angeles County and Santa Clara County. Lack of Assistance for Transitioning from Institutional Settings to Integrated Housing Lack of assistance for transitioning from institutional settings to integrated housing is not a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County.The Dayle McIntosh Center provides robust services to individuals transitioning from institutional settings to integrated housing, and there is no indication that they are unable to meet the total need for such services. Lack of Community Revitalization Strategies Lack of community revitalization strategies is not a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. In communities with significant revitalization needs, such as in disproportionately low-income and heavily Hispanic and Vietnamese neighborhoods in Anaheim, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Westminster, there is no shortage of private investment interest that would enhance or has enhanced community amenities. The more pressing problem is the risk of displacement that would prevent long-time residents enjoying new amenities in recently revitalized communities. Lack of Local or Regional Cooperation Lack of local or regional cooperation may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Although the infrastructure for collaboration across jurisdictions exists, as demonstrated by this county-wide Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice,there remains a problem with local governments not taking the steps to achieve regionally determined goals like progress toward meeting each jurisdictions Regional Housing Needs Allocation for very low- income and low-income households. This gap has resulted in litigation between the City of Huntington Beach and the State of California.38 Lack of Local Private Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Although Orange County is served by two, high- quality private, non-profit fair housing organizations, they are underfunded and understaffed in comparison to the total need for their services. Victims of discrimination would be more able to exercise their rights, thus deterring future discrimination, if the capacity of existing organizations grew to meet the scale of the problem. 38 Priscella Vega et al.,State Sues Huntington Beach over Blocked Homebuilding,L.A.TIMES(Jan.25,2019), bttps://www.latimes.conVsocal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-ine-hb-housing-lawsuit-20190125-story html. 324 759 Lack of Local Public Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement Lack of local public fair housing outreach and enforcement may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. There are no local public entities that conduct fair housing outreach and enforcement, with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and HUD constituting the only public enforcement bodies that operate in Orange County. Advocates across Orange County and the state of California have reported issues with the timeline of the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing's investigations and the standards that it applies in making probable cause determinations. A local public enforcement agency, if created, would have the potential to be more responsive to victims of discrimination in Orange County than either the state or HUD. Lack of Meaningful Language Access for Individuals with Limited English Proficiency Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Private landlords generally are not required to provide leases or other key documents or communications in the primary languages of individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP). This can create confusion about individuals' rights. Housing authorities frequently have staff who are fluent in Spanish and/or Vietnamese, but LEP speakers of other languages may have limited options, with housing authorities relying on paid translation or interpretation services to communicate. Lack of Private Investment in Specific Neighborhoods Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods is not a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. There are neighborhoods, particularly disproportionately low- income, predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods, that have historically been subject to disinvestment by the private sector. Santa Ana had long been emblematic of that pattern, but it has begun to see a return of private capital, and accompanying gentrification risk, in recent years.39 Lack of Public Investment in Specific Neighborhoods Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods is not a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Although there is a history of disparities in public infrastructure in Orange County between areas that are predominantly White and more heavily Hispanic communities, this Analysis did not reveal evidence of the current extent of this potential problem nor if the interrelationship of that issue to patterns of segregation and displacement. This Analysis addresses the public resources available to schools in the contributing factor relating to the location of proficient schools and school assignment policies. Lack of Resources for Fair Housing Agencies and Organizations Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Two robust fair housing organizations operate in Orange County,provide services to residents,and engage in enforcement, outreach, and education. However, the size of the federal Fair Housing Initiatives Program, the primary funding program for fair housing organizations, has failed to keep up with inflation, making Congress's appropriations worth less over time. In order to meet the needs of residents of a large and diverse county, local fair housing agencies and organizations require greater levels of resourcing. 39 Erualdo R. Gonzalez et al., The Gentrification of Santa Ana:From Origin to Resistance,KCET(Sep. 13,2017), https://w��v.keet.ortr/shows/cit -ry isin�4/the-gentrification-of-santa-ana-from-origin-to-resistance. 325 760 Lack of State or Local Fair Housing Laws Lack of state or local fair housing laws is not a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Although no jurisdictions in Orange County had prohibited source of income discrimination against Housing Choice Voucher holders prior to the California Legislature passing SB 222 and SB 329 banning the practice statewide, that step by the State means that there are not significant gaps in non-discrimination protections for residents of Orange County. Land Use and Zoning Laws Land use and zoning laws may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. With some exceptions, communities in Orange County that have relatively high concentrations of White residents and relatively low concentrations of Hispanic residents tend to have zoning that allows for limited opportunities to develop multifamily housing. In the absence of multifamily zoning,it is generally infeasible to develop affordable housing for which occupancy is likely to disproportionately consist of protected class members. The zoning map of Laguna Beach, shown below, illustrates the high proportion of land that is reserved for low-density residential development. 326 761 Zoning Map for the City of Laguna Beach ` ®Agn culture-Recreation NOTE- SCAG updated the City General Plan land use Cl-Local Business District as data bed on the mformatlon collected from each City CA-Civic An District Please cab Waberto Martin at(213)236-1861 or ematl martmwgscag ca gov for any questions ?-:. -CBD-1(Residential Serving) CBD-2(Downtown Commercial) CBD-Office r' xf -l0 CBD-Public Parks .CBD-Visdof Commercial CBD-Central Bluffs -CBD-Multiple Family District CHM-commerctal Hotel-Motei CN-Commercial Neghbort o - I-Institutional LAG-Lagunrta �: •) LBP-Local Business Professional MIA-Light Industrial ®MIB-Light Industrial MH-Mobile Home OSC-Open Spacer Conservation OSCR-Open Spacer ConservanonBRecreation OSP-Open Spacel Passive PL-Public Land Rl-Residential Low Density R2-Residential hied Density k = r R3 Residential High Density RD-Residential Development REC-Recreation �s RHP-ResxSennbl Hillside Protection SLV-South Laguna Village Commercial .STP-Sarah Thurston Park TAB-Three Arch Bay g- _ TBZ VC-Village Community Other Source: City of Laguna Beach, SCAG 2009 ,1 0`• 2 ssor��norro miles i 7 762 Villa Park appears to be a particularly extreme case. As the map below shows,multifamily housing is not permitted in any location in the city. 328 763 Zoning in City of Villa Park p z _ E h r- E Ave .... '40M e{Ave E OwnLy Ace t Jackson Ave E Moir rm As f, _ LMW Ave - r J� ia".ca xar� .`arx :F++�..bamna�in .xc�nwes CaFo_CiHCS.�iii1 F4Q.r�tt�.�otan K:+a� .+a.n... �-a.a::M:a+oCa'�.Mitt b�nro:+t•p r..ar�.w,m+^0=wor'ys+x 6.:ar"eetr.Vo c�..ms 2nnfn0 Q E4 Small Estate Residential =Neighborhood Commercial rL R-1(8,00D-13,500) =PC-Martinique School E4-17 Cs PC-Orchards •Public Institution tip E 4 78 =Commercial Professional 3 Orange County Flood Control District E-4-19 Source:City of SCAG.2015 1 Date:12110/2015 o Gas 0.1 os C.\VIa Park\V4ci_PoAc_2Nt.rrxd 329 764 Lending Discrimination Lending discrimination may be a contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Given the scarcity of affordable rental housing and high cost of living within Orange County, loan opportunities for home improvement, purchase, and refinancing are important tools for moderate and low-income households. Using Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, the tables below show the racial discrepancies in the likelihood that a person's loan application, based on their race, will result in an originated loan or a denial. Percentage of Loan Applications Resulting in Originated Loans by Race or Ethnicity and Loan Purpose in Orange County, 2014-2017 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data Race or Ethnicity Home Purchase Refinancing Home Improvement White,Not Hispanic 66.56% 59.12% 61.96% Black,Not Hispanic 61.93% 49.62% 49.49% Asian, Not Hispanic 63.95% 55.35% 51.26% Hispanic/Latino 59.54% 50.57% 51.60% Percentage of Loan Applications Denied by Race or Ethnicity and Loan Purpose in Orange County, 2014-2017 Home Mort a e Disclosure Act Data Race or Ethnicity Home Purchase Refinancing Home Improvement White,Not Hispanic 9.09% 16.30% 17.60% Black,Not Hispanic 12.03% 22.04% 31.74% Asian,Not Hispanic 9.75% 16.65% 23.21% Hispanic/Latino 12.38% 20.75% 28.12% Across all ethnic groups and loan types, White residents are the most likely to have their loan applications result in originated loans. Disparities across racial or ethnic groups are not very significant, however. For Home Purchase, approval rates range between 59.54% and 66.56%. Home Purchase loans also have the highest rate of approval, which is important in ensuring equal access to the homeownership market. Refinancing and Home Improvement loans have similar approval rates,with Black borrowers approved at about 49%,while White borrowers are approved at 59% and 62%, respectively. In a county where 57% of housing units are owner occupied and the median price for a sold home is$721,400,40 the lack of a significant disparity in loan origination for home purchase loans is noteworthy. More disparities emerge when looking at the other types of loans. Across refinancing and home improvement loan applications,Hispanics are less likely to have a loan originate, and roughly 10% more likely to have a home improvement loan application denied and 4% more likely to have a refinancing loan denied. All ethnic groups are more likely than White residents to have their loan ao https://NvNvw.zilloNv.com/orange-county-ca/home-values/ 330 765 applications denied. Black residents are roughly 6% more likely to have refinancing loan application denied. More drastic disparities appear for home improvement loans. Black residents are nearly twice as likely to have a home improvement loan denied than White residents, Asian residents are 5% more likely In addition,the HMDA data indicates the rates at which certain races receive high-priced loans. In Orange County, White and Asian borrowers are least likely to be given a high cost loan. Meanwhile,Black residents are nearly twice as likely to receive subprime loans, and Hispanics are nearly 2.5 times more likely. Lack of access to loans, or loans that are not high-priced, for Black and Hispanic borrowers can often price these households out of owner-occupied single-family homes, and increases the cost burden over time as rent continues to increase across the county. Percentage of Originated Loans That Were High-Cost by Race or Ethnicity in Orange County, 2014-2017 Home Mort Za e Disclosure Act Data Race or Ethnicity Number of Loans Originated Percentage High-Cost White,Not Hispanic 3,408 2.06% Black,Not Hispanic 102 3.79% Asian, Not Hispanic 1,277 2.07% Hispanic/Latino 1,757 4.90% Location and Type of Affordable Housing The location and type of affordable housing may be significant contributing factors to fair housing issues in Orange County. With respect to the location of affordable housing, at a high level, there is relatively little such housing in coastal areas, hillside communities, or in the southern portion of the county, all areas that are disproportionately White and have relatively low Hispanic population concentrations. Within some cities that have patterns of intra jurisdictional segregation, affordable housing is concentrated in particular areas that tend to be more heavily Hispanic. This is especially true in Anaheim,where affordable housing is concentrated in the heavily Hispanic western portion of the city rather than in the mostly White Anaheim Hills. Similarly, in Fullerton, affordable housing is more concentrated in the disproportionately Hispanic southern portion of the city, and, in Garden Grove, affordable housing is concentrated in the disproportionately Hispanic eastern portion of the city. With respect to the role of the type of affordable housing in causing fair housing issues, the total lack of public housing in Orange County, which tends to be more accessible to members of protected classes than do Low Income Housing Tax Credit developments, may play a role in perpetuating segregation. Location of Accessible Housing The location of accessible housing may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. With a few exceptions the location of accessible housing tends to track areas where there are concentrations of publicly supported housing. In Orange County, publicly supported housing tends to be concentrated in areas that are disproportionately Hispanic and/or Vietnamese and that have relatively limited access to educational opportunity and environmental health. Irvine, which has a substantial supply of publicly supported housing, is a limited exception 331 766 to this trend. Market-rate multifamily housing is also more likely to be accessible, though to a lesser standard than publicly supported housing, due to the design and construction