Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-04-06 Agenda Packet (Revised)PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/AUDIO/VIDEO ACCESS TO BROADCASTED MEETINGS: Pursuant to Executive N-29-20 and given the current health concerns, members of the public are encouraged to access the meeting live on-line at https://huntingtonbeach.legistar.com, or can elect to view the meeting via cable television channel HBTV3. Those wishing to provide comments on agenda or non-agenda items can do so by entering the information online at http:// huntingtonbeachca.gov/HBPublicComments/, or email at agenda.comments@surfcity-hb.org. Information should be submitted no later than 2:00 PM the day of the meeting to ensure timely distribution to the City Council prior to consideration of agenda-related items. Comments received after 2:00 PM will be shared if possible, and made part of the official public record of the meeting as supplemental communication. MEETING ASSISTANCE NOTICE: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, services are available to members of our community who require special assistance to participate in public meetings. If you require special assistance, 48-hour prior notification will enable the City of make reasonable arrangements fo an assisted listening device (ALD) for the hearing impaired, American Sign Language interpreters, a reader during the meeting and/or large print agendas. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at (714) 536-5227 for more information. AGENDA - Revised Final City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular and Housing Authority Special Meeting Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:00 PM Recorded live from the City Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL LYN SEMETA, Mayor JILL HARDY, Mayor Pro Tem PATRICK BRENDEN, Councilmember KIM CARR, Councilmember BARBARA DELGLEIZE, Councilmember ERIK PETERSON, Councilmember MIKE POSEY, Councilmember STAFF OLIVER CHI, City Manager MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney ROBIN ESTANISLAU, City Clerk ALISA BACKSTROM, City Treasurer SPECIAL NOTICE REGARDING COVID-19 On March 4, 2020, Govenor Newsom proclaimed a State on Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Govenor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act- related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legialative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing, and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body. Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20, please be advised that some members of the Huntington Beach City Council and/or City staff may participate in this meeting telephonically or electronically. 1 AGENDA April 6, 2020City Council/Public Financing Authority 5:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, Brenden ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) (Received After Agenda Distribution) PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEM (3 Minute Time Limit) RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION 20-15651.Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2), the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding potential litigation. Number of cases, one (1). 6:00 PM – COUNCIL CHAMBERS RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING AND CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY ROLL CALL Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, Brenden PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION In permitting a nonsectarian invocation, the City does not intend to proselytize or advance any faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form of invocation. 20-15482.Mike Michaud of Dance 4 Joy Ministries and member of the Greater Huntington Beach Interfaith Council CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution) Page 1 of 4 2 AGENDA April 6, 2020City Council/Public Financing Authority PUBLIC COMMENTS Submit comments electronically for City Council consideration by sending them to agenda.comments@surfcity-hb.org. To ensure distribution to the City Council prior to consideration of the agenda, please submit comments no later than 2:00 P.M. the day of the meeting. Comments received after 2:00 PM will be shared and considered if possible, by City Council and made part of the official public record of the meeting as supplemental communication. COUNCIL COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS - LIAISON REPORTS, AB 1234 REPORTING, AND OPENNESS IN NEGOTIATIONS DISCLOSURES CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 20-14843.Ascon Landfill Site Update 20-15664.Update of the City COVID-19 Response Plan and Actions for Review and Discussion CONSENT CALENDAR 20-15355.Approve and Adopt Minutes A) Approve and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes dated March 16, 2020, as written and on file in the office of the City Clerk; and, B) Approve and adopt the City Council emergency meeting minutes dated March 19, 2020, as written and on file in the office of the City Clerk. Recommended Action: 20-15336.Receive and File the Draft Fiscal Year (FY) 2020/2021-2024/2025 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Plan; Draft 2020/2021 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Programs; Draft FY 2020/21-2024/2025 Citizen Participation Plan; and Draft FY 2020/21-2024/2025 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the following draft documents in compliance with the Consolidated Plan Procedures of 24 CFR Part 91: 1. Draft Fiscal Year 2020/21 to Fiscal Year 2024/25 Consolidated Plan 2. Draft Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Action Plan Recommended Action: Page 2 of 4 **Added** 3 AGENDA April 6, 2020City Council/Public Financing Authority 3. Draft Fiscal Year 2020/21 to Fiscal Year 2024/25 Citizen Participation Plan 4. Draft Fiscal Year 2020/21 to Fiscal Year 2024/25 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 20-15447.Adopt Resolution No. 2020-16 approving City authorized agents to apply for and obtain Financial Assistance for Disaster and Emergency Relief Adopt Resolution No. 2020-16, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Authorizing Certain City Officials to Execute Applications and Documents to Obtain Disaster and Emergency Relief.” Recommended Action: 20-15608.Adopt Resolution No. 06, authorizing the Housing Authority Clerk to accept deeds on behalf of the Huntington Beach Housing Authority Adopt Resolution No. 06, “A Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Huntington Beach Housing Authority designating the Clerk to accept Deed and Real Property Interests on behalf of the Housing Authority.” Recommended Action: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 20-15469.Introduction of the Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Between the Huntington Beach Management Employees’ Organization (MEO) and the City of Huntington Beach for November 1, 2019, through October 31, 2020 Introduction of the Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Between the Huntington Beach Management Employees’ Organization and the City of Huntington Beach for the period November 1, 2019 , through October 31, 2020. Recommended Action: 20-154710.Introduction of the Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Between the Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters and the City of Huntington Beach for October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020 Introduction of the Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Between the Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters and the City of Huntington Beach for the period October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020. Recommended Action: 20-155311.Introduction of the Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Page 3 of 4 4 AGENDA April 6, 2020City Council/Public Financing Authority Between the Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association and the City of Huntington Beach for January 1, 2020, through June 30, 2023 Introduction of the Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Between the Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association and the City of Huntington Beach for the period January 1, 2020, through June 30, 2023. Recommended Action: COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized) ADJOURNMENT The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority is Monday, April 20, 2020, at 4:00 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA AND STAFF REPORT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov Page 4 of 4 5 City of Huntington Beach File #:20-1565 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2), the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding potential litigation. Number of cases, one (1). City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/1/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™6 City of Huntington Beach File #:20-1548 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 Mike Michaud of Dance 4 Joy Ministries and member of the Greater Huntington Beach Interfaith Council City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/1/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™7 City of Huntington Beach File #:20-1484 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 Ascon Landfill Site Update City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/1/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™8 City of Huntington Beach File #:20-1566 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 Update of the City COVID-19 Response Plan and Actions for Review and Discussion City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™9 City of Huntington Beach File #:20-1535 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY:Robin Estanislau, CMC, City Clerk PREPARED BY:Robin Estanislau, CMC, City Clerk Subject: Approve and Adopt Minutes Statement of Issue: The City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes of March 16, 2020, and the City Council emergency meeting minutes of March 19, 2020, require review and approval. Financial Impact: None. Recommended Action: A) Approve and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes dated March 16, 2020, as written and on file in the office of the City Clerk; and, B) Approve and adopt the City Council emergency meeting minutes dated March 19, 2020, as written and on file in the office of the City Clerk. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve and/or request revision(s). Analysis: None. Environmental Status: Non-Applicable. Strategic Plan Goal: Non-Applicable - Administrative Item Attachment(s): City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™10 File #:20-1535 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 1. March 16, 2020 CC/PFA regular meeting minutes 2. March 19, 2020 CC emergency meeting minutes City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™11 Minutes City Council/Public Financing Authority City of Huntington Beach Monday, March 16, 2020 4:00 PM - Council Chambers 6:00 PM - Council Chambers Civic Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 A video recording of the 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM portions of this meeting is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and archived at www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas/ 4:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL ED TO ORDER — 4:00 PM ROLL CALL Present: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden Absent: None ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution) Pursuant to the Brown "Open Meetings" Act, City Clerk Robin Estanislau announced supplemental communications that were received by her office following distribution of the Council agenda packet: Study Session #1 (20-1493) 1) PowerPoint communication entitled Pension Obligation Bond Analysis and Proposed Fiscal Control Policies submitted by Dahle Bulosan, Chief Financial Officer. 2) Email communication from Gino Bruno regarding Pension Obligation Bonds. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO STUDY SESSION / CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (3 Minute Time Limit) Speakers - 1 The number [hh:mm:ss] following the speakers' comments indicates their approximate starting time in the archived video located at http://www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas. Rob Pool was called to speak and shared his opinions against holding this meeting in light of COVID-19, and his opposition to Study Session Item No. 1 (20-1493) regarding Pension Obligation Bond Analysis. (00:01:16) STUDY SESSION 1. 20-1493 CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN — Pension Obligation Bond Analysis and Proposed Fiscal Control Policies 12 Council/PFA Regular Meeting March 16, 2020 Page 2 of 10 Councilmember Brenden stated that in light of the current meeting restrictions due to COVID-19, he asked that this item be postponed. Councilmember Carr expressed her support for this action. Mayor Pro Tem Hardy stated that since this item is for discussion purposes only, and there will be no vote, in her opinion the discussion should continue. Councilmember Delgleize stated her support for Mayor Pro Tem Hardy's comments. Councilmember Posey stated his support to continue this item to another meeting so that the Council can move on to address more critical issues. Mayor Semeta and City Manager Chi discussed that the intention was to provide additional information on this item, and Manager Chi indicated it was not critical to present the information at this time. A motion was made by Brenden, second Carr to continue discussion on Pension Obligation Bond Analysis and Proposed Fiscal Control Policies to a date uncertain. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden NOES: Hardy A motion was made by Posey, second by Delgleize to recess to Closed Session for Items 3 – 5. With no objections, the motion passed. RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION — 4:09 PM CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT(S) 2. 20-1508 Mayor Semeta Announced: Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to meet with its designated labor negotiators: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Peter Brown; also in attendance: Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager and Robert Handy, Chief of Police, regarding the following: Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT); Management Employees’ Organization (MEO); Marine Safety Management Association (MSMA); and Police Officers’ Association (POA). CLOSED SESSION 3. 20-1505 Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association/Nikitin v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.; OCSC Case No.: 30-2019-01093906. 13 Council/PFA Regular Meeting March 16, 2020 Page 3 of 10 4. 20-1506 Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council recessed into Closed Session to meet with its designated labor negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Peter Brown; also in attendance: Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager and Robert Handy, Chief of Police, regarding the following: Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT); Management Employees’ Organization (MEO); Marine Safety Management Association (MSMA); and Police Officers’ Association (POA). 5. 20-1530 Pursuant to Gov’t Code § 54957(a), City Council recessed into Closed Session to discuss with City Management, Fire Department, Police Department, and City Attorney health and public safety related to COVID-19. 6:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS RECONVENED CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING — 6:00 PM ROLL CALL Present: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden Absent: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Led by Councilmember Peterson INVOCATION In permitting a nonsectarian invocation, the City does not intend to proselytize or advance any faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form of invocation. 6. 20-1381 Charlie Niederman of Temple Beth David and member of the Greater Huntington Beach Interfaith Council Mayor Semeta stated her appreciation for the extra effort that City staff is providing to make changes because of COVID-19, and thanked the community for their outreach of support and consideration for each other. Mayor Semeta further urged everyone to comply with all health guidelines to reduce stress on the healthcare system. City Manager Chi announced postponement of discussion on items agendized under Awards and Presentations, City Manager's Report, and City Treasurer's Report to allow time to focus on the COVID-19 Response Plan. CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY — None AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS 7. 20-1476 Mayor Semeta to call on Victoria Alberty to present the "Adoptable Pet of the Month" 14 Council/PFA Regular Meeting March 16, 2020 Page 4 of 10 8. 20-1477 Mayor Semeta to present the Mayor's HB Excellence Award to Public Works Utilities Manager, Brian Ragland 9. 20-1483 Mayor Semeta to present commendation to Mr. Robert L. Mayer for his lifelong contributions in making City of Huntington Beach a world-renowned destination 10. 20-1503 Mayor Semeta to proclaim March 1-31 as "Women's History Month" ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution) Pursuant to the Brown "Open Meetings" Act, City Clerk Robin Estanislau announced supplemental communications that were received by her office following distribution of the Council Agenda packet: Consent Calendar #22 (20-1479) Inter-Office Memorandum submitted by City Manager Oliver Chi withdrawing the item regarding Request for Proposal for lessons, rentals and tours out of 11th Street and 17th Street beaches on pilot basis. Administrative Item #26 (20-1526) Communication from City Manager Chi entitled City of Huntington Beach COVID-19 Response Plan. PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit) The number [hh:mm:ss] following the speakers' comments indicates their approximate starting time in the archived video located at http://www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas. Tim Geddes, a resident of southeast Huntington Beach for over 35 years and Chair of the City's Mobile Home Advisory Board (MHAB), was called to speak and expressed appreciation for City Council, City Manager and City staff support for revitalizing the Mobile Home Advisory Board (MHAB). Mr. Geddes also stated support for Consent Calendar Item #18 regarding the listed appointments to the MHAB. (00:23:20) Mary Jo Baretich, former member of the MHAB, was called to speak and stated her support for Consent Calendar Item #18 regarding the listed appointments to the MHAB. (00:26:05) Alex Kuttel, a resident of Huntington Beach who just lost his job because of COVID-19, was called to speak and asked that City Council approve Administrative Item #26 (20-1526) regarding a COVID-19 Response Plan, specifically addressing the issue of business and residential rent moratoriums. (00:27:56) COUNCIL COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS - LIAISON REPORTS, AB 1234 REPORTING, AND OPENNESS IN NEGOTIATIONS DISCLOSURES Councilmember Posey reported that the Orange County Vector Control Board held an emergency telecommunication meeting to issue its Emergency Declaration to address issues related to COVID-19. 15 Council/PFA Regular Meeting March 16, 2020 Page 5 of 10 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT 11. 20-1475 Ascon Landfill Site Update CITY TREASURER’S REPORT 12. 20-1512 City Treasurer's Update on Economic Markets and Interest Rates CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Posey pulled Consent Calendar Item #18, regarding appointments to the Mobile Home Advisory Board (MHAB), to thank Councilmember Carr for her diligence in helping to interview the very enthusiastic and qualified volunteers. 13. 20-1468 Approved and Adopted Minutes A motion was made by Posey, second Delgleize to approve and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting and Housing Authority special meeting minutes dated February 18, 2020; the City Council special meeting minutes dated February 27, 2020; and, the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes dated March 2, 2020, as written and on file in the office of the City Clerk. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden NOES: None 14. 20-1399 Received and filed City Clerk’s quarterly listing of professional services contracts filed in the City Clerk’s office between July 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019 A motion was made by Posey, second Delgleize to receive and file the "List of Professional Services Contracts Approved by Department Heads and Submitted to the Office of the City Clerk during the period of July 1, 2019 and September 30, 2019;" and, receive and file the "List of Professional Services Contracts Approved by Department Heads and Submitted to the Office of the City Clerk during the period of October 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden NOES: None 15. 20-1470 Received and filed the monthly status update on the 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment process A motion was made by Posey, second Delgleize to receive and file the monthly Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process status update. 16 Council/PFA Regular Meeting March 16, 2020 Page 6 of 10 The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden NOES: None 16. 20-1480 Approved the design concept, wording and placement of a bronze monument plaque and pedestal at Prince Park in memory of Fallen Huntington Beach Officer Leslie J. Prince A motion was made by Posey, second Delgleize to approve the concept of placing a monument plaque and pedestal in Prince Park; and, approve the proposed design concept and wording for the plaque as recommended by the Community Services Commission. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden NOES: None 17. 20-1509 Approved the appointment of Christian Nielsen to the Harbor Commission as recommended by City Council Liaisons, Mayor Semeta and Councilmember Peterson A motion was made by Posey, second Delgleize to approve the appointment of Christian Nielsen to the Harbor Commission as recommended by City Council Liaisons, Mayor Semeta and Councilmember Peterson. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden NOES: None 18. 20-1510 Approved appointments to the Mobile Home Advisory Board (MHAB) as recommended by City Council Liaisons, Councilmembers Carr and Posey A motion was made by Posey, second Delgleize to approve the appointment of Allison Plum as a Resident Representative to the Mobile Home Advisory Board through August 5, 2021, the end of the current term; and, approve the appointment of Everett Ashmore as a Resident Representative to the Mobile Home Advisory Board through August 5, 2021, the end of the current term; and, approve the appointment of Donald Hart as an At-Large Member Representative to the Mobile Home Advisory Board through August 5, 2020, the end of the current term. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden NOES: None 17 Council/PFA Regular Meeting March 16, 2020 Page 7 of 10 19. 20-1429 Adopted Resolution No. 2020-10 declaring Weeds and Rubbish a nuisance on specific properties and fixing April 20, 2020, at 6:00pm for hearing protests and objections to the abatement thereof A motion was made by Posey, second Delgleize to adopt Resolution No. 2020-10, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Finding and Declaring that Certain Weeds Growing in the City, and Rubbish and Refuse Deposited on Public Ways and Private Property are a Public Nuisance; and Fixing the Time for Hearing Protests and Objections to the Abatement Thereof." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden NOES: None 20. 20-1443 Adopted Resolution No. 2020-14 identifying the FY 2020-21 projects to be funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act A motion was made by Posey, second Delgleize to adopt Resolution No. 2020-14, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adopting a List of Projects for Fiscal Year 2020-21 Funded by SB:1 The Road Repair and Accountability Act." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden NOES: None 21. 20-1467 Awarded and authorized the execution of a construction contract with MMC Inc., in the amount of $3,958,750 for the Slater Lift Station Project, CC-1561; and, authorized appropriation of funds A motion was made by Posey, second Delgleize to appropriate $1,600,000 from the Sewer Service Fund (511) to Account 51189011.82600; and, accept the lowest responsive and responsible bid submitted by MMC Inc., in the amount of $3,958,750; and, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a construction contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden NOES: None 22. 20-1479 ITEM WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION — Authorize staff to release a Request for Proposal (RFP) to permit up to three vendors to provide Stand-up Paddleboard / Kayak Lessons, Rentals and Tours out of 11th Street and 17th Street beaches on a pilot basis 18 Council/PFA Regular Meeting March 16, 2020 Page 8 of 10 23. 20-1474 Approved and authorized execution of an Amendment to the existing Agreement with Siemens Mobility Inc. to provide a fee rate increase to certain hourly rates commensurate with the Consumer Price Index for the Citywide Streetlight Maintenance services through March 2021 A motion was made by Posey, second Delgleize to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute "Amendment to Service Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and Siemens Mobility Inc., for Streetlight Transfer, Retrofit, and Maintenance Service" approved as to form by the City Attorney, dated March 6, 2017, increasing Compensation for all standard maintenance and extraordinary maintenance tasks identified in Exhibit B by 9%, which reflects partial Consumer Price Index adjustment since March 2017. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden NOES: None 24. 20-1502 Approved the appointment of Dahle Bulosan to the position of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and authorized the City Manager to execute the employment agreement A motion was made by Posey, second Delgleize to approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the "Employment Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Dahle Bulosan" for the position of Chief Financial Officer. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden NOES: None ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 25. 20-1481 ITEM WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION — Consider establishment of an ad hoc Art in Public Places Committee, while also directing staff to pursue development of a public art funding source to create a City directed Art in Public Places program; and, appoint two City Council liaisons 26. 20-1526 Approved COVID-19 Response Plan and declared a Local Emergency City Manager Chi introduced Fire Chief Scott Haberle who presented a PowerPoint communication entitled COVID-19 Response Plan with slides titled: Background, Our Strategy - Don't Panic, But Be HB Ready, The Facts (2), The Problem (3), HB Ready-Surf City COVID-19 Response Plan (2), Phase 1 Response, Phase 2 Response, Phase 3 Response, HB Response Status-Moving to Phase 2 Response, Preliminary Fiscal Impacts, and Questions. 19 Council/PFA Regular Meeting March 16, 2020 Page 9 of 10 Councilmember Delgleize, Fire Chief Haberle, and City Manager Chi discussed procedures related to social distancing and at-risk residents including assistance for senior residents and senior care facilities. Staff indicated that meals for seniors and senior care programs will remain intact, and staff and volunteers redeployed to enhance senior services. Councilmember Carr and Fire Chief Haberle discussed the at-risk population with compromised immune systems of any age when isolation is so important, and recommended these individuals communicate with their primary care physicians regarding any symptoms. Councilmember Posey underscored the issue of expected lack of necessary hospital beds, and the critical importance of practicing proper social distancing and trying to ensure we are not transmitting to others, whether or not they are in the at-risk category. Mayor Semeta expressed concern not only for health, but also the economic impacts related to businesses and employees out of work. She highlighted available programs such as Grab and Go meals through the school districts, child care programs, Orange County Social Services Agency essential services, abuse hotlines, and senior meals programs. Mayor Semeta and City Manager Chi discussed available Small Business Assistance (SBA) funds and new guidelines developed for emergency small business grant loans, and how State and Federal governments are extending unemployment insurance to 52 weeks and are expected to reduce the waiting time requirement. City Manager Chi stated that this unprecedented situation is projected to result in a 20% decline in Huntington Beach hotel reservations for the remainder of the fiscal year, and this will have a ripple effect throughout the whole community. Mayor Semeta expressed appreciation for the City's Executive Team that is displaying professionalism, dedication and 16-hour days to address the situation. City Manager Chi asked the City Council to amend the proposed motion to include adoption of Resolution 2020-15, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Ratifying the Existence of a Local Emergency in the City of Huntington Beach." A motion was made by Posey, second Delgleize to approve the attached COVID-19 Response Plan to minimize the risk of transmission of this virus. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden NOES: None A motion was made by Posey, second Delgleize to add consideration of Resolution 2010-15 to the agenda. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden 20 Council/PFA Regular Meeting March 16, 2020 Page 10 of 10 NOES: None A motion was made by Posey, second Delgleize to adopt Resolution 2010-15, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Ratifying the Existence of a Local Emergency in the City of Huntington Beach." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden NOES: None COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized) Mayor Pro Tem Hardy announced that the Huntington Beach Union High School District will begin providing lunch service to support the students who rely on the District for daily meals, on Wednesday, March 16, 2020. Further details can be provided by the local school districts. Councilmember Posey announced the names of six Huntington Beach Academy of Performing Arts nominees for the upcoming Dance competition at Chapman University. Councilmember Delgleize stated that the City's Executive Team and Councilmembers are ready to help residents through the COVID-19 crisis, and asked that anyone who needs something should reach out for assistance, and reminded everyone that www.hbready.com is an official resource. ADJOURNMENT — At 6:56 PM to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority on Monday, April 6, 2020, at 4:00 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA AND STAFF REPORT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov ____________________________________ City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Secretary of the Public Financing Authority of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: __________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk-Secretary Mayor-Chair 21 City Council City of Huntington Beach Emergency Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 19, 2020 2:00 PM – Meeting Room B-8 Civic Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 11:00 AM – Meeting Room B-8 CALL ED TO ORDER - 11:08 AM ROLL CALL Present: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson (via phone), Carr, and Brenden Absent: None ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEM (Received After Agenda Distribution) Pursuant to the Brown “Open Meetings” Act, City Clerk Robin Estanislau announced supplemental communications received by her office after distribution of the City Council agenda: (20-1536) 9 MyHB communications. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEM (3 Minute Time Limit) – 2 Speakers Yvonne Mauro encouraged Council to put political opinions aside and consider use of community social media platforms as a public education tool in response to the COVID-19 virus. She expressed her opinion that leadership is needed now to communicate verified information and ease public concerns. Rob Pool expressed his commitment to put political activism aside and support the Council’s efforts to unite and relay coordinated messages to the community. He too encouraged use of social media platforms to disseminate verified information, acknowledged personal losses, and offered to help the city through this challenging time. RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION – 11:15 AM CLOSED SESSION (20-1536) Pursuant to Gov’t Code § 54957(a), City Council recessed to Closed Session to discuss with City Management, Fire Department, Police Department, and City Attorney health and public safety. RECONVENED - 12:45 PM 22 City Council Emergency Minutes March 19, 2020 Page 2 of 2 CLOSED SESION REPORT BY THE CITY ATTORNEY – None ADJOURNMENT at 12:45 PM to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority on Monday, April 6, 2020, at 4:00 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA AND STAFF REPORT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT: http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov _______________________________________ City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: ______________________________________ City Clerk ______________________________________ Mayor 23 City of Huntington Beach File #:20-1533 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 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: Receive and File the Draft Fiscal Year (FY) 2020/2021-2024/2025 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Plan; Draft 2020/2021 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Programs; Draft FY 2020/21-2024/2025 Citizen Participation Plan; and Draft FY 2020/21-2024/2025 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Statement of Issue: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that the City conduct a 30- day Public Comment Period for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020/21-2024/25 Consolidated Plan, the 2020/21 Annual Action Plan, the FY 2020/21-2024/25 Citizen Participation Plan, and 2020/21- 2024/25 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing. This 30-day period commences on April 3, 2020, and concludes with the public hearing scheduled and noticed for May 4, 2020. The draft documents are posted on the City’s website and hard copies will be made available to the public on an appointment basis. While not legally required, it is a best practice to provide the draft documents to the legislative body at a public meeting during the 30-day review period. Financial Impact: There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund to receive and file these draft documents. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the following draft documents in compliance with the Consolidated Plan Procedures of 24 CFR Part 91: 1. Draft Fiscal Year 2020/21 to Fiscal Year 2024/25 Consolidated Plan 2. Draft Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 3. Draft Fiscal Year 2020/21 to Fiscal Year 2024/25 Citizen Participation Plan 4. Draft Fiscal Year 2020/21 to Fiscal Year 2024/25 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Alternative Action(s): City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 1 of 5 powered by Legistar™24 File #:20-1533 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 Do not receive and file the draft documents. Analysis: A study session was held before the City Council on March 2, 2020,regarding the upcoming actions related to the above-referenced draft documents and associated timelines. HUD requires that the draft documents are made available to the public by posting the documents on the City’s website and placing them at public counters for a minimum 30-day public comment period. It is a best practice to provide the draft documents to the legislative body at a public meeting during the 30-day review period. The City Council will be asked to ultimately adopt the final format of all four Plans on May 4, 2020. Please note that the attached documents are drafts and subject to some modifications, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic,as additional federal funds will be distributed to local entities via HUD. Details of this additional funding have not been received; however, our local HUD representative has encouraged us to submit our documents and amend them at a future date. CONSOLIDATED PLAN As an entitlement community, the City of Huntington Beach is required to submit a Consolidated Plan to HUD. The Consolidated Plan provides the strategic framework for the City’s housing and community development goals over the next five-year period,and sets the vision for allocating federal resources to housing, homelessness, community development and special needs. The City’s five-year Consolidated Plan period begins on July 1, 2020, and will run through June 30, 2025. The Consolidated Plan identifies goals and objectives for the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) programs to support programs and services for low and moderate-income residents in Huntington Beach from 2020/2021 through 2024/2025. The City’s Consolidated Plan has been developed with HUD-provided data regarding the City’s low and moderate-income residents, as well as community input gathered through three public meetings and community surveys conducted with citizens and service providers. After consultation with various public service providers and Huntington Beach departments, as well as reviewing the results of a Housing and Community Development Survey posted on the City’s website, the Consolidated Plan strategy was developed. The Plan includes general priorities to meet the needs of the community and the City’s rationale for investment of federal funds. In order to address the needs, the City 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 City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 2 of 5 powered by Legistar™25 File #:20-1533 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 ·Provide needed infrastructure improvements ·Planning for housing and community development National Emergency Concerning COVID-19 Outbreak Due to the National Emergency concerning the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, a relief stimulus package is expected to include an increase in CDBG funding to help augment a local response to the virus. General language has been added to the Consolidated Plan to allow for such expenditures. Additional details are contained in the Draft Fiscal Year 2020/21 to Fiscal Year 2024/25 Consolidated Plan which is attached to this staff report as Attachment No. 1. 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: ·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 ·The Annual Action Plan acts as the City’s application process for federal formula grants, principally comprised of the CDBG and HOME programs. CDBG Funding Authorized by Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the CDBG program serves to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income. The CDBG program provides annual grants on a formula basis to implement a wide variety of community development and housing activities set forth under 24 CFR Part 570. The overriding purpose of the CDBG program is to support “bricks and mortar” activities, such as acquisition, rehabilitation and preservation, and public improvements and facilities. CDBG-funded projects must meet one of the three national objectives: 1) to benefit low and moderate-income persons; 2) aid in elimination of slums or blight; and 3) meet an urgent need (primarily limited to disaster relief from flooding or earthquakes, for example). Funded activities can include public improvements, public services, special code enforcement in certain designated areas, economic development activities, and housing rehabilitation programs, among others. For Fiscal Year 2020/21, the City of Huntington Beach will have an estimated total of $1,696,814 in CDBG funds. This total amount is comprised of $1,237,224 in FY 2020/21 CDBG entitlement funds, $259,590 in prior year unallocated funds carried forward, and $200,000 in estimated program income. City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 3 of 5 powered by Legistar™26 File #:20-1533 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 HOME Funding The HOME Program is the largest Federal block grant to State and local governments designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households. HOME funds are provided as formula grants to be used for home purchase, repairing rental or ownership properties, site acquisition, demolition of dilapidated housing to make way for HOME-assisted development, and payment of relocation expenses. Up to ten (10) percent is used for program planning and administration and 15 percent of the allocation must fund housing with a non-profit Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs). The City of Huntington Beach will have $1,923,816 in HOME Program funds comprised of this coming year’s allocation of $619,677, estimated program income of $75,000, and an estimated carryover balance of $1,229,139. Additional details regarding proposed CDBG and HOME activities are contained in the Draft Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Action Plan which is attached to this staff report as Attachment No. 