standards of the Fair Housing Act. Multifamily housing tends to be concentrated in communities of color, but there are some predominantly White communities that have significant amounts of market-rate multifamily housing that may be accessible and affordable to middle-income and high-income persons with disabilities. These areas include Aliso Viejo, Laguna Woods (which primarily consists of a large retirement community), Newport Beach, and Seal Beach. Overall, permitting more multifamily housing and assisting more publicly supported housing in predominantly White communities with proficient schools would help ensure that persons with disabilities who need accessibility features in their homes have a full range of neighborhood choices available to them. Location of Employers The location of employers is not a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. There does not appear to be any clear relationship between patterns of occupancy by race or ethnicity and where major job centers are in Orange County. In fact, there are areas of Hispanic population concentration, particularly in Anaheim and Santa Ana, that are located near major employment centers. Additionally, heavily Hispanic communities in Orange County have greater access to job centers in Los Angeles County than do predominantly White communities due to the routing of Metrolink through the central portion of the county rather than along the coast or through the hills. Location of Environmental Health Hazards The location of environmental health hazards may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Data indicates communities with a high concentration of Hispanics experience higher levels of environmental harms;exposure primarily stems from vehicle emissions due to the proximity of major freeways and the settling of smog in the area between the coast and the hills rather than the location of major industrial facilities. As a county that developed as a predominantly suburban area, there is no long history of heavy industrial activity in the area. Of the county's four Superfund sites, one—Orange County North Basin on the border of Fullerton and Anaheim — is located in a heavily Hispanic area. In light of these circumstances, efforts to reduce vehicle emissions and efforts to increase access to coastal and hillside communities for Hispanic residents would be most likely to reduce environmental health disparities. Location of Proficient Schools and School Assignment Policies The location of proficient schools and school assignment policies may be significant contributing factors to fair housing issues in Orange County. The schools with the highest proficiency in Orange County are generally located in coastal areas and hillside areas rather than in the center of the county, though Irvine is an exception. This distribution of proficient schools maps on to patterns of residential racial and ethnic segregation,with disproportionately White population in areas with high performing schools and relatively low Hispanic population in those areas. Public education in Orange County is highly fragmented with 27 school districts serving the county's students. District boundaries frequently map onto municipal boundaries, which in turn correlate to patterns of segregation. Inter-district transfers are only available for extremely limited circumstances. This Analysis did not reveal school assignment policies that contribute to segregation within individual school districts. 332 767 Loss of Affordable Housing The loss of affordable housing may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. When subsidy contracts expire, the housing providers that often have the least economic incentive to renew their affordability restrictions are those that are located in higher opportunity areas or in areas that are gentrifying or at risk of gentrification. In Orange County, according to the National Affordable Housing Preservation Database, there are 69 subsidized properties with affordability restrictions that are scheduled to expire between now and the end of 2024. The loss of the developments among these that are most likely to be converted to market- rate occupancy could contribute to segregation and fuel displacement. Occupancy Codes and Restrictions Occupancy codes and restrictions may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Specifically,there is a substantial recent history of municipal ordinances targeting group homes, in general, and community residences for people in recovery from alcohol or substance abuse disorders, in particular. In 2015, the City of Newport Beach entered into a $5.25 million settlement of a challenge to its ordinance, but that settlement did not including injunctive relief calling for a repeal of that ordinance.41 Group home operators have also challenged the City of Costa Mesa's ordinance, though a jury found in the City's favor.42 Following the jury's verdict in that case, there were reports that Orange County was considering similar restrictions for its unincorporated areas.43 Although municipalities have an interest in protecting the health and safety of group home residents, these types of restrictions may be burdensome for ethical, high-quality group home operators. Occupancy codes and restrictions are not as high priority of a barrier as the factors that hinder the development of permanent supportive housing, as group homes are generally less integrated than independent living settings. Private Discrimination Private discrimination may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County.Although complaint data from local fair housing organizations was available,stakeholders reported the persistent nature of housing discrimination, as revealed through individual complaints and through fair housing testing. Quality of Affordable Housing Information Programs The quality of affordable housing information programs may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. None of the housing authorities serving Housing Choice Voucher holders in Orange County operate mobility counseling programs. Mobility counseling programs that help inform voucher holders of opportunities to use their assistance in higher opportunity areas, assist with applying for units in higher opportunity areas, and provide support in adjusting to life in different neighborhoods have demonstrated effectiveness in helping voucher 41 Hannah Fry,Newport Will Pay Group Homes$5.25 Million Settlement,L.A.TIMES(July 16,2015), littps:/hu"u,.Iatimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-0716-newpoi-t-aroup-home-settlement-20150716- stor. .1�. 12 Alicia Robinson,Federal Jury Sides with Costa Mesa in Sober Living Case,O.C.REGISTER(Dec. 7,2018), https://www.ocre2ister.com/2018/12/07/federal-jury-sides-with-costa-mesa-in-sober-living-case/. " Teri Sforza, Orange County, Following Costa Mesa's Lead, May Regulate Sober Living Homes,O.C.REGISTER (Sep. 20,2019), https://W<N�v.ocreaister.coni/2019/09/20/orange-county-following-costa-mesas-lead-may-reguiate- sober-living-homes/. 333 768 holders make moves that foster integration.44 The lack of mobility counseling is not the only barrier to voucher holders accessing higher opportunity areas, but, as the discussion of impediments to mobility reveals, there may be some rental units available within housing authority payment standards in higher opportunity areas, but the availability would be greater if housing authorities implemented Small Area Fair Market Rents. Regulatory Barriers to Providing Housing and Supportive Services for Persons with Disabilities Regulatory barriers to providing housing and supportive services for persons with disabilities are not a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues for persons with disabilities in Orange County. The amount of affordable housing available (and its cost), the extent of outreach and capacity among service providers, and the scope of service provision may be the major causes of segregation for persons with disabilities. To the extent that barriers are regulatory in nature, they typically overlap with the zoning and land use barriers to the construction of affordable housing. This Analysis discusses those in detail in the analysis of the land use and zoning laws contributing factor. This Analysis also discusses restrictions on group homes and community residences in connection with the occupancy codes and restrictions contributing factor. Siting Selection Policies,Practices, and Decisions for Publicly Supported Housing, Including Discretionary Aspects of Qualified Allocation Plans and Other Programs Siting selection policies, practices, and decisions for public supported housing, including discretionary aspects of Qualified Allocation Plans and other programs may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues. The main policy-driven factor related to the siting of publicly supported housing is the heavy focus of affordable housing development efforts throughout the state on transit-oriented development. Access to transportation is very uneven throughout the county, and disproportionately White areas, which tend to have more proficient schools and better environmental health, tend to have limited access to transportation. When real affordability is built into transit-oriented development, these investments may have a positive effect on stable integration in areas undergoing gentrification by arresting the process of displacement.Additionally,transit expansion to higher opportunity areas may also help ensure that prioritizing transit-oriented development contributes to integration. The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee's Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) incentivizes family-occupancy Low Income Housing Tax Credit(LIHTC) development in what it terms "High Resource" or "Highest Resource" areas. As the map below illustrates, these areas are generally high opportunity areas that are disproportionately white. LIHTC development in these areas would contribute to greater residential racial integration. Developers have reported that the incentives to build affordable housing in these areas may not be sufficient to overcome differences in land costs between higher opportunity areas and historically disinvested areas. Nonetheless, in light of the incentives for LIHTC development in High Resource and Highest Resource areas, the QAP does not currently contribute to segregation. Other policy interventions, such as the donation of public land and land held by charitable organizations, are necessary to ensure the efficacy of existing incentives. As an additional note, the QAP includes a set-aside pool for Orange County of 7.3%, which is slightly less than its share in the population of the state (8.1%). 44 Mary K.Cunningham et al.,Moving to Better Neighborhoods with Mobility Counseling,URBAN INSTITUTE(Mar. 2005),https://www.urban.org/sites/default/tiles/publication/5 1506/3 1 1 1 46-Moving-to-Better-Neighborhoods-with- Mobility-Counsel in y.PDF. 334 769 } Select Regions or Resource Categones T..upa vanay �Reg ons iHGtE W00� RNERSIDE 88„reap .- OQWNEY MORENO_11E Nevrnwiw �Y^`"P°a _ RUsa NeaS {r' NYYRl1raLN �, Cemaeon av ` Ca✓ita3 Requ)n ..E GORdNA Cetera;V2NeY Reg,an g.A'Mrt ' `r.n6 Em+ire Region '" TIXlowNCE Cae.an wt<reee Vz I ANANE,tr Los An -R�H �e egiDn >n QIL Ceara Coal;Regwr,Orange GOJrtit ReWr Tip'Vou Can nice tracts rese%your v,e,: LONG BEACH yw„m;,nYn .L vrr.a San O.go Reg�m or searcn'of an aOCress or iongauoe!a:cuae ..+ SANTA ANA_ ;oc oma?es using the bu'Iw:s ax,.el !H.WA Resource aY IT f HV RMDurCe H G N H I fF <anao..rat. Men e M Berate Res— .� + WaEvron /Loa Ra— I• S Hph Segregdr,Dr.S Povetl} t I MURRIETA LepanE High Segregate m&Poverty Low Resource Moverate Resource sAN c�L vl•.r E Hgh Resc use Highest Resource 2017 Drag TGCMGD Opportunity Maps frreno Missing:InSUT-C.'u Data .o Iearn more about nits tool.including the rneln000"please isit \ Nabomt&State?ark,'F'ores ReC Area Caftl a H r 4p:1'L,n I 9 Herne Pagg __._.,_:.-e__.... Lea1n G.^.per SDacrtsaa:ian:C9 NparlP DY aN CYMrnafae HoyuS Taft Fore Y4 up0aleE Y3dOf9 Source of Income Discrimination Source of income discrimination may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. In October of 2019, Governor Newsom signed into law SB 329, which prohibits discrimination in housing based on use of a Housing Choice Voucher or other tenant-based rental assistance. Previously, no protections for voucher holders had existed in Orange County. News reports have indicated a high degree of difficulty in accessing housing that would accept a subsidy in Orange County.41 Specifically, if a voucher holder does not access housing within a four month window,they lose their voucher to the next person on the waiting list. Within the Orange County Housing Authority as well as the Garden Grove Housing Authority, the rate of voucher loss was 22% in 2016. In Anaheim,the rate of voucher loss was 33%, and in Santa Ana it was a whopping 64%. Additionally, the vacancy rate in Orange County is only about 4%, with rent rising at a rate of about 3% a year; even without source of income discrimination, it is nevertheless a difficult market in which to use a voucher.As the source of income discrimination law has just been passed, it is difficult to say whether (now) illegal discrimination will continue in Orange County. A comprehensive landlord education campaign could help avert this, as well as comprehensive voucher counseling to help voucher holders navigate this difficult market. State of Local Laws, Policies, or Practices That Discourage Individuals with Disabilities from Living in Apartments, Family Homes, Supportive Housing, and Other Integrated Settings State or local laws, policies, or practices that discourage individuals with disabilities from living in apartments,family homes,supportive housing, and other integrated settings are not a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. A severe shortage of available, integrated affordable housing is the primary driver of the segregation of persons with disabilities, rather than laws, policies, or practices that discourage persons with disabilities from living in integrated housing. This Analysis discusses restrictions on group homes and community residences in connection with the occupancy codes and restrictions contributing factor. "Jeff Collins,No Voucher,No Vacancy,No Help: The Cruel Realities of Section 8 Housing in Orange County, O.C.REGISTER(Oct. 5,2016),hgps://www.ocregister.com/2016/10/05hio-voucher-no-vacancy-no-help-the-cruel- realities-of-section-8realities-of-section-8-housing-in-orange-count/-in-orange-count/. 335 770 Unresolved Violations of Fair Housing or Civil Rights Law Unresolved violations of fair housing or civil rights law are not a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Although concerning, the only unresolved violations or substantial allegations uncovered through this Analysis related to subject matter that is not closely related to fair housing issues. 336 771 VIII. PUBLICLY SUPPORTED HOUSING APPENDIX Table 1: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics and Surrounding Census Tract Demographics, Oran a Count Househol ds with children in the develop Low Income Proper Propert Propert ment OR Census Units vs. Property ty y y Develop Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Progra Project Units in White Black Hispan Asian ment Tract White Black Hispani Asian .Povert m Type Name Project (%) %) is % (%) Type Number 1 % % c(%) (%) y Rate Project -Based Laurel Section Park 8 Manor 70 22% N/a 4% 74% N/a 1101.13 49.1% 2.5% 18.7% 22.1% 5.6% Project -Based Section Villa La 8 Jolla 1 55 36% 2% 1 36% 26% 45% 0117.20 4.5% 2% 89.2% 1 3.2% 29.1% Project -Based Section Vista 8 Aliso 70 88% N/a 6% 4% N/a 0626.32 81.6% 0.2% 8.9% 3.9% 4.1% Proj ect -Based Section Rancho 8 Moulton 1 51 27% 8% 45% 20% 34% 0626.25 52.4% 0% 34% 11.1% 17.9% Proj ect -Based Section Rancho 8 Niguel 51 14% 4% 58% 1 18% 26% 0626.25 52.4% 0% 34% 11.1% 17.9% Proj ect -Based Section Cypress 8 Sunrise 74 30% N/a 4% 66% N/a 1101.04 36.7% 2% 1 20% 38% 8.5% Project -Based Section Imperial 8 Villas 58 61% 6% 24% 9% 30% 0117.17 54.3% 1.6% 20.4% 20.1% 3.5% Other Multifa Hagan mily Place 24 92% N/a 8% N/a N/a 626.05 84.2% 1.8% 8.7% 4.8% 10.6% Other Stanton Multifa Accessib mily le 9 N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a 878.01 25.3% 1.8% 1 45.4% 24.9% 1 11.7% Stonegat Large LII-ITC e II 25 26 1 0.00% 6.52% 21.74% 0.00% Family 878.05 16.1% 4.0% 55.7% 22.9% 16.2% Birch Hills - Apartme Large LIHTC nts 114 115 22.82% 5.63% 62.82% 13.80% Family 218.14 47.7% 1.2% 24.3% 22.3% 4.4% Bonterra Apartme nts Large LIHTC Homes 93 94 26.13% 5.23% 40.07% 6.97% Family 218.15 42.7% 3.0% 17.9% 31.8% 2.6% Imperial Park Apartme Non LIHTC nts 91 92 10.95% 1.09% 31.75% 0.36% Targeted 15.03 48.5% 0.8% 35.8% 11.4% 15.4% Vintage Canyon Sr. Apartme LIHTC nts 104 105 64.41% 3.39% 16.95% 17.80% Senior 15.06 48.3% 1 0.0% 23.6% 1 25.5% 12.2% 337 772 Walnut Village Apartme Large LIHTC nts 46 46 6.76% 2.03% 33.78% 0.00% Famil 15.03 48.5% 0.8% 35.8% 11.4% 15.4% Tara Village Apartme Large LIHTC nts 1 168 170 1 12.85% 4.80% 8.05% 1 73.53% Family 1101.04 36.7% 2.0% 20.0% 38.8% 1 8.5% Glenney re Apartme LIHTC nts 26 27 84.62% 3.85% 11.54% 7.69% SRO 626.05 84.2% 1.8% 8.7% 4.9% 10.6% Jackson Aisle Apartme Special LIHTC nts 29 30 76.67% 10.0% 16.67% 6.67% Needs 997.02 21.2% 0.9% 23.8% 51.1% 21.2% Park Stanton Seniors LIHTC A is 1 335 335 31.19% 5.31% 9.29% 13.50% Senior 881.01 27.8% 5.7% 43.1% 20.7% 10.9% Plaza Large LIHTC Court 102 103 4.64% 0.55% 67.49% 1.09% Family 879.01 16.3% 1.5% 41.4% 39.6% 21.7% Continen tal Gardens Apartme Non LIHTC nts 297 297 0.00% 0.00% 2.37% 32.69% Tar eted 878.03 7.9% 0.8% 65.3% 23.0% 33.3% Oakcrest Heights (Savi Ranch Large LIHTC II) 53 54 Family 219.24 45.2% 1 4.3% 22.4% 23.1% 5.8% Oakcrest Large LIHTC Terrace 68 69 60.61% 3.03% 51.52% 2.02% Famil 219.24 45.2% 4.3% 22.4% 23.1% 5.8% Parkwoo d Apartme LIHTC nts 100 101 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% Senior 218.09 68.8% 1.0% 1 15.0% 9.1% 2.9% Villa Large LIHTC Plumosa 1 75 76 55.10% 0.00% 58.50% 0.68% Family 218.02 60.8% 0.3% 28.0% 8.1% 9.5% Vintage at Stoneha ven Apartme LIHTC nts 124 125 57.24% 1.97% 9.21% 7.89% Seniors 218.25 65.1% 0.3% 1 16.2% 16.3% 4.2% Yorba Linda Palms Apartme Large LIHTC nts 43 44 31.58% 9.21% 33.55% 1 5.92% Family 218.02 60.8% 0.3% 28.0% 8.1% 9.5% Sendero LIHTC Bluffs 106 107 58.91% 1.55% 14.73% 6.20% Seniors 320.56 61.8% 1.4% 17.8% 12.6% 4.2% Esencia Norte Apartme Large LIHTC nts 111 112 50.82% 6.01% 1 53.28% 4.10% Family 320.56 61.8% 1 1.4% 1 17.8% 1 12.6% 4.2% 338 773 Table 2: Aliso Vie' Househo Ids with children in the Cens develop us Low Income Prope Propert ment OR Tract Tract Units vs. Property rty y Propert Develop Census Tract Tract Hispa Tract Pover Progra Project Units in White Black Hispani y Asian ment Tract White Black nic Asian ty m Type Name Project (%) (%) c(% (%) Type Number % % (%) (% Rate Woodpa rk Apartme nts Large LIHTC 128 128 75.39% 6.94% 28.71% 4.73% Family 626.39 62.9% 4.3% 11.7% 14.4% 4.0% Table 3: Anaheim Househo Ids with children in the develop Low Income Propert Propert ment OR Census Units vs. y Propert y Propert Develop Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Program Project Units in White y Black Hispani y Asian ment Tract White Black Hispan Asian Povert Type Name Project (%) % c % (%) Type Number % (%) ic(%) (%) y Rate Project- Based Village Section Center 8 A is 100 11% N/a 8% 81% N/a 0873.00 16.2% 0.8% 69.1% 11.7% 19.7% Proj ect- Based Westche Section ster 8 Housing 64 16% 25% 48% 11% 49% 0869.01 17.3% 6.1% 50.4% 24.6% 26.4% Proj ect- Based Anaheim Section Memoria 8 1 Manor 75 19% 1% 5% 73% N/a 0873.00 16.2% 0.8% 69.1% 11.7% 19.7% Proj ect- Based Carbon Section Creek 8 Shores 40 66% 11% 24% N/a 14% 864.07 18.9% 1.3% 63.7% 9.8% 15.7% Anton Monaco Apartme Non- LIHTC nts 229 232 26.39% 9.99% 50.21% 9.13% 1 Targeted 871.02 16.8% 4.3% 62.1% 13.6% 17.9% Arbor View Apartme Large LIHTC nts 45 46 56.07% 4.62% 65.32% 2.89% Family 870.02 24.9% 3.0% 48.9% 21.5% 1 13.5% Avenida Special LIHTC Villas 28 29 41.67% 19.44% 13.89% 11.11% Needs 877.01 19.8% 1.4% 57.4% 18.3% 12.4% Avon Dakota Large LIHTC Phase I 1 15 16 28.33% 3.33% 90.00% 1 0.00% Family 874.04 4.1% 1 1.0% 91.5% 3.5% 24.9% Belage Manor Apartme LIHTC nts 177 180 32.88% 7.66% 23.87% 22.97% Senior 871.05 25.8% 0.5% 40.8% 24.7% 21.7% Broadwa Large LIHTC y Village 45 46 79.40% 1 0.00% 95.98% 0.00% Family 863.01 17.2% 1.2% 1 69.7% 11.2% 15.7% Calendul Large LIHTC a Court 31 32 24.04% 16.35% 36.54% 11.54% Family 870.02 24.9% 3.0% 48.9% 21.5% 13.5% Califomi LIHTC a Villas 33 34 31.11% 2.22% 26.67% 35.56% Senior 870.02 24.9% 3.0% 48.9% 21.5% 13.5% Casa Special LIHTC Alegre 22 23 41.38% 10.34% 31.03% 10.34% Needs 870.01 1 17.8% 1 9.5% 51.9% 18.7% 18.8% 339 774 Cerritos Avenue Apartme Large LIHTC nts 59 60 16.48% 6.25% 13.07% 2.84% Famil 877.03 22.3% 1.9% 40.9% 29.7% 16.9% Comerst Large LIHTC one 48 49 2.41% 1.20% 9.64% 0.00% Famil 877.01 19.8% 1.4% 57.4% 18.3% 12.4% Diamond Aisle Apartme Special LIHTC nts 1 24 25 1 54.84% 12.90% 19.35% 6.45% Needs 872 1 22.6% 4.4% 61.7% 9.6% 15.9% Elm Street Common Large LIHTC s 51 52 68.69% 4.55% 77.78% 1 2.02% Family 873 16.2% 0.8% 69.1% 11.8% 19.7% Greenlea f Apartme Large LIHTC nts 19 20 55.56% 11.11% 55.56% 4.76% Family 867.02 13.6% 2.5% 68.5% 11.9% 23.1% Hermosa Village aka Jeffrey- Lynne Perimete Large LIHTC rRe 111 118 18.40% 5.10% 72.28% 3.55% Famil 875.05 15.9% 1.1% 63.8% 15.2% 24.3% Jeffrey Lynne Neighbo rhood Revitaliz ation Large LIHTC Phase IV 36 36 22.96% 8.89% 86.67% 1.48% Family 875.05 15.9% 1.1% 63.8% 15.2% 24.3% Jeffrey- Lynne Apartme nts Large LIHTC Phase 1 192 200 9.51% 7.61% 74.46% 2.58% Family 875.05 15.9% 1.1% 63.8% 15.2% 24.3% Jeffrey- Lynne Neighbo rhood Revitaliz ation Large UHTC Phase 3 76 85 11.90% 13.49% 64.29% 10.71% Family 875.05 15.9% 1.1% 63.8% 15.2% 24.3% Jeffrey- Lynne Neighbo rhood Revitaliz ation Large LIHTC PhaseIl 99 100 20.67% 3.35% 73.46% 6.15% Family 875.05 15.9% 1.1% 63.8% 15.2% 24.3% Linbrook LIHTC Court 80 81 17.39% 0.00% 0.00% 78.26% Senior 871.01 25.4% 1 5.3% 40.1% 26.1% 11.0% Lincoln Anaheim Large UHTC Phase 1 71 72 31.29% 4.68% 35.97% 9.71% Family 873 16.2% 0.8% 69.1% 11.8% 19.7% Lincoln Anaheim Large LIHTC Phase Il 73 74 1 41.44% 4.79% 59.93% 6.51% Family 873 16.2% 0.8% 69.1% 11.8% 19.7% Magnoli LIHTC a Acres 40 40 90.00% 0.00% 10.00% 10.00% Senior 870.01 17.8% 9.5% 51.9% 18.7% 18.8% Monarch Pointe Apartme nt Large LIHTC Homes 62 63 62.76% 7.14% 72.96% 5.10% Family 867.02 13.6% 2.5% 68.5% 11.9% 23.1% Palm Non- LIHTC West 57 58 22.82% 7.38% 33.56% 14.09% Targeted 1102.02 28.5% 3.8% 37.6% 26.0% 24.2% 340 775 Apartme nts Park Vista Apartme Non- LIHTC nts 390 392 2.95% 1.82% 63.14% 1.13% Tar eted 866.01 6.8% 3.4% 82.5% 5.8% 26.0% Paseo Village Family Apartme Large LIHTC nts 174 174 2.82% 7.13% 82.92% 2.82% Family 866.01 6.8% 3.4% 82.5% 5.8% 26.0% Pebble Non- LIHTC Cove 110 111 31.58% 6.58% 37.28% 14.91% Tar eted 878.06 18.7% 2.0% 56.6% 17.5% 17.2% Renaissa ance Park Apartme nts aka Montere Non- LIHTC y Apts. 124 126 8.27% 8.27% 24.41% 3.94% Tar eted 869.01 17.3% 6.1% 50.4% 24.6% 26.4% Rockwo od Apartme LIHTC nts 1 1 51.43% 9.80% 54.29% 4.49% Solara LIHTC Court 131 132 14.86% 0.57% 11.43% 1 76.00% Senior 1102.01 26.7% 4.1% 27.3% 38.3% 17.3% South Street Anaheim Housing Partners Large LIHTC LP 91 92 30.47% 5.26% 40.72% 14.68% Family 874.01 20.5% 1.1% 53.7% 21.6% 1 8.7% Stonegat Large LIHTC e 37 38 9.87% 4.61% 9.87% 1.32% 1 Family 878.06 18.7% 2.0% 56.6% 17.5% 17.2% The Crossing s at Cherry Large LIHTC Orchard 44 44 4.46% 0.00% 8.28% 1.27% Famil 1102.01 26.7% 4.1% 27.3% 38.3% 17.3% The Vineyard Townho LIHTC mes 50.00% 14.29% 85.71% 0.00% 873.00 16.2% 0.8% 69.1% 11.7% 19.7% Tyrol Plaza Senior Apartme LIHTC nts 59 60 1 71.62% 6.76% 27.03% 13.51% Senior 863.01 17.2% 1.2% 69.7% 11.2% 15.7% Villa LIHTC Anaheim 134 135 26.44% 0.57% 18.97% 37.36% Senior 1102.01 26.7% 4.1% 27.3% 38.3% 17.3% Table 4: Buena Park Househo Ids with children in the develop Low Income Propert ment OR Census Units vs. Property Propert y Propert Develop Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Progra Project Units in White y Black Hispani y Asian ment Tract White Black Hispani Asian Povert m Type Name Project % %) c % (%) Type Number % % c(%) (% Rate Project -Based Section Newport 8 House 10 73% 7% 13% 7% N/a 1103.03 36.1% 0.8% 40.2% 18.2% 5.2% Casa Project Santa -Based Maria 100 6% N/a 3% 91% N/a 1105.00 15.2% 5.9% 54.9% 20.7% 25.5% 341 776 Section 8 City Yard Workfor ce LIHTC Housing 8.05% 15.44% 24.16% 35.57% Dorado Senior Apartme LIHTC nts 32.65% 2.04% 15.31% 53.06% 868.03 25.2% 1.3% 44.9% 26.0% 17.6% Emerald Gardens Apartme LIHTC nts 18.21% 10.49% 42.28% 7.10% 1102.01 26.7% 4.1% 27.3% 38.3% 17.3% Harmony Park Apartme LIHTC nts 12.00% 4.00% 6.67% 61.33% 1105.00 15.2% 5.9% 54.9% 20.7% 25.5% Park Landing Apartme LIHTC nts 1 42.33% 18.60% 40.93% 22.33% 868.01 29.3% 3.7% 40.7% 25.0% 5.3% Walden Glen Apartme Non- LIHTC nts 185 186 14.81% 8.83% ar 22.22% 9.12% t eted 1105 15.2% 5.9% 54.9% 20.7% 25.5% Table 5: Costa Mesa Househo Ids with children in the develop Low Income Prope Propert ment OR Census Units vs. Property rty y Propert Develop Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Progra Project Units in White Black Hispani y Asian ment Tract White Black Hispan Asian Poverty m Type Name Project (%) (%) c(%) (%) Type Number % (%) is(%) (%) Rate Proj ect -Based Section Casa 8 Bella 74 68% 1% 17% 14% N/a 0637.02 35.1% 0.7% 56.5% 4.7% 17% Proj ect -Based Section St.Johns 8 Manor 36 77% N/a 9% 14% N/a 0632.02 35.1% 0.7% 56.5% 4.7% 17% Tower LIHTC on 19th 266 1 269 52.73% 2.12% 10.30% 17.58% Seniors 637.01 17.4% 0.8% 78.4% 2.5% 31.7% Table 6: Fountain Valle Househo Ids with children in the develop Low Income Propert ment OR Census Units vs. Propert Propert y Propert Develop Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Progra Project Units in y White y Black Hispani y Asian ment Tract White Black Hispani Asian Povert m Type Name Project % % c % % Type Number % %) c(%) (% Rate Project- Our Based Lady of Section Guadalu 8 pe 71 15% N/a 1% 84% N/a 0992.33 51.4% 0% 10.7% 37.1% 4.4% Fountain Valley LIHTC I Senior 1 154 156 1 49.00% 0.50% 12.00% 46.00% Senior 992.50 39.5% 1 1.2% 1 28.5% 28.6% 1 16.6% 342 777 The Jasmine Table 7: Fullerton Househo Ids with children in the develop Censu Low Income Propert ment OR s Units vs. Property Propert y Propert Develop Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Progra Project Units in White y Black Hispan yAsian ment Tract White Black Hispani Asian Povert m Type e Name Project (%) %) is(%) % Type Number % (%) c y Rate Proj ect -Based Amerige Section Villa 8 A is 101 9% N/a I% 90% N/a 0112.00 50.6% 1.4% 34.4% 9.8% 15.8% Other Casa Multifa Maria mily Del Rio 24 73% N/a 23% 4% N/a 0115.02 30% 1.8% 46.1% 19% 16.7% Other Harbor Multifa View mily Terrace 24 71% 1 13% 8% 1 8% 4% 0017.06 1 50.1% 0.2% 10.1% 34.8% 8.9% Courtyar d Apartme Large LIHTC nts 108 108 64.43% 3.08% 60.78% 26.89% Family 112 50.6% 1.4% 34.4% 9.8% 15.8% East Fullerton Large LIHTC Villas 26 27 10.64% 1 2.13% 82.98% 1 6.38% Family 115.02 30% 1 1.8% 46.1% 19% 16.7% Fullerton City Lights Resident LIHTC ial Hotel 134 137 63.19% 9.03% 13.89% 4.17% SRO 113 58.7% 4.3% 19.3% 11.1% 12.0% Fullerton Family 15.65 Large LIHTC Housing 54 55 30.61% % 60.54% 12.93% Family 113 1 58.7% 4.3% 19.3% 11.1% 12.0% Fullerton Special LIHTC Heights 35 36 43.18% 9.09% 39.77% 12.50% Needs 1162 Garnet Lane Apartme Large LIHTC nts 17 18 2.60% 1 0.00% 61.04% 0.00% Family 117.11 30.6% 3.6% 43.7% 20.2% 11.7% Klimpel LIHTC Manor 58 59 48.00% 2.00% 22.00% 32.00% Senior 113 1 58.7% 4.3% 19.3% 11.1% 12.0% North Hills Apartme Non- LIHTC nts 203 204 54.76% 1.57% 67.91% 0.60% Targeted 16.01 44.8% 2.3% 1 23.3% 26.6% 1 9.2% Palm Garden Apartme Non- LIHTC nts 223 224 0.28% 0.00% 20.51% 0.14% Targeted 116.01 9.4% 5.3% 75.1% 9.5% 30.1% V entana Senior Apartme LIHTC nts 18.25% 4.76% 4.76% 29.37% Senior 343 778 Table 8: Garden Grove Househo Ids with children in the develop Low Income Propert ment OR Census Units vs. Property Propert y Propert Develop Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Progra Project Units in White y Black Hispani y Asian ment Tract White Black Hispani Asian Poverty m Type Name Project (% (%) c %) (%) Type Number % (%) c(%) Rate Project Donald -Based Jordan Section Senior 8 Manor 65 8% 2% 2% 89% N/a 0886.02 19.7% 1.1% 35.6% 39.1% 12.4% Project -Based Acacia Section Villa 8 A is 160 4% 1% 1% 94% N/a 0886.01 18.7% 1.4% 30.2% 1 47.8% 12.5% Briar Crest+ Rosecres t Apartme Large LIHTC nts 1 40 41 53.78% 0.00% 1 89.92% 0.84% 1 Family 885.01 14.6% 0.8% 54.4% 28.8% 16.6% Garden Grove Senior Apartme LIHTC nts 84 85 13.79% 0.86% 6.90% 74.14% Senior 885.02 12.0% 0.7% 1 47.0% 36.8% 21.1% Grove Park Apartme LIHTC nts 103 104 3.30% 6.60% 33.02% 55.66% At-Risk 891.04 2.2% 0.2% 79.8% 17.5% 22.7% Malabar Apartme Large LIHTC nts 125 125 12.90% 2.30% 26.04% 3.00% Family 882.03 25.3% 0.6% 30.4% 37.2% 18.6% Stuart Drive Apts. Rose Garden Non- LIHTC A ts. 239 239 2.16% 0.00% 16.19% 39.41% Targeted 885.01 14.6% 0.8% 54.4% 28.8% 16.6% Sungrov e Sr. LIHTC A is 1 80 82 33.00% 4.00% 13.00% 42.00% Senior 885.02 12.0% 0.7% 1 47.0% 1 36.8% 21.1% Table 9: Huntington Beach Househ olds with childre n in the develo pment Low Income Propert OR Census Units vs. Property Propert y Propert Develo Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Progra Project Units in White y Black Hispani y Asian pment Tract White Black Hispani Asian Povert m Type Name Project % %) c(%) (%) Type Number % (%) c(%) (%) y Rate Project- Based Huntingt Section on 8 Gardens 185 60% 2% 5% 33% N/a 0994.13 64.3% 0.2% 17.5% 16.5% 1 12.9% Project- Based Huntingt Section on Villa 8 Yorba 192 20% 1% 17% 63% 12 o 0992.41 43.9% 3% 21% 27.1% 9.5% Beachvie LIHTC w Villa 106 T107 39.05% 5.71% 18.10% 3.81% SRO 992.35 66.7% 1 2.2% 20.5% 8.5% 12.4% 344 779 Bowen LIHTC Court 20 20 60.87% 0.00% 17.39% 26.09% Senior 993.05 57.1% 0.7% 30.1% 5.4% 7.3% Emerald Cove Senior Apartme LIHTC nts 162 164 20.71% 1.78% 0.59% 0.00% Senior 994.13 64.3% 0.2% 17.5% 16.5% 12.9% Hermosa Vista Non Apartme Targete LIHTC nts 1 87 88 1 50.71% 1.90% 62.56% 7.58% d 996.05 57.6% 0.0% 20.7% 1 16.7% 5.2% Oceana Apartme Large LIHTC nts 77 78 52.63% 14.04% 39.04% 1.32% Family 994.13 64.3% 0.2% 17.5% 16.5% 12.9% Pacific Court Apartme Large LIHTC nts 47 48 88.96% 0.00% 48.05% 0.65% Family 993.05 57.1% 0.7% 30.1% 5.4% 7.3% Pacific Sun Apartme Special LIHTC nts 6 6 34.78% 0.00% 13.04% 0.00% Needs 994.02 20.0% 0.4% 68.3% 6.6% 35.4% Quo Vadis Non Apartme Targete LIHTC nts 102 104 69.01% 2.92% 19.88% 8.77% d 994.13 64.3% 1 0.2 1 17.5% 16.5% 12.9% Table 10: Irvine Househo Ids with children in the develop Low Income Prope Propert ment OR Census Units vs. Property rty y Propert Develop Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Progra Project Units in White Black Hispani y Asian ment Tract White Black Hispani Asian Poverty m Type Name Project %) (%) c(%) % Type Number % % c(%) % Rate Project Woodbri -Based dge Section Manor I, 8 Ii&Iii 165 64% N/a 1% 34% N/a 0525.11 54.7% 1.9% 6.4% 30.3% 6.2% Project Access -Based Irvine, Section Inc.