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN As part of the Consolidated Plan, the City is required 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 Citizen Participation Plan sets forth policies and procedures the City Council adopted to encourage citizen involvement regarding the use of federal funds, notably CDBG and 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. Additional details are contained in the Draft Fiscal Year 2020/21 to Fiscal Year 2024/25 Citizen Participation Plan which is attached to this staff report as Attachment No. 3. REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING 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 CDBG funds from 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. In 2015, the City of Newport Beach served as the lead entity, and in 2020, the City of Anaheim serves as the lead agency. For the proposed AI, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law has performed extensive City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 4 of 5 powered by Legistar™27 File #:20-1533 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 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 draft report, forty-five factors were determined to contribute to fair housing issues. Factors include access to financial services, admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in public supported housing, availability of affordable units in a range of sizes, and community opposition. Based on the extensive data review, community input and current federal, state and local laws, the report has proposed five regional recommendations along with city-specific recommendations. The final report is expected in mid-April. Additional details regarding the regional and city-specific recommendations are contained in the Draft Fiscal Year 2020/21 to Fiscal Year 2024/25 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing , which is attached to this staff report as Attachment No. 4. The Draft 2020/21-2024/25 Consolidated Plan, the Draft 2020/21 Annual Plan, the Draft 2020/21- 2024-25 Citizen Participation Plan, and the Draft 2020/21-2024/25 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing are available for public review and comment commencing April 3, 2020, through May 4, 2020. The City published a notice in the Huntington Beach Wave on April 2, 2020 informing the public of the availability of the documents for review and comment, which notice is attached as Attachment No. 5. The public has access to review the draft documents at the City of Huntington Beach’s Office of Business Development via appointment and via the City’s website. The City Council will be asked to consider adopting the draft documents at a public hearing scheduled for May 4, 2020. Environmental Status: The recommended action to receive and file the draft documents will not result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and is therefore not a “project” per Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. If the City Council approves the FY 2020/21 Annual Action Plan on May 4, 2020, staff will prepare an Environmental Review Record for each activity pursuant to 24 CFR Part 58. Strategic Plan Goal: Non-Applicable - Administrative Item Attachment(s): 1. Draft FY 2020/21-2024/25 Consolidated Plan 2. Draft FY 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 3. Draft FY 2020/21-2024/25 Citizen Participation Plan 4. Draft FY 2020/21-2024/25 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 5. Public Notice City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 5 of 5 powered by Legistar™28 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 0 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Huntington Beach Public Review Draft April 2, 2020 – May 4, 2020 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan 29 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 30 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) 1 THE PROCESS 6 PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b) 6 PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) 7 PR-15 Citizen Participation 15 NEEDS ASSESSMENT 20 NA-05 Overview 20 NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c) 21 NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) 37 NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) 40 NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2) 43 NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2) 44 NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b) 45 NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c) 48 NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b,d) 52 NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) 56 HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS 59 MA-05 Overview 59 MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2) 59 MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) 66 MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a) 75 MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b) 82 MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c) 83 MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d) 85 MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e) 87 MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f) 88 MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion 100 MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households - 91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2) 109 MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3) 110 STRATEGIC PLAN 111 SP-05 Overview 111 SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1) 113 SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2) 115 SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b) 121 SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2) 122 SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k) 125 31 SP-45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a)(4) 129 SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c) 136 SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.215(h) 137 SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d) 139 SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.215(i) 141 SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j) 142 SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230 143 2020 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 144 AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2) 144 AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives 147 AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d) 155 AP-38 Project Summary 158 AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f) 179 AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) 181 AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h) 182 AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) 183 AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j) 186 AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k) 188 PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 192 AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4) 192 32 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 1 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Executive Summary ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(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. National Emergency Concerning COVID-19 Outbreak Due to the National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) outbreak, a relief stimulus package is expected to include an increase in CDBG funding to help augment a local response to the virus. While this Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan does not currently contain the amount of the stimulus that will be allocated to Huntington Beach specifically, it does provide for complete discretion by the City Manager to allocate funds to best meet the needs of the Huntington Beach community. The City will document all activities and expenditures related to its COVID-19 response and will update its Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan, accordingly. 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: 33 Executive Summary Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 2 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 • 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. • 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 40 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 50 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 34 Executive Summary Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 3 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 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 35 Executive Summary Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 4 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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. 36 Executive Summary Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 5 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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, (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, 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 10% of the HOME entitlement is allowed for administration activities. 37 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 6 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 The Process PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(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 Mr. Robert Ramirez Economic Development Project Manager Office of Business Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 5th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 38 The Process Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 7 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) 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(I)). 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. 6. Reducing chronic homelessness in Orange County and addressing the needs of homeless families and individuals using motels to meet their housing needs. 39 The Process Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 8 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Public Housing Needs Homelessness Strategy Non-Homeless Special Needs Anti-poverty Strategy Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and 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 Consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan 3 Agency/Group/Organization Alzheimer's Family Services Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Public Housing Needs Homelessness Strategy Non-Homeless Special Needs Anti-poverty Strategy 40 The Process Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 9 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and 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 Consultation? Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless Homeless Needs - Families with children Homelessness Needs - Veterans Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth Homelessness Strategy Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and 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 Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and 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 Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Strategy Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan 7 Agency/Group/Organization Collette's Children's Home Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Homeless 41 The Process Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 10 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Strategy Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan 8 Agency/Group/Organization Community SeniorServ Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Elderly Persons What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Strategy Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and 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 Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Strategy Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan 10 Agency/Group/Organization CSP, Huntington Beach Youth Shelter Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Strategy Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan 42 The Process Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 11 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 11 Agency/Group/Organization Dayle McIntosh Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Persons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan 12 Agency/Group/Organization Family Literacy Program Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Children What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Strategy Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and 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 Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan 14 Agency/Group/Organization Huntington Beach Police Department Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Homeless Needs Homelessness Strategy Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Homeless Collaborative Meeting. CPAB meeting. 43 The Process Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 12 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and 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 Consultation? Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless Homelessness Needs - Veterans Homelessness Strategy Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and 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 Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and 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 Consultation? Homeless Needs Homelessness Strategy Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan 44 The Process Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 13 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 Consultation? Homeless Needs Homelessness Strategy Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and 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 Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Non-Housing Community Development Strategy Anti-Poverty Strategy Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has been consulted regarding the COVID-19 outbreak. Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting The City was inclusive in its outreach efforts. 45 The Process Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 14 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Continuum of Care OC Partnership, 2-1-1 Orange County and the OC Community Services. For the past several years, leadership and coordination of 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 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 Housing Element City of Huntington Beach Planning Division The City’s Housing Element is 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 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(l)) 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 30-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. 46 The Process Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 15 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 PR-15 Citizen Participation 1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting During the development of the City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, the City undertook a variety of public outreach methods to gather public input and comment. These comments were a part of the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, and ultimately helped shape the o utcome of the Plan’s Five Year Goals and Objectives. These outreach efforts included the 2019 Housing and Community Development Survey, a public input meeting, and a public review meeting. Each public meeting had public notices and met the City’s guidelines in its Citizen Participation Plan. The public notifications are included in the Appendix. Citizen Participation Outreach 47 The Process Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 16 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/attendance Summary of Comments received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 1 Internet outreach Non-targeted/broad community A total of 412 surveys were received. 7 were received in Spanish. The results are available as part of the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis. All comments received were accepted 2 Public Meeting Non-targeted/broad community Three public input meetings were held on December 5, 2019. The community and Huntington Beach stakeholders were invited to attend to share their opinions on needs and gaps in service. A complete set of transcripts from the meeting is included in the Appendix. All comments received were accepted 3 Public Hearing Non-targeted/broad community Stakeholders The Citizen Participation Advisory Board (CPAB), a group of appointed Huntington Beach citizens, held public hearings on 10/3/19, 11/7/19, and 12/5/19 to solicit input on housing and community development needs. See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. All comments received were accepted. 48 The Process Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 17 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/attendance Summary of Comments received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 4 Public Meeting Service providers and faith- based organizations representing seniors, youth, homeless, fair housing, code enforcement, infrastructure improvements, and housing Agencies requesting CDBG funding in FY 2020/21 gave presentations and answered questions from the Citizen Participation Advisory Board (CPAB). Meetings took place on 1/30/20 and 2/6/20. Presentations from the various agencies covered need for service in Huntington Beach community and requested allocations. See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. All comments received were accepted. N/A 5 Newspaper Ad Non-targeted/ broad community A newspaper advertisement was published on 01/30/2020 to solicit public comment on community development and housing needs and priorities and to notify the public of a public hearing on the matter scheduled for 2/20/2020. See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. No comments were received. N/A 6 Public Hearing Non-targeted/ broad community A public hearing was held on 02/20/2020 to solicit public comment on community development and housing needs and priorities. See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. No comments were received. 49 The Process Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 18 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/attendance Summary of Comments received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 7 Public Meeting Non-targeted/ broad community A joint CPAB and City Council study session was held on 3/2/20. See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. All comments received were accepted. N/A 8 Newspaper Ad Non-targeted/ broad community A newspaper advertisement was made soliciting public comment on 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 5/4/20. The public notice was published on 4/2/20. See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. All comments received were accepted. N/A 9 Public Hearing Non-targeted/ broad community The City Council held a public hearing to adopt the FY 2020/21- 2024/25 Consolidated Plan and FY 2020/21 Annual Action Plan on 5/4/20. See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. All comments received were accepted. N/A Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach 50 The Process Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 19 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 51 City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 20 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 200,641 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 $100,000 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 6,860 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. 52 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 21 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c) Table NA-10.1 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. Demographics Base Year: 2009 Most Recent Year: 2015 % Change Population 189,992 197,750 4% Households 74,628 74,460 -0% Median Income $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 in Table NA-10.2. The white households represented 74.6 percent of the population in 2017, compared with black households accounting for 1.4 percent of the population in 2017. Hispanic households represented 19.3 percent of the population in 2017. The Asian households accounted for 11.9 percent. The change in race and ethnicity between 2010 and 2017 is shown in Table NA-10.3. During this time, the total non-Hispanic population was 161,642 persons, while the Hispanic population was 38,773 persons. Table NA-10.2, on the following page, shows population by Race and Ethnicity, and Table NA-10.3 shows a more detailed breakdown of ethnicity by race, which is used in the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) date set. As can be seen the percentage of white population fell slightly from 76.7 percent in the 2010 Census to 74.6 percent in the 2017 ACS data. The percentage of Hispanic population rose from 17.3 percent in 2010 to 19.3 percent in the 2017 5-year ACS. Of the Hispanic population, 59.5 percent identify as white, with 31.3 percent identifying as “Other” race. Table NA-10.1 Population Estimates Huntington Beach Census Population Estimates Year Population Percent Yearly Change 2000 189,591 . 2001 190,902 0.7% 2002 191,341 0.2% 2003 191,665 0.2% 2004 191,433 -0.1% 2005 190,281 -0.6% 2006 188,754 -0.8% 2007 187,700 -0.6% 2008 188,370 0.4% 2009 189,268 0.5% 2010 189,992 0.4% 2011 193,010 1.6% 2012 194,237 0.6% 2013 197,212 1.5% 2014 199,757 1.3% 2015 200,855 0.5% 2016 200,541 -0.2% 2017 201,191 0.3% 2018 200,641 -0.3% 53 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 22 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Table NA-10.2 Population by Race and Ethnicity Huntington Beach 2010 Census & 2017 Five-Year ACS 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% TableNA-10.3 Population by Race and Ethnicity Huntington Beach 2010 Census & 2017 Five-Year ACS Race 2010 Census 2017 Five-Year ACS 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% 54 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 23 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 NA-10.5 Household Type by Tenure Huntington Beach 2010 Census SF1 & 2017 Five-Year ACS 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 Present 3,804 33.1% 4,073 30.4% Owner-Occupied 1,660 43.6% 1,768 43.4% Renter-Occupied 2,144 56.4% 2,305 56.6% Female Householder, No Spouse Present 7,685 66.9% 8,443 61.4% 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-10.6. Households earning more than $100,000 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 NA-10.6 Households by Income Huntington Beach 2010 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data Income 2010 Five-Year ACS 2017 Five-Year ACS 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% $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% 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 55 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 24 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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. Table NA-10.7 Poverty by Age Huntington Beach 2000 Census SF3 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data 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% . 8.9% . Number of Households Table 0-30% HAMFI >30-50% HAMFI >50-80% HAMFI >80-100% HAMFI >100% HAMFI Total Households 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 years of age 1,700 1,685 2,805 1,755 8,225 Household contains at least one person age 75 or older 2,075 1,675 1,830 945 2,525 Households with one or more children 6 years old or younger 1,265 1,045 1,240 939 2,465 Table 6 - Total Households Table Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS 56 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 25 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Housing Needs Summary Tables • Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100 % AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Substandard Housing - Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities 120 90 160 65 435 0 10 15 0 25 Severely Overcrowded - With >1.51 people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing) 350 90 125 55 620 0 0 30 0 30 Overcrowded - With 1.01- 1.5 people per room (and none of the above problems) 350 440 390 50 1,230 15 15 10 30 70 Housing cost burden greater than 50% of income (and none of the above problems) 3,655 2,375 770 65 6,865 2,020 1,135 1,355 620 5,130 Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income (and none of the above problems) 215 1,315 3,240 935 5,705 345 700 1,285 1,080 3,410 Zero/negative Income (and none of the above problems) 405 0 0 0 405 370 0 0 0 370 Table 7 – Housing Problems Table Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS 57 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 26 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 2. Housing Problems 2 (Households with one or more Severe Housing Problems: Lacks kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost burden) Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Having 1 or more of four housing problems 4,475 2,995 1,445 235 9,150 2,035 1,16 5 1,415 650 5,265 Having none of four housing problems 850 1,555 4,905 3,170 10,480 890 2,09 5 4,680 3,620 11,285 Household has negative income, but none of the other housing problems 405 0 0 0 405 370 0 0 0 370 Table 8 – Housing Problems 2 Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS 3. Cost Burden > 30% Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total NUMBER 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 Elderly 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 income 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 58 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 27 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 4. Cost Burden > 50% Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small 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 income 4,265 2,530 770 7,565 2,020 1,155 1,375 4,550 Table 10 – Cost Burden > 50% Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS 59 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 28 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 5. Crowding (More than one person per room) Renter Owner 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Single family households 445 315 405 105 1,270 15 15 40 20 90 Multiple, unrelated family households 195 215 110 0 520 0 0 0 10 10 Other, non- family households 75 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 Total need by income 715 530 515 105 1,865 15 15 40 30 100 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-10.8. In 2017, an estimated 2.6 percent of households were overcrowded, and an additional 1.1 percent were severely overcrowded. 60 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 29 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Table NA-10.8 Overcrowding and Severe Overcrowding Huntington Beach 2010 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data Data Source No Overcrowding Overcrowding Severe Overcrowding 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 2017 Five-Year ACS 29,633 92.6% 1,609 5.0% 743 2.3% 31,985 Total 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 130 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. Table NA-10.9 Households with Incomplete Plumbing Facilities Huntington Beach 2010 and 2017 Five-Year ACS Data 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 530 households in 2010. This was a change from 0.7 percent of households in 2010 to 0.8 percent in 2017. Table NA-10.10 Households with Incomplete Kitchen Facilities Huntington Beach 2010 and 2017 Five-Year ACS Data Households 2010 Five-Year ACS 2017 Five-Year ACS With Complete Kitchen Facilities 74,690 76,078 Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities 530 631 Total Households 75,220 76,709 Percent Lacking 0.7% 0.8% 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 61 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 30 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 household income. For homeowners, gross housing costs include pr operty 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. Table NA-10.11 Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden by Tenure Huntington Beach 2010 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data Data Source Less Than 30% 31%-50% Above 50% Not Computed Total Households % of Total Households % of Total Households % of Total Households % of 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 – 2016 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. 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. 62 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 31 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Table NA-10.12 Disability by Age Huntington Beach 2017 Five-Year ACS Data Age Male Female Total Disabled Population Disability Rate Disabled Population Disability Rate Disabled Population Disability 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% 65 to 74 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 9.4% 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 NA-10.13 Total Disabilities Tallied: Aged 5 and Older Huntington Beach 2017 Five-Year ACS Disability Type Population with Disability Percent with 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-10.1 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.1 1 http://www.ochealthiertogether.org/indicators/index/view?indicatorId=5993&localeId=267 63 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 32 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Map NA-10.1 2017 Persons with Disabilities Huntington Beach 2017 ACS, Tigerline 64 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 33 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Map NA-10.2 2017 Persons with Disabilities Age 65 and Older Huntington Beach 2017 ACS, Tigerline 65 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 34 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 What are the most common housing problems? As seen in Table NA-10.11, 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 30 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 NA-10.14 Owner-Occupied Households by Income and Family Status and Cost Burden Huntington Beach 2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data Income Elderly Family Small Family Large Family Elderly Non-Family Other Household Total 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 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 66 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 35 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 rate. Small families between 30 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. Table NA-10.15 Renter-Occupied Households by Income and Family Status and Cost Burden Huntington Beach 2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data Income Elderly Family Small Family Large Family Elderly Non-Family Other Household Total Cost Burden $0 to $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 $0 to $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 Total 1,445 13,830 2,269 2,950 10,915 31,409 67 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 36 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 5,830 households in Huntington Beach that are below 30 percent HAMFI with severe cost burdens. These 1,940 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 $100,000 a year gr owing 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 48.0 percent. 68 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 37 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: 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 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 Housing Problems Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 7,065 1,180 775 White 4,155 785 610 Black / African American 50 14 0 Asian 910 195 60 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 15 0 0 Hispanic 1,840 170 80 Table 13 - Disproportionally Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *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 Housing Problems Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 6,175 1,635 0 White 3,905 1,260 0 Black / African American 44 10 0 Asian 560 115 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 35 25 0 Pacific Islander 40 0 0 Hispanic 1,495 205 0 69 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 38 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Table 14 - Disproportionally Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *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% 50%-80% of Area Median Income Housing Problems Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems 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 Hispanic 1,285 730 0 Table 15 - Disproportionally Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *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% 80%-100% of Area Median Income Housing Problems Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 2,895 4,775 0 White 2,060 3,435 0 Black / African American 90 65 0 Asian 260 280 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 4 20 0 Pacific Islander 20 4 0 Hispanic 385 785 0 Table 16 - Disproportionally Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 70 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 39 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 1,180 households at 0-30% MFI or roughly 15.1 percent experiencing one of the four housing problems. There were 14 African American households or 28.0 percent, who experienced a housing problem 71 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 40 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 NA-20 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 Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 6,510 1,740 775 White 3,790 1,155 610 Black / African American 40 25 0 Asian 775 330 60 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 15 0 0 Hispanic 1,795 210 80 Table 17 – Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *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% 30%-50% of Area Median Income Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 4,160 3,650 0 White 2,665 2,495 0 Black / African American 20 35 0 Asian 380 290 0 72 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 41 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems American Indian, Alaska Native 35 25 0 Pacific Islander 10 30 0 Hispanic 970 730 0 Table 18 – Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *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% 50%-80% of Area Median Income Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 2,860 9,585 0 White 1,970 6,850 0 Black / African American 30 79 0 Asian 155 910 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 25 80 0 Pacific Islander 4 55 0 Hispanic 595 1,420 0 Table 19 – Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *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% 73 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 42 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 80%-100% of Area Median Income Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 885 6,790 0 White 555 4,940 0 Black / African American 50 110 0 Asian 130 410 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 25 0 Pacific Islander 0 30 0 Hispanic 155 1,020 0 Table 20 – Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *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. 74 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 43 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 Housing Cost Burden <=30% 30-50% >50% No / negative income (not computed) Jurisdiction as a whole 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 Native 210 70 35 0 Pacific Islander 50 104 30 0 Hispanic 5,470 2,470 2,535 90 Table 21 – Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS 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 18.0 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. 75 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 44 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 NA-30 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 (10) 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-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion. Table NA-30.1 Total Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race Huntington Beach 2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data Income Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic (Any Race) Total White Black Asian American Indian Pacific Islander Other Race 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 $48,951 to $78,320 5,310 95 515 0 15 145 1,475 7,555 $78,321 to $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 76 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 45 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * # of units vouchers 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 Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) Characteristics of Residents Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program # Homeless at admission 0 0 0 16,476 0 16,470 17,239 15,594 # of Elderly Program Participants (>62) 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 4 77 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 46 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program # of Disabled Families 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 3 # of Families requesting accessibility features 0 0 0 87 0 5 72 10 # of HIV/AIDS program participants 0 0 0 4,926 0 4,884 38 3 # 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) Race of Residents Program Type Race Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * White 0 0 0 5,857 0 5,528 139 182 6 Black/African American 0 0 0 745 0 693 39 10 2 Asian 0 0 0 4,128 0 4,107 4 15 2 American Indian/Alaska Native 0 0 0 64 0 60 4 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 31 0 30 1 0 0 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 Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) 78 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 47 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Ethnicity of Residents Program Type Ethnicity Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housi ng Vouchers Total Project - based Tenant - based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * Hispanic 0 0 0 1,941 0 1,814 34 87 4 Not Hispanic 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. 79 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 48 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 NA-40 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 60 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. • 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 NA-40 1 Homeless Persons Orange County CoC 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. 80 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 49 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Population Estimate the # of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night Estimate the # experiencing homelessness each year Estimate the # becoming homeless each year Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessness Sheltered Unsheltered Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 1,154 396 0 0 0 0 Persons in Households with Only Children 11 3 0 0 0 0 Persons in Households with Only Adults 1,734 3,562 0 0 0 0 Chronically Homeless 559 1,932 0 0 0 0 Veterans 99 212 0 0 0 Unaccompanied Youth 11 3 0 0 0 0 Persons with HIV 39 67 0 0 0 0 Substance Abuse Issues 578 1,223 0 0 0 0 Physical Disability 326 1,145 0 0 0 0 Mental Health Issues 670 984 0 0 0 0 Seniors 357 255 0 0 0 0 81 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 50 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 Native 112 74 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 60 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. 82 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 51 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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. 83 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 52 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 NA-45.1 Disability by Age Huntington Beach 2017 Five-Year ACS Data Age Male Female Total Disabled Population Disability Rate Disabled Population Disability Rate Disabled Population Disability 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% 65 to 74 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 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. Table NA-45.2 Total Disabilities Tallied: Aged 5 and Older Huntington Beach 2017 Five-Year ACS Disability Type Population with Disability Percent with 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% 84 Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 53 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Map NA-45.1 Elderly Population City of Huntington Beach 2017 ACD, Tigerline 85 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 54 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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.2 Nearly 1.5 million opioid prescriptions were dispensed to Orange County residents in 2018, 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 2018-2023 Alcohol & Other Drug Prevention Strategic Plan provides additional information about drug and alcohol use in Orange County.3 According to the findings from the 2016 Orange County CHKS, past 30 day 11th grade youth AOD use rates have decreased since 2008 and are consistently lower than California rates. Data findings from the DOJ in 2016 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 2016 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.ochealthiertogether.org/content/sites/ochca/Local_Reports/Addressing_the_Opioid_Crisis_in_Orange_City.pdf 3http://www.ochealthiertogether.org/content/sites/ochca/Local_Reports/OC_Alcohol_and_Other_Drug_Prevention_Stratetic_Plan_2018- 2023.pdf 4 http://www.ochealthiertogether.org/indicators/index/view?indicatorId=5993&localeId=267 86 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 55 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Table NA-45.3 Needs of Special Populations Huntington Beach 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 addictions 58 57 74 146 25 52 412 Seniors (65+) 29 62 100 141 24 56 412 Victims of domestic violence 21 56 108 127 46 54 412 Persons with developmental disabilities 24 65 106 111 47 59 412 Persons with physical disabilities 23 63 126 103 41 56 412 Persons recently released from jail/prison 85 65 64 65 54 79 412 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 280 HIV (209 HIV non-AIDS and 71 AIDS) cases diagnosed in Orange County residents, for a rate of 8.7 cases per 100,000 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 ser vices in the City. 5http://www.ochealthinfo.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=108230 87 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 56 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) 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 1.4 Providing a Suitable Living Environment Huntington Beach 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 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES in the City: Homeless shelters 85 47 60 173 10 37 412 Facilities for abused/neglected children 29 56 103 124 55 45 412 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 accessibility 72 109 84 39 61 47 412 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. 88 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 57 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Table 1.3 Providing a Suitable Living Environment Huntington Beach 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 20 17 American Community Survey, supports additional support services for this segment of the population. 89 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 58 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Table 1.5 Providing a Suitable Living Environment Huntington Beach 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 violence 22 52 122 140 33 43 412 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. 90 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 59 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2) Introduction Table MA-10.1 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 60 percent of the Huntington Beach housing stock, compared to roughly 36 percent of multi-family units. All residential properties by number of units Property Type Number % 1-unit detached structure 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 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 Table MA-10.1 Housing Units by Type Huntington Beach 2010 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data Unit Type 2010 Five-Year ACS 2017 Five-Year ACS Units % of Total Units % of Total Single-Family 48,341 61.1% 49,795 61.4% 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% 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% 91 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 60 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 MA-10.2 Housing Units by Tenure Huntington Beach 2010 Census & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data 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 MA-10.3 Distribution of Units in Structure by Race Huntington Beach 2017 Five-Year ACS Data Unit Type White Black American Indian Asian Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders Other Two or More Races 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% Table MA-10.4 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 1980, may suggest a higher level of need for renovation and rehabilitation. 92 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 61 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Table MA-10.4 Households by Year Home Built Huntington Beach 2010 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data Year Built 2010 Five-Year ACS 2017 Five-Year ACS Households % of Total Households % of Total 1939 or Earlier 935 1.2% 1,323 1.7% 1940 to 1949 802 1.1% 554 0.7% 1950 to 1959 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% Unit Size by Tenure Owners Renters Number % Number % No bedroom 135 0% 1,360 4% 1 bedroom 1,200 3% 7,445 24% 2 bedrooms 6,730 16% 12,975 42% 3 or more bedrooms 35,350 81% 9,270 30% Total 43,415 100% 31,050 100% 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. 93 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 62 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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-10.1 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 2020 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. Total Units in Project # of Affordable Units in Project Number of Very Low Income Units Restricted by Covenants Number of Low Income Units Restricted by Covenants Number of Moderate Income Units Restricted by 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. 