(aka 8 S loft) 1 39 64% 8% 5% 23% N/a 0626.11 35.3% 6.8% 9.9% 43.9% 34.7% Project -Based The Section Parkland 8 s 120 41% 4% 8% 1 48% 25% 0525.25 31.3% 1.9% 9.6% 49.9% 9.7% Proj ect -Based Section Windwo 8 od Knoll 60 49% 10% 11% 30% 14% 1 0525.27 37.1% 5.6% 7.5% 42.1% 8.5% Project -Based Woodbri Section dge 8 Oaks 120 68% 1% 6% 25% 21% 0525.14 50.9% 0.2% 13.8% 31.7% 8.9% Project -Based Woodbri Section dge 8 Villas 60 73% 5% 3% 17% 18% 1 0525.19 51.4% 2.5% 5.8% 33.4% 10.8% Project -Based Orchard Section Park 8 A is 59 58% 1 5% 1 10% 1 27% 27% 0525.17 44.2% 1 5.6% 1 4.5% 42.2% 9.2% Project Harvard -Based Manor 100 60% 2% 9% 29% 17% 0626.27 33.4% 1.9% 1 13.1% 47.9% 38.3% 345 780 Section 8 Project Sutton -Based Irvine Section Residenc 8 es 9 100% N/a 0% N/a N/a 525.26 38.8% 0.9% 16.4% 37.5% 5.8% Other Villa Multifa Hermosa mil -Irvine 24 50% 25% 4% 21% 4% 0525.27 37.1% 5.6% 7.5% 42.1% 8.5% Anesi Apartme nts(aka Alegre Large LIHTC A ts) 102 104 21.52% 7.62% 21.19% 1 36.42% Family 525.18 61.0% 1.8% 1 6.6% 26.8% 11.3% Anton Portola Apartme Non- LIHTC nts 253 256 9.04% 1.69% 3.95% 3.58% Targeted 524.04 30.2% 2.9% 29.7% 37.3% 0.0% Cadence Family Irvine Housing (aka Luminar Large LIHTC a) 81 82 36.06% 3.35% 14.50% 7.43% Family 524.04 30.2% 2.9% 29.7% 37.3% 0.0% D1 Senior Irvine Housing (aka LIHTC Luxaira) 156 156 18.66% 0.48% 4.31% 15.31% Seniors 524.04 30.2% 2.9% 1 29.7% 37.3% 0.0% Parc Derian Apartme 10.73 Large LIHTC nts 79 80 67.38% % 31.76% 10.30% Family 755.15 27.4% 1.1% 36.0% 31.7% 19.4% Doria Apartme nt Homes Large 45.10 0.50 LIHTC Phase I 59 60 1 18.31% 3.52% 12.68% 23.94% Family 524.26 % % 9.50% 39.70% 1 6.1% Doria Apartme nts Homes Large LIHTC Phase II 74 74 21.84% 1.72% 1 9.77% 15.52% Family 755.05 41.5% 2.8% 1 38.8% 12.5% 8.3% Granite Non LIHTC Court 71 71 45.36% 1.64% 20.22% 9.29% Targeted 755.15 27.4% 1.1% 36.0% 31.7% 19.4% Irvine LIHTC Inn 192 192 19.05% 2.65% 2.65% 4.76% SRO 755.15 27.4% 1.1% 36.0% 31.7% 19.4% Laguna Canyon Apartme Large LIHTC nts 1 120 120 47.57% 0.00% 30.10% 4.85% Family 525.18 61.0% 1.8% 6.6% 26.8% 11.3% Montecit o Vista Apartme nt Large LIHTC Homes 161 162 9.24% 8.84% 14.86% 17.27% Family 525.25 31.3% 1.9% 9.6% 50.6% 9.7% Paramou nt Family Irvine Housing Partners LP (aka Large LIHTC Es airy) 83 84 21.82% 4.89% 15.31% 5.21% Family 524.04 30.2% 2.9% r±9�.57/. 9.7% 37.3% 0.0% Pavilion LIHTC Park 219 221 19.54% 0.99% 1.99% 15.56% Seniors 524.26 45.1% 0.5% 1 39.7% 6.1% 346 781 Senior I Housing Partners LP (aka Solaira) San Paulo Apartme Non LIHTC nts 153 382 37.31% 2.09% 11.94% 5.67% Targeted 525.21 38.3% 3.6% 1 20.1% 33.8% 15.6% Santa Alicia Apartme Large LIHTC nts 84 84 31.82% 0.00% 10.00% 18.18% Family 525.15 36.9% 0.3% 9.0% 46.7% 12.7% The Arbor at Woodbu Large LIHTC ry 90 90 2.12% 6.36% 8.05% 24.15% Family 524.18 32.6% 3.0% 6.5% 53.8% 1 14.0% The Inn At Woodbri LIHTC d e 1 120 120 1 64.05% 1.31% 7.84% 15.03% Senior 525.21 38.3% 3.6% 20.1% 33.8% 15.6% Windro w Apartme Large LIHTC nts 96 96 21.80% 1 4.51% 1 18.80% 16.54% Family 524.17 37.0% 1.2% 7.5% 49.9% 1 9.8% Woodbu Large L1HTCry Walk 150 150 49.01% E;;Lz8%_ 17.88% Family 524.18 32.6% 3.0% 6.5% 53.8% 14.0% Table 11: La Habra Househol ds with children Prope in the Low Income Prope rty developm Census Units vs. rty Hispa Propert ent OR Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Progra Project Units in Property Black nic y Asian Developm Tract White Black Hispan Asian Poverty m Tye Name Project White(%) (%) (%) (%) ent Type Number % (%) is(%) (%) Rate Project- Las Based Lomas Section Garden 8 s 93 44% 1% 44% 11% 47% 0013.03 24.3% 1.4% 59.1% 13.6% 9.2% Proj ect- Based Casa El Section Centro 8 Apts. 55 11% N/a 21% 68% N/a 0012.02 12.7% 0.2% 1 85.1% 1.8% 1 15.1% Table 12: La Palma Househo Ids with children in the develop Censu Low Income Propert Propert ment OR s Units vs. y Propert y Propert Develop Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Progra Project Units in White y Black Hispani y Asian ment Tract White Black Hispani Asian Povert m Type Name Project (%) (%) c(%) (%) Type Number % % c(%) (%) y Rate Camden Place Apartme LIHTC nts 35 35 9.30% 9.30% 9.30% 65.12% Senior 1101.16 24.5% 5.6% 17.6% 47.0% 8.4% Casa La Palma Apartme Non LIHTC I nts 269 269 15.93% 3.53% 17.29% 1 48.46% 1 Targeted 1 1101.16 24.5% 1 5.6% 1 17.6% 1 47.0% 8.4% Table 13: Lake Forest 347 782 Househ olds with childre n in the develop ment Low Income Proper Propert OR Censu Units vs. Property ty y Propert Develo Census Tract Tract Tract Tract s Tract Progra Project Units in White Black Hispani y Asian pment Tract White Black Hispani Asian Povert m Type Name Project (%) (%) c(% %) Type Number % (%) c(%) (%) y Rate Baker Ranch Affordab le(aka Arroyo at Baker Large 524.22 13.7 LIHTC Ranch) 1 187 1 189 1 7.45% 1 7.45% 36.86% 5.49% Family 55.5% 1 2% 20.2% % 7% Table 14: Laguna Niguel Househ olds with childre n in the Property develop White ment Low Income (%) Propert OR Census Units vs. Propert y Propert Develo Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Program Project Units in y Black Hispani y Asian pment Tract White Black Hispani Asian Poverty Type Name Project (%) c %) (% Type Number % (% c N %) Rate Project -Based Section Village 13.7 8 La Paz 100 84% 2% 7% 7% 11% 0423.34 55.5% 2% 20.2% % 7% Project Alicia -Based Park Section Apartme 8 nts 56 75% 4% 13% 8% 17% 0423.26 62% 1 4.7% 19.1% 8% 8.6% Table 15: Mission Viejo Househ olds with childre n in the develo pment Low Income Propert Propert OR Census Units vs. Property y y Property Develo Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Progra Project Units in White Black Hispani Asian pment Tract White Black Hispan Asian Poverty m Type Name Project (%) (% c N % Type Number % (%) is(%) (%) Rate Arroyo Vista Apartme Large LIHTC nts 155 155 64.75% 1.36% 37.97% 15.93% Family 320.22 38.9% 1.4% 47.2% 8.3% 7.5% Heritage Villas Non Senior Targete LIHTC Housing 141 143 6.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% d 320.13 1 74.5% 4.3% 10.0% 3.3% 1 4.8% 348 783 Table 16: Newport Beach Househo Ids with children in the develop Low Income Propert Propert ment OR Census Units vs. y Propert y Propert'' Develop Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Progra Project Units in White y Black Hispani y Asian ment Tract White Black Hispani Asian Poverty m Type Name Project (%) (% c(% (%) Type Number % (%) c(%) %) Rate Proj ect -Based Seaview Section Lutheran 8 Plaza 100 86% N/a 4% 10% N/a 0626.44 84.4% 0% 6% 8.9% 9.2% Bayview LIHTC Landing 119 120 79.43% 1.42% 6.38% 5.67% Senior 630.04 82.3% 2.9% 7.4% 6.6% 1 4.8% Lange Drive Large LIHTC Family 74 74 50.81% 1.61% 1 55.24% 1.61% Family 740.03 20.7% 1.6% 64.9% 11.3% 12.2% Newport Veterans Non- Housing 12 12 0.00% 15.38% 7.69% 0.00% Targeted 636.03 75.8% 0.3% 15.7% 1 4.7% 6.1% Table 17: Orange (City) Househo Ids with children in the develop Low Income Propert Prope ment OR Census Units vs. Property Propert y rty Develop Census Tract Tract Tract Tract 'Tract Program Project Units in White y Black Hispani Asian ment Tract White Black Hispani Asian Povert Type Name Project %) (%) c %) (%) Type Number % (%) c(%) % Rate Proj ect- Based Triangl Section e 8 Terrace 75 57% 3% 24% 15% N/a 0759.02 56.3% 1% 37.3% 3.7% 18.3% Project- Based Section Casa 8 Ramon 75 19% N/a 77% 3% 37% 0759.01 51.9% 1.4% 41.9% 2.8% 24.1% Proj ect- Based Section Casas 8 Del Rio 39 89% N/a 8% N/a N/a 758.06 46.6% 0.4% 47.6% 3.8% 15.7% Proj ect- Based Friendl Section y 8 Center 8 N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a 759.01 51.9% 1.4% 41.9% 2.8% 24.1% Buena Vista Apartm Large LIHTC ents 17 17 66.18% 0.00% 64.71% 1.47% Family 762.02 52.7% 1.0% 38.3% 7.1% 1 7.4% Chestnu t Place (Fairwa y Manor 24.62 Large LIHTC LP) 49 50 46.15% 1.54% 15.38% % Family 758.06 46.6% 0.4% 47.6% 3.8% 15.7% Citrus Grove Apartm Large LIHTC en 56 57 85.65% 3.59% 81.17% 0.00% Famil 762.04 11.6% 1.3% 79.6% 5.7% 23.1% Commu nity Garden LIHTC Towers 332 333 2.44% 0.00% 0.44% 4.44% Senior 1 761.02 1 28.7% 7.0% 47.1% 16.1% 1 19.4% 349 784 Harmon y Creek Apartm LIHTC ents 83 83 39.13% 1.09% 13.04% 9.78% Senior 758.06 46.6% 0.4% 47.6% 3.8% 15.7% Orange vale Apartm Non LIHTC ents 64 64 9.76% 1.63% 82.52% 1 2.44% Targeted 762.05 52.0% 0.7% 32.5% 11.0% 1 14.0% Serrano Large LIHTC Woods 62 63 1 83.81% 2.02% 85.02% 0.00% Family 758.11 35.2% 0.2% 53.7% 9.6% 1 18.1% Stonega to Senior Apartm LIHTC ents, 19 20 62.50% 4.17% 37.50% 0.00% Senior 758.16 34.7% 1.7% 47.1% 11.0% 17.2% The Knolls Apartm ents aka Villa Santiag Non LIHTC o 260 260 33.80% 2.66% 71.18% 5.90 o Tar eted 758.16 34.7% 1.7% 47.1% 11.0% 17.2% Walnut- Large LIHTC Pixley 22 22 88.89% 1.85% 72.22% 1.85% Family 760 33.1% 2.5% 49.9% 12.9% 15.1% Table 18: San Clemente Househo Ids with children in the develop Low Income Prope Propert ment OR Tract Tract Census Units vs. Property rty y Propert Develop Census Tract Tract Hispa Asia Tract Progra Project Units in White Black Hispani y Asian ment Tract White Black nic n Poverty m Type Name Project (%) % c(%) (%) Type Number % %) (%) (%) Rate Project -Based Section Casa De 8 Seniors 72 78% N/a 15% 7% N/a 0421.13 82.8% 0.4% 15.2% 1% 9.4% Cottons Point Senior Apartme LIHTC nts 75.82% 0.00% 7.69% 7.69% Las Palmas Village (aka Avenida Large LIHTC Serra) 18 19 30.77% 0.00% 1 42.31% 3.85% Family 421.08 69.9% 1 0.0% 26.3% 1.4% 12.1% Talega Jambore e Apartme nts Large LIHTC Phase I 123 124 48.60% 1.40% 64.02% 1.87% Family 320.23 75.5% 0.7% 11.4% 6.3% 2.2% Talega Jambore e Apt Ph.II Mendoci no at Large LIHTC Talega 11 61 62 52.25% 2.25% 51.35% 2.70% Family 320.23 75.5% 0.7% 11.4% 6.3% 2.2% The Presidio (formerl y known LIHTC as 71 72 76.74% 0.00% 1 16.28% 10.47% Seniors 1 421.13 82.8% 0.4% 15.2% 1% 9.4% 350 785 Wycliffe Casa de S Vintage LIHTC Shores 120 122 91.24% 1.46% 8.76% 2.19% Senior 422.06 79.5% 2.8% 14.3% 1.9% 4.2% Table 19: San Juan Ca istrano Househo Ids with children in the Censu develop s Low Income Propert ment OR Census Tract Units vs. Property Property y Propert Develop Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Pover Progra Project Units in White Black Hispani y Asian ment Numbe White Black Hispani Asian ty m Type Name Project (%) %) c(%) Type r % (%) c(%) (%) Rate Seasons Senior Apartme nts at San Juan Capistra LIHTC no 112 112 78.99% 1.45% 10.87% 2.17% Senior 423.12 25.2% 0.0% 68.0% 3.0% 19.4% Villa Paloma Senior Apartme LIHTC nts 66 84 85.14% 0.00% 16.2r27Senior 423.12 25.2% 0.0% 68.0 03.0% 19.4% SeasonsIISeniorApmeLIHTC nts 37 38 83.33% 2.38% 7.14Senior 423.12 25.2% 0.0% 68.0% 3.0% 19.4% Table 20: Santa Ana Househ olds with childre n in the develop ment Low Income Propert OR Censu Units vs. Property Propert y Propert Develo Census Tract Tract Tract Tract s Tract Progra Project Units in White y Black Hispani y Asian pment Tract White Black Hispani Asian Povert m Type Name Project (%) (%) c(%) (%) Type Number 1 % (%) c(%) (%) y Rate Project -Based Section Flower 8 Terrace 140 7% 1% 13% 78% N/a 0751.00 17.3% 1.2% 77% 3.7% 23.8% Project -Based Flower Section Park 8 Plaza 199 3% 1% 14% 59% N/a 0749.01 0.9% 0% 94.7% 4.3% 25.8% Proj ect -Based Highland Section Manor 8 Apts. 12 18% N/a 82% N/a 36% 749.02 2.9% 0.1% 95.8% 1.3% 26.9% Project -Based Section Rosswoo 8 d Villa 198 3% 1% 33% 62% N/a 0750.02 6% 0.3% 86.5% 5.8% 37.8% Project -Based Santa Section Ana 8 Towers 198 1 4% 2% 24% 69% 1 N/a 0750.02 1 6% 0.3% 86.5% 5.80/( 37.8% Project Sullivan -Based Manor 54 33% N/a 52% 15% 49% 0748.02 1 1.6% 0.5% 88.1% 9.3% 351 786 Section 8 Andaluci a Apartme nts(aka 815 N. Large LIHTC Harbor) 1 56 70 70.00% 2.35% 1 85.00% 2.65% Family 891.05 1.7% 0.0% 89.1% 9.2% 27.0% City Gardens Non Apartme Targete LIFITC nts 274 274 7.24% 0.30% 84.77% 1.36% d 753.01 21.1% 1.5% 66.6% 9.5% 16.6% Depot at Santiago Apartme Large LIHTC nts 69 70 89.80% 0.78% 91.37% 1.57% Family 744.05 5.3% 1.3% 89.8% 2.8% 1 20.8% Guest Special LIHTC House 71 72 1.22% 1 10.98% 30.49% 1 1.22% Needs 749.01 0.9% 0.0% 1 94.7% 4.3% 25.8% Heninger Village Apartme LIHTC nts 57 58 17.33% 5.33% 45.33% 37.33% Senior 750.02 6.0% 0.3% 86.5% 5.9% 37.8% La Gema Del 100.00 Large 1.60 11.30 LIHTC Barrio 6 6 0.00% 0.00% % 0.00% Famil 740.03 20.70% % 64.90% % 12.2% Lacy& Raitt Apartme Large LIHTC nts 34 35 86.32% 0.85% 88.03% 0.00% Famil 748.06 1.4% 1.3% 93.0% 4.3% 30.8% Raitt Street Apartme 100.00 Large LIHTC nts 6 6 0.00% 0.00% % 0.00% Family 748.02 1.6% 0.5% 88.1% 9.5% 25.5% Ross-Du rant Apartme Large LIHTC nts 48 49 78.95% 0.00% 88.89% 0.00% Family 750.03 2.5% 0.1% 94.8% 1.6% 1 32.3% Santa Ana Large LIHTC Infill 50 51 94.00% 0.00% 95.60% 3.20% Famil 750.02 6.0% 0.3% 86.5% 5.9% 37.8% Santa Ana Station District Large LIHTC Phase I 73 74 10.09% 1.26% 95.58% 0.32% Family 744.05 5.3% 1.3% 89.8% 2.8% 20.8% Santa Ana Station District Large LIHTC Phase II 39 40 16.46% 1.27% 89.24% 1 0.00% Family 744.05 5.3% 1.3% 1 89.8% 2.8% 20.8% Vista Del Rio Apartme Special LIHTC nts 40 41 78.33% 11.67% 41.67% 1.67% Needs 1 891.07 8.9% 0.0% 55.4% 35.2% 8.3% Wakeha m Grant Non Apartme Targete LIHTC nts 126 127 8.83% 1.42% 84.33% 5.98% d 745.01 1.0% 0.9% 1 91.2% 6.6% 39.8% Wilshire Minnie Apartme Large LIHTC nts 143 144 97.57% 0.00% 97.76% 1.12% Family 744.03 1 3.6% 0.0% 93.9% 2.5% 1 28.8% 352 787 Table 21: Tustin Househ olds with children in the develop Censu ment s Low Income Propert OR Tract Units vs. Property Propert y Propert Develo Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Pover Progra Project Units in White y Black Hispani y Asian pment Tract White Black Hispan Asian ty m Type Name Project (%) (%) c(%) (%) Type Number % (%) is(%) (%) Rate Project- Tustin Based Garde Section 8 ns 100 29% N/a 12% 59% N/a 755.05 41.5% 2.8% 38.8% 9.2% 8.3% Anton Legac y Non- Apart Targete LIHTC ments 161 225 37.90% 7.83% 33.10% 16.90% d 755.15 27.4% 1.1% 36.0% 31.7% 19.4% Coven try LIHTC Court 97 240 40.47% 5.06% 8.56% 26.85% Senior 755.07 31.1% 3.8% 45.0% 16.7% 13.2% Hampt on Squar e Non- Apart Targete LIHTC ments 212 350 12.16% 1.54% 78.08% 1.03% d 744.07 10.8% 1.3% 84.1% 2.0% 22.9% Herita ge Place At LIHTC Tustin 53 54 38.81% 2.99% 13.43% 25.37% Senior 755.15 27.4% 1.1% 36.0% 31.7% 19.4% West c Non Targete hester LIHTC Park 149 150 13.12% 3.38% 75.35% 7.16% d 755.13 14.4% 3.6% 57.9% 20.5% 9.8% Table 22: Westminster Househ olds with childre n in the develo Censu pment s Low Income Propert OR Tract Units vs. Property Propert y Propert Develo Census Tract Tract Tract Tract Pover Progra Project Units in White y Black Hispani y Asian pment Tract White Black Hispan Asian ty m Type Name Project (%) (%) c(%) (%) Type Number % % is(%) (%) Rate Project -Based Pacific Section Terrace 8 A is 97 3% N/a 1% 96% N/a 0997.02 21.2% 0.9% 23.8% 1 51.1% 21.2% Cambrid ge Heights Senior Apartme LIHTC nts 21 22 33.33% 0.00% 3.70% 1 55.56% Senior 998.02 14.5% 1.0% 32.1% 49.7% 30.3% Coventr y LIHTC Heights 75 76 9.90% 0.00% 3.96% 67.33% Senior 998.02 14.5% 1.0% 32.1% 49.7% 30.3% Royale Apartme Large LIHTC nts 35 36 18.05% 5.26% 49.62% 12.03% Family 998.01 14.5% 1 0.6% 40.4% 44.2% 1 26.7% 353 788 The Rose Large LIHTC Gardens 132 133 9.15% 0.61% 3.05% 84.76% Famil 998.03 17.5% 0.0% 24.4% 54.3% 23.0% Westmin ster Senior Apartme LIHTC nts 91 91 9.38% 0.00% 4.69% 81.25% Senior 998.02 14.5% 1.0% 32.1% 49.7% 30.3% Windsor Court- Stratford Large LIHTC Place 85 86 20.30% 5.08% 19.80% 55.84% Family 998.03 17.5% 0.0% 24.4% 54.3% 23.0% 354 789 IX. GLOSSARY Accessibility: whether a physical structure, object, or technology is able to be used by people with disabilities such as mobility issues, hearing impairment, or vision impairment. Accessibility features include wheelchair ramps, audible crosswalk signals, and TTY numbers. See: TTY Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH): a requirement under the Fair Housing Act that local governments take steps to further fair housing, especially in places that have been historically segregated. See: Segregation American Community Survey (ACS): a survey conducted by the US Census Bureau that regularly gathers information about demographics, education, income, language proficiency, disability, employment, and housing. Unlike the Census, ACS surveys are conducted both yearly and across multiple years. The surveys study samples of the population,rather than counting every person in the U.S. like the Census. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA): federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. Annual Action Plan: an annual plan used by local jurisdictions that receive money from HUD to plan how they will spend the funds to address fair housing and community development. The Annual Action Plan carries out the larger Consolidated Plan. See also: Consolidated Plan CDBG: Community Development Block Grant.Money that local governments receive from HUD to spend of housing and community improvement Census Tract: small subdivisions of cities, towns, and rural areas that the Census uses to group residents together and accurately evaluate the demographics of a community. Several census tracts, put together, make up a town, city, or rural area. Consent Decree: a settlement agreement that resolves a dispute between two parties without admitting guilt or liability. The court maintains supervision over the implementation of the consent decree, including any payments or actions taken as required by the consent decree. Consolidated Plan (Con Plan): a plan that helps local governments evaluate their affordable housing and community development needs and market conditions. Local governments must use their Consolidated Plan to identify how they will spend money from HUD to address fair housing and community development. Any local government that receives money from HUD in the form of CDBG, HOME, ESG, or HOPWA grants must have a Consolidated Plan. Consolidated Plans are carried out through annual Action Plans. See: Action Plan, CDBG, HOME, ESG, HOPWA. Consortium: in this analysis, the terms "the Consortium"and"the Taunton Consortium"are used interchangeably. The Consortium refers to the cities of Taunton and Attleboro, and the towns of Berkley, Carver, Dighton, Freetown, Lakeville, Mansfield, Middleboro,North Attleboro, Norton, Plainville, Raynham, and Seekonk. 355 790 Continuum of Care (CoQ: a HUD program designed to promote commitment to the goal of ending homelessness.The program provides funding to nonprofits and state and local governments to quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families, promote access to and effect utilization of mainstream programs by homeless individuals, and optimize self-sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Data and Mapping Tool (AFFHT): an online HUD resource that combines Census data and American Community Surveys data to generate maps and tables evaluating the demographics of an area for a variety of categories, including race, national origin, disability, Limited English Proficiency, housing problems, environmental health, and school proficiency, etc. De Facto Segregation: segregation that is not created by the law, but which forms a pattern as a result of various outside factors, including former laws. De Jure Segregation: segregation that is created and enforced by the law. Segregation is currently illegal. Density Bonus: an incentive for developers that allows developers to increase the maximum number of units allowed at a building site in exchange for either affordable housing funds or making a certain percentage of the units affordable. Disparate Impact: practices in housing that negatively affect one group of people with a protected characteristic (such as race, sex, or disability, etc.) more than other people without that characteristic, even though the rules applied by landlords do not single out that group. Dissimilarity Index: measures the percentage of a certain group's population that would have to move to a different census tract in order to be evenly distributed with a city or metropolitan area in relation to another group. The higher the Dissimilarity Index,the higher the level of segregation. For example, if a city's Black/White Dissimilarity Index was 65, then 65% of Black residents would need to move to another neighborhood in order for Blacks and Whites to be evenly distributed across all neighborhoods in the city. ESG: Emergency Solutions Grant. Funding provided by HUD to 1) engage homeless individuals and families living on the street, 2) improve the number and quality of emergency shelters for homeless individuals and families, 3) help operate these shelters, 4) provide essential services to shelter residents, 5) rapidly re-house homeless individuals and families, and 6) prevent families/individuals from becoming homeless Entitlement Jurisdiction: a local government that receives funds from HUD to be spent on housing and community development. See also: HUD Grantee Environmental Health Index: a HUD calculation based on potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. This includes air quality carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological hazards. The higher the number, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. 356 791 Environmental Justice: the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, especially minorities, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. In the past, environmental hazards have been concentrated near segregated neighborhoods, making minorities more likely to experience negative health effects. Recognizing this history and working to make changes in future environmental planning are important pieces of environmental justice. Exclusionary Zoning: the use of zoning ordinances to prevent certain land uses, especially the building of large and affordable apartment buildings for low-income people. A city with exclusionary zoning might only allow single-family homes to be built in the city, excluding people who cannot afford to buy a house. Exposure Index: a measurement of how much the typical person of a specific race is exposed to people of other races. A higher number means that the average person of that race lives in a census tract with a higher percentage of people from another group. Fair Housing Act: a federal civil rights law that prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race, class, sex, religion, national origin, or familial status. See also: Housing Discrimination. Federal Uniform Accessibility Standards (UFAS): a guide to uniform standards for design, construction, and alternation of buildings so that physically handicapped people will be able to access and use such buildings. Gentrification: the process of renovating or improving a house or neighborhood to make it more attractive to middle-class residents. Gentrification often causes the cost of living in the neighborhood to rise, pushing out lower-income residents and attracting middle-class residents. Often, these effects which are driven by housing costs have a corresponding change in the racial demographics of an area. High Opportunity Areas/Low Opportunity Areas: High Opportunity Areas are communities with low poverty, high access to jobs, and low concentrations of existing affordable housing. Often, local governments try to build new affordable housing options in High Opportunity Areas so that the residents will have access to better resources, and in an effort to desegregate a community, as minorities are often concentrated in low opportunity areas and in existing affordable housing sites. HOME: HOME Investment Partnership. HOME provides grants to States and localities that communities use (often in partnership with nonprofits)to fund activities such as building,buying, and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or ownership, or providing direct rental assistance to low-income people. Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)/Section 8 Voucher: a HUD voucher issued to a low-income household that promises to pay a certain amount of the household's rent. Prices are set based on the rent in the metropolitan area, and voucher households must pay any difference between the rent and the voucher amount. Voucher holders are often the subject of source of income discrimination. See also: Source of Income Discrimination. 357 792 Housing Discrimination: the refusal to rent to or inform a potential tenant about the availability of housing. Housing discrimination also applies to buying a home or getting a loan to buy a home. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to discriminate against a potential tenant/buyer/lendee based on that person's race, class, sex, religion, national origin, or familial status. HUD Grantee: a jurisdiction (city, country, consortium, state, etc.) that receives money from HUD. See also: Entitlement Jurisdiction Inclusionary Zoning: a zoning ordinance that requires that a certain percentage of any newly built housing must be affordable to people with low and moderate incomes. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): a federal civil rights law that ensures students with a disability are provided with Free Appropriate Public Education that is tailored to their individual needs. Integration: the process of reversing trends of racial or other segregation in housing patterns. Often, segregation patterns continue even though enforced segregation is now illegal, and integration may require affirmative steps to encourage people to move out of their historic neighborhoods and mix with other groups in the community. Isolation Index: a measurement of how much the typical person of a specific race is only exposed to people of the same race. For example, an 80% isolation index value for White people would mean that the population of people the typical White person is exposed to is 80% White. Jobs Proximity Index: a HUD calculation based on distances to all job locations, distance from any single job location, size of employment at that location, and labor supply to that location. The higher the number, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. Labor Market Engagement Index: a HUD calculation based on level of employment,labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the number, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in the neighborhood. Limited English Proficiency (LEP): residents who do not speak English as a first language, and who speak English less than "very well" Local Data: any data used in this analysis that is not provided by HUD through the Data and Mapping Tool (AFFHT), or through the Census or American Community Survey Low Income Housing Tax Credit(LIHTC): provides tax incentives to encourage individual and corporate investors to invest in the development,acquisition,and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. Low Poverty Index: a HUD calculation using both family poverty rates and public assistance receipt in the form of cash-welfare (such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)). 358 793 This is calculated at the Census Tract level. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in the neighborhood. Low Transportation Cost Index: a HUD calculation that estimates transportation costs for a family of 3, with a single parent, with an income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region. The higher the number, the lower the cost of transportation in the neighborhood. Market Rate Housing: housing that is not restricted by affordable housing laws. A market rate unit can be rented for any price that the market can support. NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard. A social and political movement that opposes housing or commercial development in local communities NIMBY complaints often involve affordable housing,with reasons ranging from traffic concerns to small town quality to,in some cases,thinly- veiled racism. Poverty Line: the minimum level of yearly income needed to allow a household to afford the necessities of life such as housing, clothing, and food. The poverty line is defined on a national basis. The US poverty line for a family of 4 with 2 children under 18 is $22,162. Project-Based Section 8: a government-funded program that provides rental housing to low- income households in privately owned and managed rental units. The funding is specific to the building. If you move out of the building, you will no longer receive the funding. Publicly Supported Housing: housing assisted with funding through federal, State, or local agencies or programs, as well as housing that is financed or administered by or through any such agencies or programs. Quintile: twenty percent of a population; one-fifth of a population divided into five equal groups Reasonable Accommodation: a change to rules, policies, practices, or services which would allow a handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their housing, including in public and common use areas. It is a violation of the Fair Housing Act to refuse to make a reasonable accommodation when such accommodation is necessary for the handicapped person to have equal use and enjoyment of the housing. R/ECAPs: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty. This is a HUD-defined term indicating a census tract that has more than 50% Non-White residents, and 40% or more of the population is in poverty OR where the poverty rate is greater than three times the average poverty rate in the area. In the HUD Data and Mapping Tool (AFFHT), RECAPS are outlined in pink. See also: Census Tract Region: the Taunton Consortium is located within the HUD-designated Taunton Consortium Custom Region, which covers Bristol, Plymouth, and Norfolk Counties. However, the individual CDBG jurisdictions of Attleboro and Taunton are actually part of the Providence-Warwick, RI- MA Region. Both Regions are used in this analysis,but are always clearly delineated by name and with maps. 359 794 Rehabilitation Act (Section 504): a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs conducted by federal agencies, in programs receiving federal financial assistance, in federal employment and in the employment practices of federal contractors. School Proficiency Index: a HUD calculation based on performance of 41h grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the number,the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. Segregation: the illegal separation of racial or other groups in the location of housing and neighborhoods. Segregation can occur within a city or town, or in comparing multiple cities. Even though segregation is now illegal, often,housing continues to be segregated because of factors that make certain neighborhoods more attractive and expensive than others, and therefore more accessible to affluent White residents. See also: Integration. Source of Income Discrimination: housing discrimination based on whether a potential tenant plans to use a Housing Choice Voucher/Section 8 Voucher to pay part of their rent. Source of income discrimination is illegal under Massachusetts state law. See also: Housing Choice Voucher/Section 8 Voucher. Superfund Sites: any land in the U.S. that has been contaminated by hazardous waste and identified by the EPA as a candidate for cleanup because it poses a risk to human health and/or the environment Supplemental Security Income (SSI): benefits paid to disabled adults and children who have limited income and resources, or to people 65 and older without disabilities who meet the financial limits. Testers: people who apply for housing to determine whether the landlord is illegally discriminating. For example, Black and White testers will both apply for housing with the same landlord, and if they are treated differently or given different information about available housing, their experiences are compared to show evidence of discrimination. Transit Trips Index: a HUD calculation that estimates transit trips taken for a family of 3, with a single parent, with an income of 50% of the median income for renters for the region. The higher the number, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. TTY/TDD: Text Telephone/Telecommunication Device for the Deaf. TTY is the more widely used term. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can use a text telephone to communicate with other people who have a TTY number and device. TTY services are an important resource for government offices to have so that deaf or hard of hearing people can easily communicate with them. Violence Against Women Act(VAWA): a federal law protecting women who have experienced domestic and/or sexual violence. The law establishes several programs and services including a federal rape shield law, community violence prevention programs,protections for victims who are 360 795 evicted because of events related to domestic violence or stalking, funding for victim assistance services, like rape crisis centers and hotlines, programs to meet the needs of immigrant women and women of different races or ethnicities, programs and services for victims with disabilities, and legal aid for survivors of domestic violence. 361 796 Ern o,i ( : SXaS�� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FY 2020/21 —2024/25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN FY 2020/21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FY 2020/21-2024/25 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN FY 2020/21-2024/25 ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE (AI) FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAMS This combined notice commences a 30-day public review period during which interested persons are encouraged to review and comment on the City of Huntington Beach's (City) FY 2020/21- 2024/25 Consolidated Plan, FY 2020/21 Annual Action Plan, FY 2020/21-2024/25 Citizen Participation Plan, and the FY 2020/21-2024/25 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), and serves to notify all parties that the City Council will hold a public hearing at 6 PM at the Council Chambers at City Hall, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 on Monday, July 6,2020, after which Council will adopt the four Plans. Consolidated Plan The Consolidated Plan functions as a strategic plan prepared through a comprehensive planning process that incorporates local needs, priorities, specific objectives and strategies. Along with the Five-Year Consolidated Plan, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires an Annual Action Plan outlining the City's uses of the federal grant funds for one year. HUD allocates federal grants including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME) funds to eligible jurisdictions on a formula basis. For the 5-year Consolidated Plan period, Huntington Beach's estimated budget is $7.8 million in CDBG funds and $6.2 million in unallocated HOME funds, a total of approximately $14 million. The City's Consolidated Plan has identified the following priorities as having the greatest need in the community: • Sustain and strengthen neighborhoods • Preserve existing and create new affordable housing • Support efforts to address homelessness • Support agencies that assist special needs populations • Increase access to community services to low- and moderate-income persons • Preserve existing and create new public facilities • Provide needed infrastructure improvements • Planning for housing and community development Annual Action Plan Each year,the City prepares an Annual Action Plan in connection with the Five-Year Consolidated Plan which details how the City will spend HUD federal funds, specifically CDBG and HOME. The Annual Action Plan has two principal purposes: 1) The Annual Action Plan identifies the projects and programs to be undertaken during the upcoming fiscal year, and the proposed objectives and outcomes to be achieved within the overall context of the Five-Year Consolidated Plan; and 2) The Annual Action Plan acts as the City's application process for federal formula grants, principally comprised of as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs. For FY 2020/21 specifically, Huntington Beach's estimated budget is $2,020,717 million in CDBG and $3,454,800 million in estimated HOME funds (inclusive of program income and unallocated carryover). Funds are designed to assist the City in providing decent and affordable housing; provide community and supportive services; improve public facilities and infrastructure;and expand economic opportunities and anti- poverty activities for primarily low-and-moderate income persons. The City is proposing to allocate CDBG and HOME funds in the FY 2020/21 Annual Action Plan as follows: City of Huntington Beach—Owner-Occupied Residential Rehab Grant Program $100,000 City of Huntington Beach—Owner-Occupied Residential Rehab Loan Program $90,000 City of Huntington Beach—Housing Rehab Loan/Grant Administration $65,000 City of Huntington Beach— Special Code Enforcement $240,000 City of Huntington Beach—Homeless Outreach Program $85,000 StandUP for Kids OC— Street Outreach Program $15,000 Robyne's Nest—Housing for Homeless High School Students $10,000 City of Huntington Beach— Senior Services Care Management $44,000 City of Huntington Beach—Oak View Family Literacy Program $10,000 City of Huntington Beach—Children's Bureau $80,000 City of Huntington Beach—CDBG Program Administration $257,445 Fair Housing Foundation—Fair Housing Program $30,000 Central Library Lower Level Restrooms ADA Improvements $286,000 ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3 $393,732 Unallocated Funds for Back-Up Projects $314,540 Cameron Lane Navigation Center Facility Improvements Total CDBG Projects $2,020,717 City of Huntington Beach—Affordable Housing Program $2,399,881 Tenant Based Rental Assistance $900,000 City of Huntington Beach—HOME Program Administration $154,919 Total HOME Projects $3,454,800 The City is certifying that at least 70 percent of all Fiscal 2020/21 CDBG funds will be used for activities that principally benefit persons of low- and moderate-income. Records are available regarding the past use of CDBG and HOME funds. Citizen Participation Plan The regulations implementing the Consolidated Plan submission requires the City of Huntington Beach to adopt a Citizen Participation Plan for the consolidated planning,application and reporting processes. Part of the Consolidated Plan process entails the grantee to certify that it is in full compliance and is following a detailed Citizen Participation Plan consistent with the requirements of 24 CFR 91.105. The City's Citizen Participation Plan is designed to ensure equitable representation of all segments of the population and to aid communication between the City and its residents on matters pertaining to the use of all federal funding from HUD. The Citizen Participation Plan sets forth policies and procedures to encourage citizen involvement regarding the use of federal funds, notably Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds. The intent of the Citizen Participation Plan is to encourage those least likely to participate in the process, especially low-income persons living in distressed neighborhoods, in public and assisted housing developments,and in areas where CDBG funds are proposed to be used. This document outlines basic tenets of the citizen participation regulations and will remain in effect throughout the implementation of the City's entitlement awards during the Consolidated Plan period of FY 2020/21 —2024/25. The City will also adopt a policy to minimize the effect of displacement as a result of CDBG and HOME funded projects. To the greatest extent feasible,CDBG and HOME projects are developed in a manner whereby displacement is avoided completely or accomplished with minimal effect on persons. In the event displacement occurs,the assistance provided shall include,but not be limited to, relocation payments, assistance in locating replacement housing and related advisory services. The City's Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan are included in the FY 2020/21-2024/25 Citizen Participation Plan. FY 2020/21-2024/25 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) Since 1968, the Fair Housing Act has required that federal agencies and federal grantees affirmatively further fair housing. Accordingly, jurisdictions that receive funds from federal sources, such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD), are required to, every five years,prepare an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Al) and an action plan to address those impediments that are within their ability to control or influence. In Orange County, cities have taken a collaborative approach to identifying and addressing impediments by agreeing to review these issues on a regional basis. For the current Al, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (consultant) has performed extensive outreach into the community, reviewed and analyzed local data and reports and worked with the cities to ensure the appropriate breadth and scope of work. In the Al Report, 45 factors were determined to contribute to fair housing issues across Orange County. The AI also includes the following cross jurisdictional goals: 1. Increase the supply of affordable housing in high opportunity areas (areas which offer a stronger infrastructure for education, transportation, environmental health and economic opportunity). 2. Prevent displacement of low- and moderate-income residents with protected characteristics, including Hispanic residents, Vietnamese residents, seniors and people with disabilities. 3. Increase community integration for persons with disabilities. 4. Ensure equal access to housing for persons with protected characteristics, who are disproportionately likely to be lower-income and to experience homelessness. 5. Expand access to opportunity for protected classes. Opportunity for Public Review and Comment During the National Emergency Concerning COVID-19 The Huntington Beach City Council formally declared a Local Emergency in Huntington Beach on March 16, 2020 to further bolster the City's ability to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, and based on that directive,the City has closed City Hall,all City buildings and facilities to the public. However, in an effort to meet citizen participation requirements at 24 CFR 91.105, from June 5, 2020 through July 6,2020,the Draft 2020/21-2024/25 Consolidated Plan,the Draft FY 2020/21 Annual Action Plan, the Draft FY 2020/21-2024/25 Citizen Participation Plan, and the Draft FY 2020/21-2024/25 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and detailed public announcement for the use of funds will be available for public review at the City's website at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/govermuent/det)artments/ed/cdbg/ and copies of the aforementioned documents will be available to be reviewed at the Huntington Beach Office of Business Development, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 by appointment only. The Draft Plans will also be made available to the public for review either electronically or by U.S. mail. Please submit your request to Robert Ramirez, Economic Development Project Manager at (714) 375-5186 or via email at Robert.Ramirez(a),surfcity-hb.org . Special accommodations for disabilities and/or language barriers are available upon request, including translation services in Spanish, as required by the City's Citizen Participation Plan. Specific requests must be directed by U.S. mail to the Office of Business Development at 2000 Main Street, 5t' Floor, Huntington Beach, CA 92648, by phone to Robert Ramirez, Economic Development Project Manager at(714)375-5186,or via email at Robert.Ramirez(a surfcity-hb org at least one week prior to the July 6, 2020 public hearing date. The City will attempt further to provide written material in Spanish upon request. Adequate and accessible parking will be provided for all public meetings to facilitate the attendance of disabled residents. Following adoption, the FY 2020/21-2024/25 Consolidated Plan, the FY 2020/21 Annual Action Plan, the FY 2020/21-2024/25 Citizen Participation Plan, and the FY 2020/21-2024/25 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Al)will be submitted to HUD and will remain available for public review throughout the program year. Publication date: Huntington Beach Wave, June 5, 2020 12t EGUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY Moore, Tania From: Christine Gonzalez <cgonzales@scng.