94 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 63 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Table MA-10.6 Housing Problems by Income and Tenure Huntington Beach 2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data Housing Problem $0 to $29,370 $29,371 to $48,950 $48,951 to $78,320 $78,321 to $97,900 Above $97,900 Total Owner-Occupied Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities 0 10 25 0 10 45 Severely Overcrowded with > 1.51 people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing) 4 0 30 0 25 59 Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none of the above problems) 15 15 40 50 130 250 Housing cost burden greater that 50% of income (and none of the above problems) 1,940 1,320 1,300 445 505 5,510 Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income (and none of the above problems) 430 730 1,320 1,320 3,825 7,625 Zero/negative income (and none of the above problems) 330 0 0 0 0 330 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 room (and complete kitchen and plumbing) 330 95 130 25 60 640 Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none of the above problems) 325 430 425 85 205 1,470 Housing cost burden greater that 50% of income (and none of the above problems) 3,890 2,145 860 85 35 7,015 Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income (and none of the above problems) 275 1,360 3,275 725 665 6,300 Zero/negative income (and none of the above problems) 425 0 0 0 0 425 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 room (and complete kitchen and plumbing) 334 95 160 25 85 699 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 (and none of the above problems) 5,830 3,465 2,160 530 540 12,525 Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income (and none of the above problems) 705 2,090 4,595 2,045 4,490 13,925 Zero/negative income (and none of the above problems) 755 0 0 0 0 755 Has none of the 4 housing problems 1,245 1,935 5,265 5,010 31,695 45,150 Total 9,414 8,195 12,820 7,785 37,185 75,399 95 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 64 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Map MA-10.1 Expiring Section 8 Contracts Huntington Beach 2018 HUD, Tigerline 96 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 65 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 Providing Decent and Affordable Housing Huntington Beach 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 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 populations 137 68 55 98 39 15 412 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 97 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 66 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) Cost of Housing Base Year: 2009 Most Recent Year: 2015 % Change Median Home Value 709,700 642,900 (9%) Median Contract Rent 1,379 1,535 11% Table 28 – Cost of Housing Data Source: 2005-2009 ACS (Base Year), 2011-2015 ACS (Most Recent Year) HOUSING P RODUCTION 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 2018. 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 308,350 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 I-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 $2,306. The lowest rents were below $1,558. 98 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 67 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Table MA-15.1 Building Permits and Valuation Huntington Beach Census Bureau Data, 1980–2018 Year Authorized Construction in Permit Issuing Areas Per Unit Valuation, (Real 2017$) Single- Family Duplex Units Tri- and Four-Plex Multi-Family Units Total Units Single-Family Units Multi-Family 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 1984 684 10 43 739 1,476 134,165 57,984 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 Rent Paid Number % Less than $500 1,650 5.3% $500-999 2,125 6.8% $1,000-1,499 11,425 36.8% $1,500-1,999 8,910 28.7% $2,000 or more 6,930 22.3% Total 31,040 100.0% Table 29 - Rent Paid Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS 99 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 68 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Diagram MA-15.1 Single-Family Permits Huntington Beach Census Bureau Data, 1980–2017 Diagram MA-15.2 Total Permits by Unit Type Huntington Beach Census Bureau Data, 1980–2017 100 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 69 Draft Report for Public Review: 02/11/2020 Map MA-15.1 2017 Homeowner Households Huntington Beach 2017 ACS, Tigerline 101 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 70 Draft Report for Public Review: 02/11/2020 Map MA-15.2 2017 Renter Households Huntington Beach 2017 ACS, Tigerline 102 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 71 Draft Report for Public Review: 02/11/2020 Map MA-15.3 2017 Median Home Value Huntington Beach 2017 ACS, Tigerline 103 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 72 Draft Report for Public Review: 02/11/2020 Map MA-15.4 2017 Median Contract Rent Huntington Beach 2017 ACS, Tigerline 104 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 73 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Housing Affordability % Units affordable to Households earning Renter Owner 30% HAMFI 1,115 No Data 50% HAMFI 2,155 1,105 80% HAMFI 12,870 2,195 100% HAMFI No Data 3,405 Total 16,140 6,705 Table 30 – Housing Affordability Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS Monthly Rent This data is based on the 2019 HUD HOME Rent Limits for Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine area. Monthly Rent ($) Efficiency (no bedroom) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Fair Market Rent 1,415 1,632 2,037 2,862 3,304 High HOME Rent 1,331 1,428 1,714 1,972 2,180 Low HOME Rent 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. 105 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 74 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 How do HOME rents / 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. 106 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 75 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(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 Condition of Units Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % With one selected Condition 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 Year Unit Built Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % 2000 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 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 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. 107 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 76 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Table MA-20.1 Households by Year Home Built Huntington Beach 2010 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data Year Built 2010 Five-Year ACS 2017 Five-Year ACS Households % of Total Households % of Total 1939 or Earlier 935 1.2% 1,323 1.7% 1940 to 1949 802 1.1% 554 0.7% 1950 to 1959 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 Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % Total Number of Units Built Before 1980 31,840 73% 24,020 77% Housing Units build before 1980 with children present 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. 108 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 77 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Table MA-20.2 Disposition of Vacant Housing Units Huntington Beach 2010 Census & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data Disposition 2010 Census 2017 Five-Year ACS 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 1950 and 1959 had a median value of $643,500 and those built between 1990 to 1999 had a median value of $883,900. 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 $856,100 and $979,200 respectively. The total median value in Huntington Beach was $688,700. Table MA-20.3 Owner Occupied Median Value by Year Structure Built Huntington Beach 2017 5-Year ACS 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 1980 to 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. 109 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 78 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Map MA-20.1 2017 Vacant for Rent Huntington Beach 2017 ACS, Tigerline 110 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 79 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Map MA-20.2 2017 Vacant for Sale Huntington Beach 2017 ACS, Tigerline 111 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 80 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Map MA-20.3 2017 “Other” Vacant Huntington Beach 2010 Census, Tigerline 112 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 81 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Need for Owner and Rental Rehabilitation As seen in Section MA-10, Table MA-10.6, there is a moderate need for owner rehabilitation. Rental rehabilitation is seen as a slightly higher need than owner rehabilitation. The age of the housing stock does indicate a higher level of need for rehabilitation for units, as almost three-quarters of units were built prior to 1980. Estimated Number of Housing Units Occupied by Low or Moderate Income Families with LBP Hazards Table MA-20.4 shows the risk of lead-based paint for households with young children present. As seen therein, there are an estimated 6,685 households built between 1940 and 1979 with young children present, and 165 built prior to 1939. Table MA-20.4 Vintage of Households by Income and Presence of Young Children Huntington Beach 2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data Income One or more children age 6 or younger No children age 6 or younger Total Built 1939 or Earlier $0 to $29,370 0 200 200 $29,371 to $48,950 45 125 170 $48,951 to $78,320 10 140 150 $78,321 to $97,900 15 50 65 Above $97,900 95 450 545 Total 165 965 1,130 Built 1940 to 1979 $0 to $29,370 865 5,750 6,615 $29,371 to $48,950 840 5,525 6,365 $48,951 to $78,320 1,140 8,725 9,865 $78,321 to $97,900 645 5,090 5,735 Above $97,900 3,195 23,285 26,480 Total 6,685 48,375 55,060 Built 1980 or Later $0 to $29,370 260 2,335 2,595 $29,371 to $48,950 130 1,535 1,665 $48,951 to $78,320 305 2,510 2,815 $78,321 to $97,900 195 1,785 1,980 Above $97,900 1,290 8,870 10,160 Total 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 75,405 113 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 82 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(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. Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project - based Tenant - based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * # of units vouchers available 9,925 879 1,669 0 # 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 Public Housing Development Average Inspection Score 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. 114 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 83 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 MA-30 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 Emergency Shelter Beds Transitional Housing Beds Permanent Supportive Housing Beds Year Round Beds (Current & New) Current & New Current & New Current & New Under Development Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 574 816 1,149 Households with Only Adults 14 0 1,976 Chronically Homeless Households 545 Veterans 26 1,079 Unaccompanied Youth 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 System6 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 • equitable resource distribution • regional service planning area prioritization 6 http://www.occommunityservices.org/hcd/homeless/coordinated_entry_system 115 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 84 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 MA-30.1 Homeless Service Providers Orange County CoC 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 116 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 85 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(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 MA-35.1 Needs of Special Populations Huntington Beach 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 HOUSING types for special needs populations in the City: Rental assistance for homeless households 59 64 62 159 14 54 412 Permanent supportive housing, such as subsidized housing that offers services for persons with mental disabilities 50 53 80 144 31 54 412 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 homes or assisted living facilities 32 62 117 102 38 61 412 Housing designed for persons with disabilities 32 81 115 84 43 57 412 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 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 117 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 86 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 over age 60 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. 118 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 87 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(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 10. 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 MA-40.1 Providing Decent and Affordable Housing Huntington Beach 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 Lack of affordable housing development policies 102 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 18 119 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 88 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 Business by Sector Number of Workers Number of Jobs Share of Workers % Share of Jobs % Jobs less workers % Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction 730 142 1 0 -1 Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 10,860 11,487 14 17 3 Construction 4,455 4,182 6 6 1 Education and Health Care Services 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, Scientific, Management Services 9,859 4,986 12 7 -5 Public Administration 0 0 0 0 0 Retail Trade 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) 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 Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 5.27 Table 40 - Labor Force Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS 120 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 89 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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. Table MA-45.1 Labor Force Statistics Huntington Beach 1990 - 2018 BLS Data Year Huntington Beach Statewide Unemployment Rate Unemployment Employment Labor Force 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% 121 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 90 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 3,760 unemployed persons. Diagram MA-45.1 Employment and Labor Force Huntington Beach 1990 – 2017 BLS Data Unemployment Diagram MA-45.2 shows the unemployment rate for both the State and Huntington Beach. During the 1990’s the average rate for Huntington Beach was 3.4 percent, which compared to 7.3 percent statewide. Between 2000 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. 122 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 91 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Diagram MA-45.2 Annual Unemployment Rate Huntington Beach 1990 – 2017 BLS Data Occupations by Sector Number of People Median Income Management, business and financial 32,870 Farming, fisheries and forestry occupations 3,590 Service 9,635 Sales and office 26,230 Construction, extraction, maintenance and repair 6,640 Production, transportation and material moving 3,725 Table 41 – Occupations by Sector Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS 123 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 92 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Travel Time Travel Time Population Percentage < 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) Educational Attainment In Labor Force Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force Less than high school graduate 5,560 450 2,330 High school graduate (includes equivalency) 12,010 1,270 3,935 Some college or Associate's degree 28,405 2,425 7,795 Bachelor'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 Age 18 - 24 25- 34 35-44 45-65 65+ yrs. 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 alternative 4,425 4,045 4,315 8,865 6,320 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 Graduate or professional degree 40 2,855 4,370 8,930 5,370 Table 44 - Educational Attainment by Age Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Educational Attainment – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Less than high school graduate $20,589 High school graduate (includes equivalency) $35,154 Some college or Associate's degree $2,166 Bachelor's degree $65,051 Graduate or professional degree $83,111 Table 45 – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months 124 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 93 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 125 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 94 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 t he post- recession recovery period. Diagram MA-45.4 Real Per Capita Income Orange County BEA Data 1990 - 2017 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 Employment, Labor Force and Unemployment Huntington Beach 2017 Five-Year ACS 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. 126 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 95 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Table MA-45.3 High School or Greater Education Huntington Beach 2017 Five-Year ACS Data Education Level Households High School or Greater 71,874 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 36.0 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 MA-45.4 Educational Attainment Huntington Beach 2017 Five-Year ACS Data 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, Health Care, Professional services and retail. The highest median earnings are in Utilities, Government and Management. Diagram MA-45.5, on the following page shows this data as a bubble chart, with employment on the x-axis, median earnings on the y-axis and the percentage share of employment as the size of the bubble. Table MA-45.5 Employment by Industry Huntington Beach city 2018 Five Year ACS Data Industry Total Employment Percent of Employment Median Earnings Administration 3,189 4% $47,894 Arts 1,438 2% $52,409 Construction 4,549 6% $63,260 Education 4,257 6% $72,861 Farming 148 0% $32,500 Finance 4,743 7% $77,950 Food 3,262 5% $37,705 Government 3,455 5% $97,218 Health Care 7,782 11% $68,333 Information 1,731 2% $82,161 Management 120 0% $83,500 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 Utilities 748 1% $123,750 Wholesale 2,926 4% $73,151 127 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 96 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Diagram MA-45.5 Employment and Earnings City of Huntington Beach BEA Data 1990 - 2017 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 60 minutes. This may indicate a higher level of need for the availability of businesses accessible to Huntington Beach residents. 128 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 97 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Table MA-45.6 Enhancing Economic Opportunities Huntington Beach 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 BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT activities in the City: Retention of existing businesses 11 24 91 204 20 62 412 Foster businesses with higher paying jobs 24 28 99 172 28 61 412 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 after plant closure, etc. 44 73 82 103 48 62 412 Enhancement of businesses infrastructure 26 49 106 98 70 63 412 Provision of working capital for businesses 47 74 77 66 81 67 412 Provision of technical assistance for businesses 42 75 86 63 78 68 412 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 36.0 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 h ealthcare workers generally require additional education beyond the high school level, such as professional certifications, or advanced degrees. 129 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 98 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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:7 • 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.8 • 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 • 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. 7 https://huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/economic_development/TenPointPlanMatrix-May12013.pdf 8 http://www.hbbiz.com/doing-business/business-development 9 http://www.hbbiz.com/doing-business/business-development 10 http://www.hbbiz.com/doing-business/business-development 130 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 99 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 • 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 36.0 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. 131 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 100 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 MA-50 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, closer to I-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 (10) 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 1.0 percent of the total population, there would be a disproportionate share if one area saw a rate of 11.0 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-50.6 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? 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. 132 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 101 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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. 