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 12:00 PM To: Moore, Tania Subject: Re: FW: PH Notice for June 5, 2020 Attachments: Scan202O-07-07_114514.jpg Legal Advertising Chrissy Gonzalez 2190 S. Towne Centre Place, Suite 100 Anaheim, CA 92806 714-796-6736 M-F 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Closed Sat. and Sun. On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:59 AM Christine Gonzalez <cgonzalesAscn com> wrote: Sorry, I picked up the wrong affidavit. Sorry it is janky. This is the best I can do at home. Legal Advertising Chrissy Gonzalez 2190 S. Towne Centre Place, Suite 100 Anaheim, CA 92806 714-796-6736 M-F 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. i I1101"0 11"Ch wave 2190 S.Towne Centre Ptace Suite too Anaheim,CA 92806 714-796-2209 5190751 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CITY OF — CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT 2000 MAIN 5T _ HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-2763 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATIONS-= �= STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SS. County of Orange I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the �"'".,.,,,,�'."�,,,^." �•^ County aforesaid,I am over the age of eighteen years,and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter I am the principal clerk of the Huntington Beach Wave.a —•�ti �� newspaper that has been adjudged to be a newspaper of `""�'�"�+'-`^=•+� general circular—by the Superior Ccun of the County of Orange,State of California,on July 1,1998,Case No. A-185906 in and for the City of Hunhngton Beach,County of Orange,State of California,that the notice,of which the Imo:"�•�"�"��"~•` annexed is a true printed copy,has been published in L•• �'—` ��`"��� �' each regular and entire issue of said news ��• supplement paper and not in any pplement thereof on the lollovring dates,to wit. I certify(or declare)under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true F and correct: o •—��"�"- Executed at Anaheim,Orange County,California,on Data June 04,2020. Signature — .....�...�....�_�.r. 1 rrr.a s Closed Sat. and Sun. On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:56 AM Moore, Tania <Tania.Moore@surfcity-hb.org>wrote: Thank you. O Would it be possible for you to please sign it? Thanks, Tania Moore Deputy City Clerk City Clerk's Office 714-536-5209 tan ia.moore(a),surfcity-hb.orq 2 From: Christine Gonzalez<cgonzales@scng.com> Sent:Tuesday,July 7, 2020 11:48 AM To: Moore,Tania <Tania.Moore@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Re: FW: PH Notice for June 5, 2020 Here you go. Legal Advertising Chrissy Gonzalez 2190 S. Towne Centre Place, Suite 100 Anaheim, CA 92806 714-796-6736 M-F 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Closed Sat. and Sun. On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:14 AM Moore, Tania <Tania.MooreAsurfcity-hb.org>wrote: Hi Chrissy, Sorry to bug you. Have you had a chance to process my affidavit? Thanks, Tania Moore Deputy City Clerk 3 City Clerk's Office 714-536-5209 tania.moore(cD-surfcity-hb.orq From: Christine Gonzalez<cgonzales@scng.com> Sent: Wednesday,June 24, 2020 8:50 AM To: Moore, Tania <Tania.Moore@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Re: FW: PH Notice for June 5, 2020 HI Tania, I have to cut and copy and paste this one due to the drop in box. I will send it this afternoon when I get ink for my printer. Sincerely, Chrissy Gonzalez 2190 S. Towne Centre Place, Suite 100 Anaheim, CA 92806 PH# (714) 796-6736 FAX: (714) 796-4902 M-Fri 8:00 am to 4:30 pm Lunch from 2pm to 3pm cgonzales@scnq.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:43 AM Moore, Tania<Tania.Moore6i4surfcit hb.org> wrote: Hi Chrissy, Do you have the affidavit of posting for this ad? I'm going through the follow up and noticed that we don't have it. Sorry for the delayed request. Thank you, 4 Tania Moore Deputy City Clerk City Clerk's Office 714-536-5209 tania.mooreCaD-surfcity-hb.orQ From: Christine Gonzalez<cgonzales@scng.com> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 8:42 AM To: Moore,Tania <Tania.Moore@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Re: FW: PH Notice for June 5, 2020 Here you go. Cost $1,301.00, pub 6/4 HB Wave Sincerely, Chrissy Gonzalez 2190 S. Towne Centre Place, Suite 100 Anaheim, CA 92806 PH# (714) 796-6736 FAX: (714) 796-4902 M-Fri 8:00 am to 4:30 pm Lunch from 2pm to 3pm cqonzales@scnq.com On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 4:47 PM Moore, Tania<Tania.Moore(&surfcity-hb.org>wrote: I'm so sorry, please publish on June 4, 2020. I apologize I went with the date they requested and didn't look at the calendar. Tania Moore 5 Deputy City Clerk City Clerk's Office 714-536-5209 tania.moore(a)-surfcity-hb.org From: Moore, Tania Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 4:19 PM To: 'Christine Gonzalez' <cgonzales scn com> Cc: Esparza, Patty <PEsparza e surfcity-hb.org> Subject: PH Notice for June 5, 2020 Good Afternoon Chrissy— Please publish the attached Notice of Public Hearing on June 5, 2020. Thank you, Tania Moore Deputy City Clerk City Clerk's Office 714-536-5209 tan ia.moorea-surfcity-hb.orq 6 Nuntington Beach Wave 2190 S. Towne Centre Place Suite 100 �,1,a.^aNla.la.R,Pa . PWLN:NEAEIAL NOTICE Anaheim, CA 92806 AM R E C E I E D "-nmc"°""Tn 714-796-2209 FraNa-aaanrawATaoPur IrEawl AINaiAI ACi1011 Pur Fr 1rMPrla gTlall METMMTIOYPIMI R Awom OFYaW ne 10►Aae00MAND W1 2020 JUL "7 P 12: 26 '°'�`° "`m°"a"'�'T�"a""`�'°"`° rEEla aaaTNa1T Maf1lfMNa iNalo rma.ANa Tr marr.rr aala�a.a amr Pw arl.Plrlr aril Ma rraaa.w y ou..M r I�t ;narrr arrr a rCr/a NPPrEra Eaaat O]ri fl EEM1ir6 oaNwaE Pra FY>Ea»Al CITY CL K �r�.aar�Frf.E.E.Imaw..ElM.r►.►rrFr.,E,.>.Ne+rrrlrrarN.lw'.r 'frr Ilpa.'aR.w UI,U r rrvl►.raNr Ml..nw nr ar Olr rr.u.I rr a rwr a.Nw�.I'MR CITY 01 lr crw cmmum a a WL 20 no bred,Nrl..E.n.oal..r+e a Orr,.s 6,00, rararnorawaaarra.Pa. 5190751 HUNTINGTON E A C f 1 CEIIEEEwa� HUNTINGTON BEACH, CITY OF iq r=�„�;. �,b„�;;,,,,,����,;t CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT '"r'""' °"'""'""""""w.awom`w bps on-cm Ma so jmomraloon"NONEENa AIbr•NPI *SNmomPwCollcmidw"Pr aNwash rAIOrrNRNraaa PEI,rElarNlarYSPwRrrl. 2000 MAIN ST aalraaa.aw.awr •PRaIgaY�wOa4Mr01a1fYaYY/ HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648-2763 a aN1a..ao>saaaalpr rrwsrwwNaaralraa Nrlaw PIIPwarwNwvarrNNacraar PIa.MAawr1.MCl.laarNiaOaa •Pan tNaarawaraaaarMpN IEan aN.r C.T Palar a ANON Aam Pia■-aNlla la aP Fhw-CarPaaaE Pr .nr �4Ni INN r Car w Oaa NUD MOM and,MIrNIM COOL w MIME.Tr AMM Aallw Pr d y PYMtlaa.I.ala:N lr auaa AOYP Plr no mi r INN r w" r a rNala.ry r w yera ilw Pal,w r Iwaa gtlAr w araa,a b raaar rlaa ftarM caaa r w"m ry CrirMa Prl;r»Ta ANw Ao�Pal ar w r Cq9 wFEaaa arms ar.aEra rnrr AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION "' omom 010010 MW"Wa"""° INONEI n ENMI wa fla4.N.NIa/a aril irya bowl&V EE»T.E. d r m4 w tt.aAw.Nar a aanrNa.NOrE a..r(rtaArl r»p row wrEyy area MIN I.F1,aftm lEar rasarCAr■■a1a6 Mar O lo*Aralk/a.lr wlaa•lrw P.NP.arwar arlw Pr[roar r yP.Naa.a:r.O.rNaN.a aENareA w asPwlOf STATE OF CALIFORNIA, '""I`/raTr rONaar�MOM MOM.TYCa'b"a"*4a mEONN WME"a rrFtA a aAaarr..aar: SS. n•��N«IN.. nwsr UMgwAmdNa.M.l.wf,pr� SIUJNI �.:..w.n+'Rw.. Myra W.yy,l Rat a La.Mph ,s<I�eu -#yr,°IINrN ram.. :brly Rrove 4aufeyw�te.+tr..oua. NU.Ma County of Orange rMr'k.. 'u.ra.[x l�w��,is •R.r. `F;aU}�., fn w'Nrdwa M+ ,�INa,Nve.. i/LirP a fEr ......'f+N-dw.'. tl,Mil.yrn AVaa-.iem Wife t4i Ria iw•1"'7Tyr aPllr Ca•RI11b.:f i+�v:iwf Auwf.AW 4r�as.wR.a >iN.a/ I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years,and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I .: _ir am the principal clerk of the Huntington Beach Wave, a TwaN1"Slo„ "ama newspaper that has been adjudged to be a newspaper of Taclrr"WOOa awry...ir~PI NBC"MM moadsm w"asme ON Pwr N".PNlla r rr w IEarlr+na. EaaN y walEa,Rrrr r w w r t0a0 w NOME Anr. general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of P Mlllbf rrcpr.Pr.e..li.r.r.ranrl•arr.a.wa.rr/ Orange, State of California, on July 1, 1998, Case No. °"r�"'""a^"rw'W""'� ra-��FwcrftrP A-185906 in and for the City of Huntington Beach, County �� �r`NOWI. """E.r,1 TItancoa aft"Napinaboa ask- Ir Pr Ia11mrararrN ONomwd U O-N TM 1a-0aa PrrEO.attPrlr scw ra .mo"Merl'a dma raemd lrP.PNaaN br iaarrra.Np rcar I Ir of Orange, State of California; that the notice, of which the "00=wem"`r'ara.r.Nrrl,...,,.,N o,re,,,,` .rri," ;raw r rro.a..Oarra.oNrP rarrNaa l.E■wrN r rr Orr Nr.rwr CarrNMf r annexed is a true printed copy, has been published in ="a=�r ` `I`NOS rarr.warrurP. aaPr,..r rba--1 a.as a.n OPNap.Nr PNa w.Nar 1M co P.A aalE r !aware rrrrarA r IIEa w aaay aNala ar.rPlulR w►Nr rr mac era r n each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in > .Ir TrrrrNay rN raalraaw�lN`wP l�warwwnw awb r EwaEOrlr a rCEP I alwr.la alas alra rf/rIMNE Prl=OFT vw. any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: »" aa'"wr T4a Frrr+r.rra.ral.rrmwrNaaE ad"Pl aa..TrrParrarl.aalA wcr Naa pylateK.aypNP M. 0~MaaP NlPaa.wrIs swim aNwarr r aarlOaEla w Err aa.P a r.p a?*"mamma."son,r ma, Ira woua NO raPr a r r err a nawaw PPINIPak aEwr r Ila1y laPaarrl rti 06/04/2020 �:I r v XW a W rmr"araair AwalMa.ar r ar.ria Arco w i aavaur.PN•IN+.Paa fY Ir.r[raauul ry IPA r For NEa+to No era br Ilrra aErNa No"M aw-NaramMr W-Or aallil AyerMry 010"a r 101"hrr alw ArrNl IO.aA W a r CaaINEr ONOP-M Era four IC'OEEI am No as OPINION N"M"r Urr Dmg& a(NIA».r laaaa K Mary ft.FWA Prwr a AVOW a(EPa rEry I For"fa ,Cara owl w w Mom Pla a aaaw an 'rUaortwaa+aa ra a/whlmaarNaE.oa a OgPCrr.gas We laaoewmowwa �/FPraarr+wMaEa++raE rarrParrrl.aaPwnrsnrrraa:wiaa rr. Fa r aPr AI.r tEN.Na'carPnr r CeE Eyo uarr taN aOaPr.I ti PNINIIaF now*** I certify(or declare)under the penalty of perjury under the ram ON.to r"Or PFNnrwwwararmoo N "> �IraPrlar Nara r/p rwa.1.MOM awl,a Nora NM aarnr r/Nara b aP Ira r �PwaC,sOlaMpar.TrAla.acm.two"UN Hwbmmwsm. laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true 1. r.wr,a.rd"Naa raaa.,.r,M.,,,,a.a,,,,,,a,,n„a, and correct: I Wawa"?aaNtwuFaaewrNawracaaUcgararEF). 1. PLIafYalaCParrrl r.OMariNrM1r.rarFarRa.CNE Ar'tll/I�R IMM"a. =r.a .KVbuma wla►ra+w alMalrNaar Executed at Anaheim, Orange County, California, on Date: June 04, 2020. s OMEN:NNOWmaa ,. aEN1P.1114.W Ia Mla aEC�W rrErarrawwraoyNaOmeaw jib bra WNa aP.Na Nara a Lyl EMMIM a NINIYOO.aaa a Ar IL M U NOW�OI/Ia:a Gr rare!aF�b r IaEP.Ifral.r ao arart r lur aNr aahrEr earl. Nw a 21 CFa M..a ran JNN L ENE 0-0 Or a,M.r era�alMNPa NIaIEEllll Pat r IGaM FY INa4t Aarlr Aor PIMA to am"FY 3aM4Eaia cow PaarrrR POA r y Oran PY 'll�tl rM iVl atiCa ~a aWl NodmwPaw allays lar Nla w alr.of a/awaarl�tlPaw ar w r Parr a r awlr a r NNrom aNa ra a aNrr aar'rw a err Eraw Naoon aaa CA 04 Ir 4mamw 401E To Or Paw war r�Narr r r err.W IPIPP aaN.I.aalEr r r U 1 Ora PYrarNNN FrP'rlrr aEIaNT EPalat urrP O.wawNn Plw.r al.Mr a UNI aaara Oar•�g Signature Flair am/Nnrra•waaElrl aEYr rAaam Irr1n r Marr Ma RA MMOR aaraa Naair a SPaaLL a PIyaP MrCMafA1r O.PrIrrOPll.IaaA iilrao aOw.ra rwroaE w Ui NrbrOwraawawdPayw.r• NaarIAaNar.rNEOPoN"CrrAWMyr Mar awe EaaaN oarayr Pwlla A1EwRa pM aESPEP Owl waa�t E�aela Irlwaar arir rr»aPa s Pwa araaM TraTw NNNPI aNaa a IlEwawiF rNwr a;rEaaNA apt Auer ra.vaw PNW Naa.PlaalPw aPa Mlr wEnF b► rEMraNraNNf Nrr lflwah ialrNaa MEOW of FY SqO 4WAS COMMON Pia,r FY aw Aare Aril am,r FY loo 6 300N FrIA w r Fr INIKF4 0aA ANaIEN.aa ay Y.OaiaNNr a For NyNE Caws(Ailwr rMllwar ON. P 1.P7;151P0 1 PLIIIriaNf laElMMaayarrlla.lEr IIw11Y aCNFESTFRCOAAr.I R7.ASSIFEMI91 a Employment Employment IF YOU'RE Public Notice EmdaYawn, BUYING OR SELLING FIETI q� E EYeMId11• OpmrDuwn AGAR USEuEI ENi NAME FICTITIOfT�TEMENST MANE IN ORANGE COUNTY. 0000 TM mn° ronknanle010:ISF';rel ou ,M,aimwiro P.� .i31,Ll�earel m�lw ."" • CLICK HERE 0000J 1D0 WSJ'AAl AFFILIATE wxoiErsING.S. SO Y "w PA O NMOGMOETHONF nw" "Pao[• �"ae m ooD ii TlxcioN iE��cN.CA neN uTM I.M eu NosLi E y 1II l ❑❑❑ ❑ UlNx1...a1N. ul Sal AR ni.:kansrva"` i`iT=41- III,o�k.OF e..•MR'RY SMITH AUITYu DtaC®O® SANTAANA,CA NIM ...hY•=r' "nu w�nrw'"om m"n":u"er p w�R wal�w.u.wamu[."ierinlroniaVa "mR;.1w "�`mPft DDIKI®IFm M'"o p t n ' m. Too rwHNmtM I, MM e� ®DmD� M1eM1oa H[,:RaNlne•.m �mbu°otxr°iwl[en�jy Ea..'n:n dour p`H` ra�in4 v .7R eu0•anD.. - TM1:A'ZMINE0.5`MRM�TH NEN or,TM1Ax IMM,O N n"nh a: [rka e"o aA na 6M Coon I.r ob= nk an P11M.n Bwcn Won JP".L I° MA Cron vale r Vkw Mal 1, Services Services m CI PUBLIC HEATY OF IRING NOTINOTON CE AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Creswer Clrepm FY N3RNI-M1iSICONSOLI DATED PUN FY FIMI ANNUAL ACTION PUN VVANIED-GAREOIV ERS FY 11201 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PUN FY 113NSI-NIW ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE(III •All the Local Dealer Specials FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ILOCKGMNT(CDBO)AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP(HOME)PROGRAMS •Local Car News and Reviews Thw[orr0iaa natin[ammeMM o30NY public review Period auriM whi[h iveresti NIMNI are en[ou•Ned to •Latest Consumer Reports Reviews and cout-,N,M Uhof HNIiM,on Mach.(Cih M1. )FY 2011yy iea 5 C-11a Porn,FY NMI AO • ^uew d Acron Plan,FY a10R1•Mldi Cltieen P.dici.q.,Pbn.and Me FY NMI.W=-1-d lmpedimenk io OCS Best Interactive Tools H l to Buy and Sall in[eundl CMmO atC,N HMI.M Malnr Strew,HUMuh t bn Bw[n,California l6 n N nxMw1EY,� P July Llial OCREGISTER.COM/CARS aI.,whi,!K-il will adwt lM fw,Fiat.. _ fomoHNtw Pbn OCY FOrmmst Au[DmOtM EEpwrt TM[oIPMail tl P,o Nwitin, as p Ira nd.don wnwEw Along cun.The rF-abnniM arocem tlPI IME •a Neal roe at rousing ,Urtic DDi«lives DM S,riJD) .1.wits aVFive-Ypr.ou"/pktl Pnry•M rallio.'.'Ja u,•H"°yid"vs V.S.DwprM1rm.q H 11iM au vw r tiRenl 1,Ina nmirn an dwf.A,aV Anim Plan IM.I .Bla, Vea of M fe0erol prwt E In N,oun war.HUD dl Alt(OME)Prank 0911:M Commanlh bwf.rni an- G•anr ICDBGI aw HOME IMrIHnFnt ParlmrMim Alt(HOME)Ntlm b 1 iRIdF iEiwiniunq on a.rmula an- Merchandise Notice ForlM Sveo•Camolidned Plm mriw,Hun,iMron Be«nkm,lmwlw bwm,it R.l minim in CDBG lutbs ana M.1 Merchandise maim m.rou«ptw HDME wML a Md ar pMrowimmlw n1 mlluan.TM uhn cmMiwlw Pbn Im im,tuilP M folmwiM mia.irn m MviM M doom need in M commwnih: .smtaband,M^RMn miwnMmmm Mow Em'wmwN FI[TI STATEMENT MANE FACT yf ow"a" NAMESTATEME •P•exrvtrtieliMo urn.-wpffardpdrMmiM IT OfTA�TEM T Tw nbl •S'.awr n.rn NNdnu Moinia,no MrollowiMrcrxml�kslPisMO(1°n:miM TMIOIbgM mnonlsl ialunel miM •ivpmr mmLm ttat0NielFm[iw MwapwvlPlimF TRAINING ANDR1oNSULTATION rTNTR�:fIKIATEs •Increm<N<ex tD<Ommnih xrvicnrobw-ma mweMtrirooM mtxm INGTON BENX CA PM.AFMI •P•mrverkFliMOMcrwh mw Pud.facilitiO FOUNTAIN VNILEY.G TOM Full N.«ReFlaHan lot •ProvideMeatyirrmlrucNnimDlwit- FullMom• �1 A •PMnniM rorromlM aM mmmunih MYelopmeM �ERE`P311 LEE 2RUSERCLE a'VMTNIRNCITTObX Ilwuc�mG 1s.ML, o111 FOUNTAIN VALEEYRCCANURE Th °-Mn�nl Actm Plan w+w 'Tiu rro w"nort M,-E h m rewrm C'r P on Annual A[t'm Plan n ID-1' h M F w-Ywr canal Ntea Planncn N, °1 mac°xar, h Mh`°'1 C II Fmw HUD federal I—Fol lwll,CDBG Mal HOME TM l Acton PI nM two :�E IL Xuu Bem waw II TM A..ACI na law mnl l w Its ar' k Iv0 nn,to N urAeraken°u Its u6 ry��m Cou^tY .mlmw f Iw w ou xpl Ywr,ann Me.roamed olied rn unit°utomm ro M 1huHMI w unto tM overall«tdl II,M F w w, ,Ul Py rp"ae n C its.Pbn;mA 11 TM Ar[wN Ad.Pbn°ch m Me C'h's Pml[m°n M°cess br leaenl I.-ula 11FM P;w1Ny y�jpp""' ....°r iaailY co ando of aF Me C--H,Derebmlent Bbck Gnrt If DBGI aM�3ME Invntmmt r<FICTITIOSTSATEMx NT NAME FICTITIoy,EU.N..MAMEr AParFennim(HOME)Prwnm,.Fan FY NMI FPeciliNI,,HurdiM,on Mtl[h,Fitimowa npdm•I M=719--I rwR m tP E r ATIEy , Win�a CDBG antl D,/SLEW million ir.n-ilmled HOME IOW b, ive N P--in[ and uMllocalw[arrr- ne,cllaw^e Fenpn(��lorn miM al.) ri.I-ane amNMd ro insist M City in FrmitiM a«Inr and anmdi MmiM;-Vow:o�,1 aM lm wO°'•I•`F`U` ip°SDkM. onlmlaamMm P-bli<fo[ Ml Ee inlrmrrwlun,aM ramNe[oromic owaormitiw pM arn.pove'IY •a.X•.Maa�r EMOOC'EGEFBxF-1W NualBADRFIIBANOAXFNuE Wnb`EirMnly lPwanamaamk Nome mow TMCiN wEpmsiM'o albcoh CDBG°^a-ONE NMs a"TOP�G`EfYfT(' En GROVECA1Mf M FY WXYAmMlAnion Pbnm allows: E�INC ull nime°10. Rentals illA OXHVAANLE�NR.SIEOONALo CryuflW ayw bwM1-O.MwOnopw GNdwww R,NibC.n,I" sI.- xoESXEG Nm,a'hvp CryefHmuMb,nOm[M1-Ow,lerUaMl•dRnMw4iRWDlwn hoDwn w0.0o0 r� AYNTEIlA1 AXN MCDOONAID _ iM1s Gcorlws rG.lA (yNYAYENUE try"flLunuyovl Br+eD - RAJ1n.NC A.Dam.ewun x50un Ma•MiaNAEk .faros f°Mxmy i[mmrif ws dair"Fss°mme°"o MTniUiYDEEI v LCA[iW M° rn fk9o1'Hain�gni BeacM1-SPrnd t°h ENommml S2Jn0W N. Cry of lluvml Bwrh Ilamvb OumN hop.¢ SBSJNI 2TicR xI ETNAK.GI TIP0.ESI0ENMT T^'r`a NUNCP rN' Swan(AwvA Feyw I Tnu [F�,ta Or gat<IonV k 'ra [umhN"Ibw`'wndbvoe m'Yo°Vf✓llprti'eaa"mmr. lWrlawroe�'a ant nMaewnien� WIeMI rvww a [,rAMDp"�"o.cExl°a�"�°nxr'xEsT [•er=rFn�m�ro.,�asi, [w l�. .",Hr ,...I+.•n.�. 11, v�k rs*'wiaima`o FFICTnsBUFNENT NAME C4�nR'NR°a•`roroa Croou�hmomOaFo ° CryaSllwowu,R.rh-CNMww'a Pu"+.I..S f3fT,wf [ Cry 14wonawa Bork CDOGPFEN, "uroe FINE m o ffiiux4MM o1 U31MFMAD Fan,He FwWw. F.FlawuM P. matia M%Rllli wirw wx'lar ImiM NOTICEOFPETITIONTOANAINIS•a CmwMLarMy Lew Lwwla.wNp.•ADA I.wwwwaww f1N.pN • TER[STATE OF ADAc M.:Iww.s.rm.3 EmLTn 'ti+.` .wwT+°✓T+ iii_uIw nawARNDT OR 7REY00.NARATTON DMOexwdPmbF.ew uP P,wlMar file}w ia m"i(i)sMo GSE NO.1Fa7141,111111 PR•LALJC C�wLa Kr�ea CotrPdMrFm.o.s. To all Min.IsennxiD•ks,crealrorx coot+ tsa COIG Fa•Fsw EiifwT mot c•witors.ON mnam wM mM 0,., in M WILL or HIIIA or �awnrl�anw lull ME,TTREEyyOR H.yRA'TpN CryorILeEMIN,Dm[e Aawwwl Hwmew ham. 11,mNml TranEllatahon i °n s w ITONm o u L'mt A PETITI ON F00.PROBATE now New IIIw imw xM Rwa A.wm. BwAOw 'nisi r N m'"m'iawFw°�BY TIFFANY K.BUTTON in NR S1Nerbr Cm•l51•m-a Base IN>kFE lwD•m Ammrw fLtl9e Hilow M'towrope HawP (ORANGE. M'",nol�am`aore o=�I VA°Ye THE PETITION FOR PROBATE reMnh Tara1 AOMR FrysO S%..,m o'Avi EM-Md TIFFANY K _TON IN EF EMM O. Ml nE -iw roNminlshrMAw TMCityis[.�HY�M inns km,T,.ro�m al all 1.13aa'[I CO BG haW wW awwd Nor mthiti•F Ihn an, i w^ r hnn o w'Co mh1u�O°salr0im° C4°""E PETITION naNSN Pupwrih N wmin wall'Mow`rcrs°re d A.aw•wM•ce-ncwne. A.I.°re avo Iwk-.i"a EN Pml we d CD3G aw T. �,Vud.an•p:Wn,I,gbn Be6l,waw Man,FI, krMnroh[YIdnMlMlaarolnl Adni HOMENvw. "'"' a1roMn of E An.(Tnk aNMnh A STATEMENT euilx ET xAMEm tlln M rimW•epnxMotlw rox p `ero. TATEM Nrig1aun IriM eounrrnwd�rG CiOsen Pprtieioatim Pbn .".H.tP TM,gb.-.a a w,M are tow w.Iw Hit— M•imW eFwttbxtRRive TM ewN•.N^.s imPkmwt M row coma( Plan IWnimbn -•r,me ch W unr,PM Bwcn a No'l a LINDA C Ptl"Coon"n 1Itln.1 M d"Nowal"i aW M,ann r aMI-"-Pnd"I'M PongMCo"I"aal- W,. " will.m dim Owvs'Mre fwo;wdlM'ice°r woPlxl or-'iN Its PIO^t•eto"It,lratit is i,Nll[MdimNr and-e MEMI p baiNd C.I..PEeCipO m ttfr J PROPERTY [a"amNd ro M mMon� llbe Sim Plan amblm,MM M remiretlwMF.1 11 OFF 91 1CS.TM ChY Co..Por'iciwgbn Man is mdwMd b e•. iA�iim ma �SAO TEIV 1 E'rt.iNis psnlw.nkm m iMernted Mrsm I. an s.r wuitpDk npmrnblim M all,pmeM W ow malalion Ea b..a C-U"w,an M^wan M C.and IN wl NCA.lrlF!S FAITORs�INC poi r,roTh..."ion w-a,MwsPma mux resimmmmaNenu•ainiM aM Low m all-.1IaoinP from HUD.TM Ci•ilen Part tionian Pbn xh fo•m rn� OSRO M[wnFlwuNrotEr ,ON a.Xwrih. IMiCw nO wroceaRn nMww owe[tw�lMOMmm,rFmwM MUM nfrPFN Nnm.nvlNh Cammunih De HE K sin A BEARING an M mpLPt�wynywell M Mb m w1-1 3.1 Grant(08 1rNM HOME to-anent PortrcnNm(-OME)nwA,TM inhnt of M C.i Par bm"m ..W C.mNmle a,%CIVICBCNTEIR t'wtn Plan 4 ro indou, Mml MOM,!xlN - hits cNlh bx Nome mrvwlVMn 1Tw, ^^^•ww RIVE WET SANTAARAGmO l A!reseed Mi91Wo•nJod,. and c alw h b w N aw'n anm More CDBG NnM are'u. B 11eR If YO OB1dCTbMp d "twxaro MUMo.TNSNcumer,whim MN h fiof rixn blow and wll remMnnn-1 Am IB111i A513J11i iV wIs LINDA RE SLRI1RORR IN< sMub appear a nR Ka' OEHx�A C-0.ts�INE 0.A.P sl-wlwl•YwrodMiom orfiNmrhn oOiecDww mrxgluN..,ral tat-of MCihl.ru.4wwnlowra NnM MCamollls°I.aPIEMriwofFYaMI- wfa C.R,Mart M M.H.your ou a rAMrt. CkrkgOrnkmge Ca"mi.imosmw Coanh aw Min..faro c•N rot-(. FART. aYs IsgIrar::awxn Volk'vM..ww 111,IFTYOU ARE A CREDITOR orocantinpetlt TMfih will abo mogaPolicrro-inim¢a Mextt•dtliegacementmareFW,eICDBG aro NONE furs 11 TANIN CW,,I,,Mw gym,rwmust Ilkrwr ppN To NR areahst ezlmt haiM,CORO EG HOME FIFch andewlowdina manor Mrn tliatlo[rmmtI MOTM:EOF LIEN CALF 11mA4 cNlm Mm me non aw mdl P cPer ro M MI M w M M aw aw clianto v P amq'FMa lo I exec,m nron.In M evaM d'wb[ erd n I m, cwur -M M bhr n ,roe 111 N r bon Aea Ndl [de bq not M Sim tw lac im mYmenX m sbroF Mal d errwnt M kM M M aak ofim d k PN bad NVFF h C h,R A aisgmemem as RebcM' Ax tx Pbn art roluO 1-11 Lin..1 " B Mn E N11 ad-will NxC r N- P w me FY FOA 1NMOSC P kmn Plwn. VIM Mh Code 11)1 Ears f M doh M M. = H.F.M. perxrdl MI rery b d tk<F Aro Mrh b Po r Nola Cndc!1.w Alt _ 1 ""' 1 a5F m M cd •ao P!ohwle o i ml'ne°vnnwkmamal fdmwwe_ ft she INF M Far HAm Ad.m mi rw mot Collard Pwnc a anal NoRml month,off P wlr I. 1 to r Dmx r C.I.-Ia F'mate.Ea kkwRdd run AIDE ucil ° �eNle'<`,ron°�irt Yarf Yo.,r riNh ao[rtdifir Ya m°Y.1ad.AC<orO.i iuriwic,i US ceiwfEEe lr°m hmrd Nw,auchm'MCwnmunih Jewel, Ode SINGRI iRwwcbldan�Dawaa elke[[1i - l n an EIErNr IE:w1.dPw.Bite a P(eoee) me us Mmrtma q its and undo Mwlmmem uol wain.b.wn scdb de in Caliw b r mm�m Arol a d Imae6.. Fair How M CM ce IAI1 aM t pit ro addrm nlae Utl C.11•NN PwM YOU MAY EKAMINE tie Ik troth Dr M-pea IS Mot ore Mir N lih' I iM wMe In Omrm Cou- 1 hwrt Mn anll-ralw t.Ir in terntw Mes �IRmkn tah�Y^u maY fits wiM'w,l"H cwrl Rwyesi row-1 to'NntihiM ma w°rnwina immdimanfi al mmiM ro n,Iew MM i-on a lwinal Hsi,. Soe[iae N:nce firm OEr51�onM f AIM d LwtCBIREke 5 ok' MAENIEG N par r 1 dkpd��y I.,M[From Al,M Lawnn Comm Tim forC.VI RNhh Uroe1 Law(la-lmtl rMd rP ,wI pW lys4lwllews Fla E%EppanLE Mte Code 1 FY.R R 1 b SNa CE rwcn la M cwnmun It n-Awal aM wou d Imd-aro r•pork aw wa t H.c<I - 'bd ro die rk. p an bnwm W Mom pl work In Its A irmr,Ufp[tpn wen NhrmMd b W 'o erlxre M OL•Aa•tl o, THOMS Pel TER, mrass OranweCwnh.TMAldxindvaesM.IlowiMcrasF-iuriwi[1ioMl malF: fa rout-I, hile.1mTm rvi c°Pia°�M Bx�16M.GIESER.EEG. Y BEY~ NNb30BE0.T GIESER&ASSOCIATE$ I.I«nax Msumhaf alloraode MwiM"Nim oworNniN pna(..Fhchdhrw.lroMerin- 15Sx RIVERVI-DR. nrvcNre Su'ITEIW erwrW Nn nYare AyC MSJMfIII/a MByHLEIyM1yGP•aoF or PPd,ti trunNallat�°n,e^�Yinnmmlal Mdlh,Vada icopa, itY). A 11,as t. 1 Pnrentdisd«emeM of Or prltl mwoerdtin[oM rnidenhwiMorotectw chanmhlMtics,iMlwinPXo 1]1199I mi0enh.VNnwmA!rnidlfi xnlw rM 11O wits Oiwpili•ia 3.Imr•aMrommunih to ra tim brundowitsaitwIntin 1. Emu•e wool Ecm.nowiM.r mrmm wits anotmrw<Mncleri,fin,wnaan diwnwrtiawhlY luk, 1,1MIvwe rd-INN rv.PA"menvmeleswwa. 5. E1wNoEcm a nalarnuih.r ar...claxf. OIIPMUnIh la Pudi c RFiirw Fra CommFM Writs tM..,.a.[EmnmMr Ca ,M C.1.11 TM H.111--1 Cih C. ,I.•moll,Mcbrwo Lxal Emermn[r In H mtiryron Mac^on Man I 1 F,asa fu0 DolshrM Cihk Nil it,1.- to tM COVID-19.M.1,writ Ms•a an,haldinctive,TV,Cih hm doMa City Xtl1,all Cih Niid-pall fawfIl n to M wd I.He an rbrt to men<.ism FaTkiaand,nau monk at N CFR 91.10i from June S.HN to Mh MY LZEN,1M Drift a3Yk1-aFYJS CmxlidaM Plan,M Daft FY=1 Annual­,1,Plan,•Iw D,dl FY a][/(-3Miva Citisen PE•Himrim Plan,and M Draft FY ]OFa^Il-a'WS AMI„ia h Immamm,s,a Far Housiro Choice(AIM anb M•..].a put,.,enrou«em of I for M uN M .Una will M vvoilade lo•W dT review M me Gh's weMJe m hfb/h'wx.nunhre.nbea[hca mvhavem..ni en•Yed o.Fal[oaia ofM oloreM^name mcuM^h will M vvPlani a IN revie a M HUnTV. 11110 O I.of B.,-Uevebamenr,NMI..in SI-i Hmtinitan SFId,CA 9"Dr mminl-1 mh.TM Ta,r--I dxMnwM vroilmk bun<wdic.•renew eNow"e1M,roni", SIN V.S.moil.Plea&2tgs .Roma Nwrirez,Ecprom�:Derelowmmt Pn.«Morwoer E(n1i M51N or rip.moil a$oun.R cih-Moro Saecid E[ormomrui for diwb L in aMNr Iarauupe to r a-e moibde umr rewJ 1'dM-M t-.,an in iw^ash,IFnwuirw Dr M C.",lit-P.'.".'.Plan.imcifl[rewN,k mint M direcha D,U.S. ma,l a, OH'.d S,,N_Dew'-wi n aM Moin 1,_Sm Floor,-mriMla^Ewcry CA_,ar prone ro Roger Ramirey E<oromi<Devebrem ProiM Mprwper at Inv131i51 N.or via email M ReM�lRwnirexw,urtcit Nobody Beats Our Coverage. Y�BoI1-1-weekPl 1.TH,I*I A.audk-,.M N.TI C,I,FrIldni 1,11M1toaro 1., .hn material in Stuart.own•ww,t.AP,P Nd-wal oa kl.will M P,.idw M all a 1 nrod.- cilibn MwM olto-of airdulw-ow-. THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER NHOS w,n m M FY I-aFY6 Ca NEDY-d AS n FY DTo irTa a Fair PNr M FY Al 3a11Q5 Cltaer Panticilmiw wbry aw M FY 7Od1R11n1O5 AMnis d ImpwiMMf b Fair HawiM Chin All w 11 M ndtniHed.IUD Eb rill,dHounawilNk br mdi<nviewmrouwwt M MmrE,l rwr. ooregister.corn/SIJlascon]e PudHotim dvN:HwtittRron Bwch Waw.J"ttr L 1aa 113EA51 LIDATE 20/21 ANNUAL ACTION PLC 20/25 ,CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN s 20/25 Al JJ ysE }toe DISCUSSION ITEMS: • 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan • 20121 Annual Action Plan • 2020-2025 Citizen Participation Plan • 2020-2025 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing . . 1 1 2020/2025 Consolidated Plan • Updated every 5 years • Serves as a guiding document for the Annual Action Plan C111�'ii�� �`�; Extensive community outreach 2020/2025 Consolidated Plan Funding Categories • CDBG: HOME: • Public Services (no more Affordable Housing (new than 15%) and rehabilitation) • Infrastructure Rental • Public Facilities Ownership • Housing (certain restrictions) • Economic Development �._ " � ■' ram , 2020/2025 Consolidated Plan Priorities • Sustain and strengthen neighborhoods • Preserve existing and create new affordable housing • Support efforts to address homelessness • Support agencies that assist special needs populations • Increase access to community services to low- and moderate- income persons • Preserve existing and create new public facilities • Provide needed infrastructure improvements • Planning for housing and community development 2020/2021 Annual Action Plan • HUD Allocations 2020-2021 Total Program Income • CDBG $1 ,237,224 • CDBG $2,020,717 • HOME $ 619,677 • HOME $3,454,800 7/7/z0z0 1 1 1 • City of HB--CDBG Program Administrada. $231,139 $257,445 Fair Housing Foundation-Fair Housing Program 1 $30,000 $30,000 City of HB-Housing Rehab Loan Administration $65,000 $65,000 City of HB--Owner-Occupled Residential Rehab Grant Program $100,000 $100,000 City of HB--Owner-Occupled Residential Rehab Loan Program $90,000 $90,000 City of HB--Special Code Enforcement 5190,000 $240,000 City of HB--Homeless Outreach $85,000 $85,000 City of HB--Senior Services Care Management $44,000 $44,000 City of HB-Children's Bureau $60,637 $801000 City of HB-OakView Family Literacy Program $10,000 $10,000 Robyne'sNest-Housing for Homeless Youth $10,000 $10,000 StandUp for Kids--OC $15,000 $15,000 City of HB-ADA Curb Cut lftilJONNAp 3 $400,000 $393,732 City of HB-Central Ubrary UNIP01111IFFIltestroom _ Improvements $286,000 $286,000 Unallocated Funds for Back-Up Projects- Cameron Lane Navigation Center Facility Improvements 1 N/A $314,540 ,ig1L $1,616,776 $2020,717 cOB� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 020/2021 Annual Action CPAB r , s: ecommendation Allocation HOME Prne mAdminwrt $69,468 $154,919 r Affordable Housing ProM $1,304,348 $2,399,881 Tenant Based Rental Assistance $550,000 $900,000 TOTAL = $1,923,816 $3,454,800 ��1'I!' covwuam DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 4 2015-19 Citizen Participation Plan Amendment • Consolidated Plan requires that City adopt Citizen Participation Plan to ensure compliance pertaining use of federal funds from HUD including planning, application, citizen m G participation, and reporting processes • Last full update in 2015, partial update in June 2020 to address COVID-19 2020-2025 Citizen Participation Plan • As of April 24, 2020, temporary waived HUD guideline for public comment period and shortened to 5-days (typically 30) �• • New Plan outlines public participation procedures REG, „ DORY REIEF • Temporary guidelines will apply to CDBG and HOME funding for FY 2019/20 and FY 2020/21 , as well as CARES Act Funds 1 � 2020-2025 Regional Analysis of Impediment • Required to update every 5 years per Fair Housing Act • Address fair housing issues in the City • Collaborative effort with 19 other cities on OC Process included analysis of local data and reports and community outreach �1'■ tea_ �, 2020-2025 Regional Analysis of Impediment Per plan, cross-jurisdictional goals include: 1. Increase the supply of affordable housing in high opportunity areas(areas which offer a stronger infrastructure for education, transportation, environmental health and economic opportunity). 2. Prevent displacement of low-and moderate-income residents with protected characteristics, including Hispanic residents, Vietnamese residents, seniors and people with disabilities. 3. Increase community integration for persons with disabilities. 4. Ensure equal access to housing for persons with protected characteristics, who are disproportionately likely to be lower-income and to experience homelessness. S. Expand access to opportunity for protected classes. 1 Thank You Questions? F��UNIif`.oe<