133 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 102 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Map MA-50.1 Housing Problems Huntington Beach 2015 CHAS, Tigerline 134 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 103 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Map MA-50.2 Asian Housing Problems Huntington Beach 2015 CHAS, Tigerline 135 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 104 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Map MA-50.3 Black Housing Problems Huntington Beach 2015 CHAS, Tigerline 136 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 105 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Map MA-50.4 Hispanic Housing Problems Huntington Beach 2015 CHAS, Tigerline 137 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 106 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Map MA-50.5 2017 Asian Households Huntington Beach 2017 ACS, Tigerline 138 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 107 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Map MA-50.6 2017 Hispanic Households Huntington Beach 2017 ACS, Tigerline 139 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 108 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Map MA-50.7 2017 Poverty Huntington Beach 2017 ACS, Tigerline 140 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 109 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households - 91.210(a)(4), 91.310(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.11 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.12 11 https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/announcements/announcement.cfm?id=959 12 https://itif.org/publications/2019/09/03/policymakers-guide-broadband-competition 141 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 110 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(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 10 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://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/announcements/attachments/Huntington_Beach_public_review_draft_LHMP.pdf 142 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 111 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Strategic Plan 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 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. 143 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 112 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 10% of the HOME entitlement is allowed for administration activities. 144 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 113 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 SP-10 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. Howe ver, the majority of CDBG-funded infrastructure and facility projects are targeted to the most-needy neighborhoods in Low to Moderate Income (LMI) area. Code Enforcement activities will only be conducted in LMI Areas as well pursuant to code enforcement eligibility requirements. These LMI areas are shown in Map SP-10.1 145 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 114 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Map SP-10.1 LMI Areas Huntington Beach 2017 ACS, Tiglerline 146 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 115 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2) Priority Needs Table 47 – Priority Needs Summary 1 Priority Need Name Households with Housing Problems 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 Areas Affected LMI Areas Citywide Associated Goals Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing 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 Relative Priority Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, survey and public input As seen in Table NA-10.11, 29,264 households in Huntington Beach with a cost 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 Name Homelessness Priority Level High 147 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 116 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Population Extremely Low Low Large Families Families with Children Elderly Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children Mentally Ill 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 Areas Affected Citywide Associated Goals Support Efforts to Address Homelessness 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 Relative Priority Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, survey and public input The homeless population has grown from 3,833 to 6,860 between 2014 and 2019 regionally. There continues to be a high level of need for housing and service options. 3 Priority Need Name Special Needs Populations Priority Level High 148 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 117 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 Areas Affected LMI Area Citywide Associated Goals Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations 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 Relative Priority Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, survey and public input. The senior population has grown to account for 17.0 percent of the population, 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 Name Priority Community Services 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 Areas Affected LMI Area Citywide 149 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 118 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Associated Goals Increase Access to Community Services to LMI Persons 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. Basis for Relative Priority Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, survey and public input The Housing and Community Development survey found these activities to be highly rated needs in the City. 5 Priority Need Name Priority Community and Public Facilities 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 Areas Affected LMI Area Citywide Associated Goals Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities 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 Relative Priority Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, survey and public input The Housing and Community Development survey found these activities to be highly rated needs in the City. 6 Priority Need Name Priority Infrastructure Improvements Priority Level High 150 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 119 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 Areas Affected LMI Area Citywide Associated Goals Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements in LMI Neighborhoods 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 Relative Priority Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, survey and public input The Housing and Community Development survey found these activities to be highly rated needs in the City. 7 Priority Need Name Other Housing and Community Development Needs Priority Level High Population Non-housing Community Development Geographic Areas Affected Citywide Associated Goals Planning for Housing and Community Development 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. 151 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 120 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Basis for Relative Priority Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, survey and public input 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. 152 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 121 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b) Influence of Market Conditions Affordable Housing Type Market Characteristics that will influence the use of funds available for housing type Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Strong rental market conditions in Huntington Beach are having adverse repercussions on the ability of low and moderate income households to find 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- Homeless Special Needs Strong rental market conditions in Huntington Beach are having adverse repercussions on the ability of low and moderate income households to find 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 Production The production of new housing units is influenced by several market conditions, 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, including preservation While the cost of housing continues to rise within the City, the cost of acquisition is out of reach in many instances. Typically, the City's rehabilitation 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 153 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 122 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c) (1,2) Introduction The table that follows depicts the CDBG and HOME resources that the City of Huntington Beach is expected to have during the 2020 Program Year. Due to the National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) outbreak, a relief stimulus package is expected to include an increase in CDBG funding to help augment a local response to the virus. While this Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan does not currently contain the amount of the stimulus that will be allocated to Huntington Beach specifically, it does provide for complete discretion by the City Manager to allocate funds to best meet the needs of the Huntington Beach community. The City will document all activities and expenditures related to its COVID-19 response and will update its Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan, accordingly. 154 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 123 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Anticipated Resources Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Remainder of ConPlan $ Narrative Description Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG public – federal Acquisition Admin and Planning Economic Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services $1,696,814 $200,000 $259,590 $1,696,814 $5,748,896 Entitlement fund allocation plus estimated program income plus prior-year resources. HOME public – federal Acquisition Homebuyer assistance Homeowner rehab Multifamily rental new construction Multifamily rental rehab New construction for ownership TBRA $619,677 $75,000 $1,229,139 $1,923,816 $2,778,708 Entitlement funds allocation plus estimated program income plus prior-year resources. Table 49 - Anticipated Resources 155 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 124 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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, 2018. 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. 156 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 125 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 Responsible Entity Type Role Geographic Area Served Huntington Beach Government Economic Development Homelessness Non- homeless special needs Ownership Planning Rental neighborhood improvements public facilities public services Jurisdiction Orange County Housing Authority PHA Rental Region Fair Housing Foundation of Long Beach Regional Organization Public Services Region Orange County Continuum of Care Regional Organization Homelessness Region Homeless and Special Needs Service Providers Non-profit organizations Homelessness Non-homeless special needs Public Services Jurisdiction 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. 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 157 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 126 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 Services Available in the Community Targeted to Homeless Targeted to People 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 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 158 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 127 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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. 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. 159 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 128 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 • 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. 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. 160 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 129 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 SP-45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a)(4) Goals Summary Information Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods 2020 2024 Affordable Housing Citywide Households with Housing Problems $500,000 (CDBG) $490,000 (CDBG) $325,000 (CDBG) $1,000,000 (CDBG) Homeowner Units Rehabilitated – 40 Household Housing Units (Owner-Occupied SF, Condo, and Mobile Home Grant Program) Homeowner Units Rehabilitated – 10 Household Housing Units (Owner-Occupied Single- Family Rehabilitation Loan Program) Homeowner Units Rehabilitated – 50 Household Housing Units (Housing Rehabilitation Loan Administration) Housing Code Enforcement/ Foreclosed Property Care – 3,000 Housing Units (Special Code Enforcement) 161 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 130 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 2 Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing 2020 2024 Affordable Housing Citywide Households with Housing Problems $3,080,186 (HOME) $412,500 (HOME) $412,500 (HOME) $450,000 (HOME) Rental Units Constructed – 12 Household Housing Units (TBD Acq/Rehab/New Construction) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance - 50 Households (Interval House TBRA Program) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance - 50 Households (Families Forward TBRA Program) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance - 50 Households (Mercy House TBRA Program) 162 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 131 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 3 Support Efforts to Address Homelessness 2020 2024 Homeless Citywide Homelessness $329,124 (CDBG) $65,000 (CDBG) $50,000 (CDBG) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 2,000 Persons Assisted (Homeless Outreach Program) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 560 Persons Assisted (StandUp for Kids Street Outreach Program) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 45 Persons Assisted (Robyne’s Nest Housing for Homeless) 4 Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations 2020 2024 Non-Homeless Special Needs Citywide Priority Special Needs Populations $212,208 (CDBG) $50,000 (CDBG) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 825 Persons Assisted (Senior Services Care Management) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 950 Persons Assisted (Oakview Literacy) 163 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 132 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 5 Increase Access to Community Services to LMI Persons 2020 2024 Non-Homeless Special Needs Citywide Priority Community Services $260,637 (CDBG) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 2,000 Persons Assisted (Children’s Bureau) 6 Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities 2004 2024 Homeless Non-Housing Community Development LMI Areas Citywide Priority Community and Public Facilities $1,306,258 (CDBG) Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 5,000 Persons Assisted (Various Public Facility Projects) 7 Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements 2020 2024 Non-Housing Community Development LMI Areas Citywide Priority Infrastructure Improvements $1,420,258 (CDBG) Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 2,000 Persons Assisted (Various Infrastructure Improvement Projects) 8 Planning for Housing and Community Development 2020 2024 Homeless Non-Housing Community Development Citywide Other Housing and Community Development Needs $347,339 (HOME) $1,437,224 (CDBG) Other – Not Applicable (HOME Administration; CDBG Administration; Fair Housing Foundation) Table 52 – Goals Summary Goal Descriptions 164 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 133 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 1 Goal Name Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods Goal Description 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. (Projects: 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 Housing Goal Description 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). (Projects: Acquisition/Rehabilitation/New Construction Affordable Housing; Interval House Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program; Families Forward Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program; Mercy House Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program) 3 Goal Name Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Goal Description Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to homeless service providers. (Projects: Homeless Outreach Program; StandUp for Kids Street Outreach Program; Robyne’s Nest Housing for Homeless High Schoolers) 4 Goal Name Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations Goal Description 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. (Projects: Senior Care Management; Oak View Family Literacy Program) 5 Goal Name Provide Needed Community Services to LMI Persons Goal Description 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. (Projects: Children’s Bureau) 6 Goal Name Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities Goal Description Using CDBG funds, the City will provide financial assistance to improve public facilities and parks. (Projects: Various Community and Public Facility Projects) 165 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 134 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 7 Goal Name Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements Goal Description Using CDBG funds, the City will provide financial assistance to improve public infrastructure. (Projects: Various Public Infrastructure Improvement Projects) 8 Goal Name Support Community Development Programs Goal Description 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 10%of the HOME entitlement is allowed for administration activities. (Projects: HOME Administration, CDBG Administration, Fair Housing Foundation) 166 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 135 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 $10,000 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 $10,000 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 10 loans. • Acquisition/Rehabilitation/New Construction Affordable Housing Program: The City expects to have approximately $3 million available HOME funds to provide gap financing for the development of affordable housing. With a federal investment of $3 million, the City anticipates that 12 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 150 households with short and medium-term rental assistance as well as housing relocation and stabilization services. 167 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 136 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 902? Plan to remove the ‘troubled’ designation Not applicable. 168 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 137 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 SP.55.1 Providing Decent and Affordable Housing Huntington Beach 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 Lack of affordable housing development policies 102 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 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: 169 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 138 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Program 2. Multi-family Acquisition/Rehabilitation through Non-Profit Developers Objective: Acquire, rehabilitate, and establish affordability covenants on 80 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 10. 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 11. 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 100% of application processing fees in the Code for projects with 10% 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. 170 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 139 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 SP-60 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 12-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 in clude: 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 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 2019/20 Annual Action Plan, the City Council will consider an allocation of $791,200 of federal CDBG funds to help offset costs associated with the 171 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 140 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 construction and/or installation of a structure to be used as a homeless shelter facility at the project site with a minimum of 50 beds, with space for administration, storage, dining/recreation, and sleeping purposes. The facility proposes to consist of a pre-engineered steel or membrane structure on a concrete slab foundation (with interior partition walls) or modular units, or a combination thereof. A 12 ft x 90 ft modular restroom/shower building is also proposed. All structures will be ADA compliant. The project will also entail construction of water, sewer, storm drain, and electrical utilities, and hardscape/landscape, as well. The Cameron Lane Navigation Center has a total project cost of approximately $2 million, of which $791,200 is proposed to be funded with CDBG. 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 partnership with Interval House, Mercy House, and Families Forward to carryout tenant based rental assistance programs for households experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of becoming homeless. 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 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. 172 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 141 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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. 173 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 142 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j) 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. 174 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 143 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 SP-80 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. 175 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 144 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 2020 Annual Action Plan AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c) (1,2) Introduction Anticipated Resources Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Remainder of ConPlan $ Narrative Description Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG public – federal Acquisition Admin and Planning Economic Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services $1,237,224 $200,000 $259,590 $1,696,814 $5,748,896 Entitlement funds allocation plus estimated program income plus prior- year resources. 176 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 145 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Remainder of ConPlan $ Narrative Description Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ HOME public – federal Acquisition Homebuyer assistance Homeowner rehab Multifamily rental new construction Multifamily rental rehab New construction for ownership TBRA $619,677 $75,000 $1,229,139 $1,923,816 $2,778,708 Entitlement allocation plus estimated program income and prior-year resources. Table 49 - Anticipated Resources 177 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 146 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 (one-time payment). 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, 2018. 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 has recently authorized the purchase 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. 178 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 147 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives Goals Summary Information 179 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 148 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods 2020 2021 Affordable Housing Citywide Households with Housing Problems $100,000 (CDBG) $90,000 (CDBG) $65,000 (CDBG) $240,000 (CDBG) Homeowner Units Rehabilitated – 8 Household Housing Units (Owner-Occupied SF, Condo, and Mobile Home Grant Program) Homeowner Units Rehabilitated – 2 Household Housing Units (Owner-Occupied Single- Family Rehabilitation Loan Program) Homeowner Units Rehabilitated – 10 Household Housing Units (Housing Rehabilitation Loan Administration) Housing Code Enforcement/ Foreclosed Property Care – 600 Housing Units (Special Code Enforcement) 180 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 149 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 2 Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing 2020 2021 Affordable Housing Citywide Households with Housing Problems $1,304,348 (HOME) $175,000 (HOME) $175,000 (HOME) $200,000 (HOME) Rental Units Constructed – 6 Household Housing Units (TBD Acq/Rehab/New Construction) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance 20 Households (Interval House TBRA Program) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance 20 Households (Families Forward TBRA Program) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance 20 Households (Mercy House TBRA Program) 181 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 150 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 3 Support Efforts to Address Homelessness 2020 2021 Homeless Citywide Homelessness $85,000 (CDBG) $15,000 (CDBG) $10,000 (CDBG) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 400 Persons Assisted (Homeless Outreach Program) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 112 Persons Assisted (StandUp for Kids Street Outreach Program) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 9 Persons Assisted (Robyne’s Nest Housing for Homeless) 4 Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations 2020 2021 Non-Homeless Special Needs Citywide Priority Special Needs Populations $44,000 (CDBG) $10,000 (CDBG) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 165 Persons Assisted (Senior Services Care Management) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 190 Persons Assisted (Oakview Literacy) 182 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 151 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 5 Increase Access to Community Services to LMI Persons 2020 2021 Non-Housing Community Development Citywide Priority Community Services $60,637 (CDBG) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 400 Persons Assisted (Children’s Bureau) 6 Planning for Housing and Community Development 2020 2021 Other: Administration Not Applicable Other Housing and Community Development Needs $69,468 (HOME) $287,445 (CDBG) Other – Not Applicable (HOME Administration; CDBG Administration; Fair Housing Foundation) Unallocated Funds 2020 2021 N/A N/A N/A $689,732 (CDBG) N/A (Unallocated Funds) Table 54 – Goals Summary 183 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 152 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities 2020 2021 Non-Housing Community Development Citywide Low- and Moderate- Income Areas Priority Community and Public Facilities $0 (CDBG) $0 (CDBG) Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 14,180 Persons Assisted (Central Library Lower Level Restrooms ADA Improvement Project) Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 200 Persons Assisted (Back-Up Project: 2019 Cameron Lane Navigation Center) Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements 2020 2021 Non-Housing Community Development Citywide Low- and Moderate- Income Areas Priority Infrastructure Improvements $0 (CDBG) Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 1,939 Persons Assisted (ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3) 184 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 153 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods Goal Description Using CDBG funds, the City will sustain and strengthen neighborhoods by 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 Housing Goal Description 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. HOME funds will also be used to fund tenant based rental assistance efforts. (Projects: Acquisition/Rehabilitation/New Construction Affordable Housing; Interval House Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program; Families Forward Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program; Mercy House Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program) 3 Goal Name Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Goal Description Using CDBG funds, the City will provide assistance to homeless service providers. (Projects: Homeless Outreach Program; StandUp for Kids Street Outreach Program; Robyne’s Nest Housing for Homeless High Schoolers) 4 Goal Name Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations Goal Description 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. (Projects: Senior Care Management; Oak View Family Literacy Program) 5 Goal Name Increase Access to Community Services to LMI Persons Goal Description 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. (Projects: Children’s Bureau) 6 Goal Name Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities Goal Description Using CDBG funds, the City will provide financial assistance to improve public facilities and parks. (Back-Up Projects: Central Library Lower Level Restrooms ADA Improvement Project; Cameron Lane Navigation Center) 7 Goal Name Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements Goal Description Using CDBG funds, the City will provide financial assistance to improve public infrastructure in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods or for low- and moderate-income persons. (Back-Up Projects: ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3 Project) 185 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 154 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 8 Goal Name Planning for Housing and Community Development Goal Description 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 10% of the HOME entitlement is allowed for administration activities. (Projects: HOME Administration, CDBG Administration, Fair Housing Foundation) 186 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 155 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d) Introduction 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 is allowed to allocate a maximum of 15%, or $185,583, plus an additional 15% from prior year program income, for public services. This Annual Action Plan proposes to allocate $224,637 in public services towards the following activities: Homeless Outreach Program ($85,000); Senior Services Care Management ($44,000); Children’s Bureau ($60,637); StandUp for Kids Street Outreach ($15,000); Oakview Family Literacy Program ($10,000); and Robyne’s Nest Housing for Homeless High Schoolers ($10,000). 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, a maximum of 10% of the annual HOME entitlement plus 10% of program income, or $69,468, in HOME administration activities is allowed to be allocated in FY 2020/21. The City has allocated this amount for the HOME Program Administration activity in the Annual Action Plan. 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 that meet the needs of the community as defined in the Consolidated Plan. 187 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 156 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Projects # Project Name 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 Interval House Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program 7 Families Forward Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program 8 Mercy House Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program 9 Homeless Outreach Program 10 StandUp for Kids Street Outreach Program 11 Robyne’s Nest Housing for Homeless High Schoolers 12 Senior Services – Care Management 13 Oak View Family Literacy Program 14 Oak View Community Center – Children’s Bureau 15 HOME Administration 16 CDBG Administration 17 Fair Housing Foundation 18 Unallocated CDBG Funds Bac-Up Project: Central Library Lower Level Restrooms ADA Improvement Project Back-Up Project: ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3 Back-Up Project: Cameron Lane Navigation Center Table 55 – 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. 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, 188 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 157 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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. 189 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 158 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 AP-38 Project Summary Project Summary Information 1 Project Name Owner-Occupied SF, Condo, and Mobile Home Grant Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding CDBG: $100,000 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 $10,000 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. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 8 housing units Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. 190 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 159 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 2 Project Name Owner-Occupied Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding CDBG: $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 $10,000 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. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 2 housing units Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. 191 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 160 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 3 Project Name Housing Rehab Program Administration Target 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 will benefit from the proposed activities 10 housing units Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. 192 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 161 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 4 Project Name Special 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 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 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 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. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 600 housing units Location Description Low- and Moderate-Income Areas Planned Activities Same as description. 193 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 162 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 5 Project Name Acquisition/Rehabilitation/New Construction Affordable Housing Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding HOME: $1,304,348 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 $1.3 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 organization (CHDO). Target Date June 30, 2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Approximately 6 HOME units can be developed with HOME funds. Units will be restricted to low- and moderate-income households. Location Description To be determined. Planned Activities Same as description. 194 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 163 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 6 Project Name Interval House Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding HOME: $175,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 92.205(a)(1) – Tenant Based Rental Assistance National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) - Low Mod Housing Benefit The City will continue working with Interval House to provide 20 households with short and medium- term rental assistance as well as housing relocation and stabilization services. Target Date 06/30/2022 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 20 households Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Same as description. 195 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 164 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 7 Project Name Families Forward Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding HOME: $175,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 92.205(a)(1) – Tenant Based Rental Assistance National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) - Low Mod Housing Benefit The City will contract with Families Forward, a non- profit organization to provide 20 households with short and medium-term rental assistance. Families Forward will also assist households with case management, housing navigation, and supportive services. Target Date 06/30/2022 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 20 households Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Same as description. 196 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 165 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 8 Project Name Mercy House Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding HOME: $200,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 92.205(a)(1) – Tenant Based Rental Assistance National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) - Low Mod Housing Benefit The City will enter into a new two-year agreement with Mercy House for administration of a TBRA program. It is estimated that 20 households will be served in FY 2020/21. Target Date 06/30/2022 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 20 households Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Same as description. 197 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 166 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 9 Project Name Homeless Outreach Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Needs Addressed Homelessness Funding 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 Entry meetings. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 400 persons (homeless) Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. 198 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 167 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 10 Project Name StandUp for Kids Street Outreach Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Needs Addressed Homelessness Funding 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 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 will benefit from the proposed activities 112 persons (homeless) Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. 199 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 168 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 11 Project Name Robyne’s Nest Housing for Homeless High Schoolers Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Needs Addressed Homelessness Funding CDBG: $10,000 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 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 up the student to focus on schoolwork. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 9 persons (homeless) Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. 200 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 169 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 12 Project Name Senior Services Care Management Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations Needs Addressed Priority Special Needs Populations 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 benefit from the proposed activities 165 persons (seniors) 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. 201 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 170 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 13 Project Name Oakview Family Literacy Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations Needs Addressed Priority Special Needs Populations Funding CDBG: $10,000 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 21st 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 benefit from the proposed activities 190 persons Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. 202 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 171 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 14 Project Name Children’s Bureau Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Increase Access to Community Services for LMI Persons Needs Addressed Priority Community Services Funding CDBG: $60,637 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201(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 a non-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 benefit from the proposed activities 400 persons (youth) Location Description Oakview Enhancement Area Planned Activities See description. 203 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 172 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 15 Project Name HOME Program Administration Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Planning for Housing and Community Development Needs Addressed Other Housing and Community Development Needs Funding HOME: $69,468 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 10 percent of the HOME allocation, plus 10% of estimated program income, 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. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Not applicable. Location Description Not applicable. Planned Activities Same as description. 204 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 173 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 16 Project Name CDBG Program Administration 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: 24 CFR 570.206(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; (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 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 20% of the annual CDBG entitlement, plus 20% of estimated program income, is allowed for administration activities. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Not applicable. Location Description Not applicable. Planned Activities Same as description. 205 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 174 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 17 Project Name Fair Housing 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 570.206(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. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Not applicable. Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Same as description. 206 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 175 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 18 Project Name Unallocated CDBG Funds Target Area Not applicable Goals Supported Not applicable Needs Addressed Not applicable Funding CDBG: $689,732 Description Unallocated CDBG Funds Target Date Not applicable Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Not applicable Location Description Not applicable Planned Activities Not applicable 207 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 176 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Project Name Back-Up Project: Central Library Lower Level Restrooms ADA Improvement Project Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities Needs Addressed Priority Community and Public Facilities Funding CDBG: $0 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. 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 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 benefit from the proposed activities 14,180 persons Location Description 7111 Talbert Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Planned Activities Same as description. 208 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 177 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Project Name Back-Up Project: ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3 Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements Needs Addressed Priority Infrastructure Improvements Funding CDBG: $400,000 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 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 100 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 benefit from the proposed activities 1,939 persons 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. 209 Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 178 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Project Name Back-Up Project: 2019 Cameron Lane Navigation Center Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities Needs Addressed Priority Community and Public Facilities Funding CDBG: $0 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 In 2019/20, The City of Huntington Beach amended 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 purchase of the 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 benefit from the proposed activities 200 persons Location Description 17631 Cameron Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Planned Activities Same as description. 210 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 179 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 AP-50 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 Special Code Enforcement activities, the City has identified deteriorated areas based on observed violations of the Uniform Housing Code. This effort was undertaken to determine geographical areas meeting the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines to utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for special code enforcement and preservation activities in deteriorating areas. From this survey, staff identified four geographical areas that met the criteria for a deteriorating area, as well as meeting the CDBG national objective of serving low and moderate-income households: • Bolsa Chica – Heil • East – Central • South – Central • Southeast Geographic Distribution Target Area Percentage of Funds Low and Moderate Income Areas 6.6% Citywide 93.4% Table 56 - Geographic Distribution Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically Discussion 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 Areas that have been identified as deteriorated based on the observance of violations of the Uniform Housing Code. These areas include Bolsa Chica-Heil; East-Central; South-Central; and Southeast. Public facility and public infrastructure projects will be targeted to neighborhoods where 51% or more of residents are low and 211 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 180 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 moderate income, unless they serve a specific limited clientele in which case they may be located anywhere in the city. 212 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 181 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) Introduction Table 57 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 60 The Production of New Units 6 Rehab of Existing Units 10 Acquisition of Existing Units Total 76 Table 58 - 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 $10,000 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 $10,000 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 $1.3 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 $1.3 million, the City anticipates that 6 units will be HOME-restricted. Finally, the City will continue working with Interval House, Mercy House, and Families Forward to provide a total of 60 households (20 each) with short and medium-term rental assistance as well as housing relocation and stabilization services. One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 60 Non-Homeless 16 Special-Needs Total 76 213 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 182 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(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. 214 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 183 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 6,860 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 6,860 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 60 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 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 215 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 184 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 who are homeless or housing insecure. Since 2015, officers and case managers have helped hundreds of individual’s 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 Schooler’s 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 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. The City will continue to work toward developing a new transitional homeless shelter facility that can help move Huntington Beach homeless persons to stable housing. 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, 216 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 185 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 partnership with Interval House, Mercy House, and Families Forward to carryout tenant based rental assistance programs for households experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of becoming homeless. With a federal HOME allocation of $550,000, the City aims to assist 60 households over a two-year period. 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. 217 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 186 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 infill. 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 conducte d 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 2013-2021 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 80 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 218 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 187 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 10. 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 11. 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 100% of application processing fees in the Code for projects with 10% 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. 219 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 188 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(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 ren tal 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 creati on of new, affordable housing as a priority need during the 2020/21 – 2024/25 timeframe. The City will continue to offer funding to three qualified and experienced program operators of tenant based rental assistance programs in Huntington Beach. In FY 2020/21 alone, $550,000 in HOME funding will be allocated to this effort. The three providers include Interval House, Mercy House, and Families Forward. All three organizations are equipped to market and find eligible households to participate in the program. Over the next two years, the City is proposing to provide assistance to 60 households through this program. The City will also have over $1.3 million available HOME funds for the development of new affordable housing. The City plans to partner with a community housing development organization, or CHDO, to develop an affordable housing project for low- and moderate-income Huntington Beach households. With $1.3 million, the City hopes to develop approximately 6 HOME-restricted units. Finally, the City is also proposing to use $190,000 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 $10,000 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 10 households with housing rehabilitation assistance. 220 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 189 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 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 221 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 190 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 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 222 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 191 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 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 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 60 beds, coupled with wrap around homeless services to help participants transition to more stable living. 223 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 192 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Program Specific Requirements AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l) (1,2,4) 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, 2020. The FY 2020/21 CDBG allocation of $1,237,224 will be used to implement CDBG projects and programs during the program year. Any additional funds received pursuant to the National Emergency Concerning COVID-19 Stimulus will be allocated at the discretion of the City Manager. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(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 the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed $39,054 2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be 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 4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan. 5. The amount of income from float-funded activities Total Program Income $39,054 Other CDBG Requirements 1. The amount of urgent need activities $0 2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income. Overall Benefit - A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan. 80% 224 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 193 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(2) 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 92.206(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 92.206(b). 225 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 194 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 Appendix - Alternate/Local Data Sources 226 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 195 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 227 Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 196 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020 228 Action Plan CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ANNUAL ACTION PLAN JULY 1, 2020 - JUNE 30, 2021 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 229 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2020/21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary (AP-05) ......................................................................................... 1 Lead & Responsible Agencies (PR-05) ........................................................................ 8 Consultation (AP-10) .................................................................................................... 9 Citizen Participation (AP-12) ....................................................................................... 15 Expected Resources (AP-15) ...................................................................................... 20 Annual Goals and Objectives (AP-20) ........................................................................ 22 Projects (AP-35).......................................................................................................... 30 Project Summary (AP-38) ........................................................................................... 33 Geographic Distribution (AP-50) ............................................................................... 54 Affordable Housing (AP-55) ...................................................................................... 56 Public Housing (AP-60) .............................................................................................. 58 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities (AP-65) ............................................ 59 Barriers to Affordable Housing (AP-75) .................................................................... 63 Other Actions (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 230 231 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 1 Executive Summary AP-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(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 $3.6 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 Table 1 on the following page. National Emergency Concerning COVID-19 Outbreak Due to the National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) outbreak, a relief stimulus package is expected to include an increase in CDBG funding to help augment a local response to the virus. While this Annual Action Plan does not currently contain the amount of the stimulus that will be allocated to Huntington Beach specifically, it does provide for complete discretion by the City Manager to allocate funds to best meet the needs of the Huntington Beach community. The City will document all activities and expenditures related to its COVID-19 response and will update its Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan, accordingly. 232 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 2 Consolidated Plan 5-Year Priority Implementing Programs 2020/21 Goal Outcome/ Objective * Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods ▪ Special Code Enforcement ▪ Owner-Occupied SF, Condo, and Mobile Home Grant Program ▪ Owner-Occupied Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program ▪ Housing Rehabilitation Loan Administration 600 Housing Units 8 Housing Units 2 Housing Units 10 Housing Units SL-3 DH-1 DH-1 DH-1 Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing ▪ Acq/Rehab/New Construction Affordable Housing Project ▪ Interval Housing Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program ▪ Families Forward Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program ▪ Mercy House Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program 6 Housing Units 20 Households 20 Households 20 Households DH-2 DH-2 DH-2 DH-2 Support Efforts to Address Homelessness ▪ Homeless Outreach Program ▪ StandUp for Kids OC – Street Outreach Program ▪ Robyne’s Nest Housing for High School Students 400 Persons 112 Persons 9 Persons SL-1 SL-1 SL-1 Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations ▪ Senior Services, Care Management 165 Persons SL-1 Increase Access to Community Services to LMI Persons Youth Services ▪ Children’s Bureau General Public Services ▪ Oakview Family Literacy 400 Persons 190 Persons SL-1 SL-1 Preserve Existing and Create New Public Facilities ▪ Back-Up Project: Central Library Lower Level Restrooms ADA Improvement Project ▪ Back-Up Project: Cameron Lane Navigation Center 14,180 Persons 200 Persons SL-3 SL-1 Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements in LMI Neighborhoods ▪ Back-Up Project : ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3 1,939 Persons SL-3 Planning for Housing and Community Development ▪ HOME Administration ▪ CDBG Administration ▪ Fair Housing Services Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Table 1 – 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Priorities, Implementing Programs, and FY 2020/21 Goals 233 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 3 2. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan See Table above. 3. Evaluation of past performance 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 2016, 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 2018, 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 234 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 4 Families Forward in October 2018. 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 19 households. • 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 $10,000 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 11th 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 600 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 235 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 5 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 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 2016/17 to simply reconfigure the Family Resource Center, rather than providing additional space. The newly reconfigured space was completed in FY 2016/17 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 10 in FY 2016/17, Maintenance Zone 1 in FY 2017/18, and Maintenance Zone 9 in FY 2019/20. 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 2018/19, 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. 236 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 6 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 HUD’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 30-day period (April 3, 2020 – May 4, 2020). A City Council public hearing will be held on May 4, 2020, providing residents and interested parties a final opportunity to comment on the Consolidated Plan prior to adoption and submittal to HUD. 5. Summary of public comments See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. 237 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 7 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 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. 238 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 8 PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(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. Agency Role Name Department/Agency Lead Agency HUNTINGTON BEACH Office of Business Development CDBG Administrator Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director Community Development Department / Office of Business Development HOME Administrator Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director Community Development Department / Office of Business Development Table 3 – Responsible Agencies Narrative The Lead Agency for the 2020/21 Annual Action Plan is the City of Huntington Beach, Office of Business Development. Annual Action Plan Public Contact Information Mr. Robert Ramirez Economic Development Manager City of Huntington Beach Office of Business Development 2000 Main Street, 5th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phone: (714) 374-5186 Email: robert.ramirez@surfcity-hb.org 239 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 9 AP-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) 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. 240 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 10 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 Agency/Group/ Organization Agency/Group/ Organization Type What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? How was the Agency/ Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? City of Huntington Beach Other government - Local Housing Need Assessment Homeless Needs Homelessness Strategy Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Non-Housing Community Development Strategy Anti-Poverty Strategy Lead-based Paint Strategy Citizen Participation Advisory Board (CPAB) and Homeless Collaborative meetings. City will continue maintaining its strong relationships with service providers and local jurisdictions to implement the 5-year strategy. 241 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 11 Agency/Group/ Organization Agency/Group/ Organization Type What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? How was the Agency/ Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Huntington Beach City Council Civic Leaders Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Non-Housing Community Development Strategy Anti-Poverty Strategy Public hearings. City Council members reflect the needs of their constituents in the community, which have been reflected in the needs and priorities identified in the Plan. Orange County Housing Authority PHA Housing Other government – City Housing Need Assessment Public Housing Needs Homelessness Strategy Non-Homeless Special Needs Anti-Poverty Strategy Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan AIDS Services Foundation of Orange County Services - Health Non-Homeless Special Needs Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Alzheimer's Family Services Center Services - Health Housing Needs Assessment Public Housing Needs Homelessness Strategy Anti-Poverty Strategy Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Beach Cities Interfaith Services (BCIS) Services - Homeless Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless Homeless Needs - Families with children Homelessness Needs - Veterans Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth Homelessness Strategy Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Build Futures Services - Homeless Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Children's Bureau Services – Children Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Strategy Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Collette's Children's Home Services - Homeless Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Strategy Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan 242 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 12 Agency/Group/ Organization Agency/Group/ Organization Type What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? How was the Agency/ Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Community SeniorServ Services - Elderly Persons Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Strategy Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan CrossPoint Church Services - Homeless Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Strategy Market Analysis Economic Development Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan CSP, Huntington Beach Youth Shelter Services - Homeless Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Strategy Market Analysis Economic Development Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Dayle McIntosh Center Services - Persons with Disabilities Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Family Literacy Program Services - Children Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Strategy Market Analysis Economic Development Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Huntington Beach Hospital Services - Health Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Huntington Beach Police Department Services - Homeless Homeless Needs Homelessness Strategy Homeless Collaborative Meeting. CPAB meeting. Huntington Beach Senior Services/Senior Outreach Services - Elderly Persons Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Project Self-Sufficiency Services - Homeless Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless Homelessness Needs - Veterans Homelessness Strategy Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan Regional Center of Orange County Services - Health Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan 243 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 13 Agency/Group/ Organization Agency/Group/ Organization Type What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? How was the Agency/ Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Society of St. Vincent de Paul Services - Homeless Homeless Needs Homelessness Strategy Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan St. Vincent DePaul Society, St. Mary's by the Sea Services - Homeless Homeless Needs Homelessness Strategy Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment on the draft plan U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Government – Federal Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Economic Development Non-Housing Community Development Strategy Anti-Poverty Strategy The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has been consulted regarding the COVID-19 outbreak. Table 4 – 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. 244 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 14 Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Continuum of Care OC Partnership, 2-1-1 Orange County and the OC Community Services. For the past several years, leadership and coordination of 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 Housing Element City of Huntington Beach Planning Division The City recently updated its Housing Element for the 2013- 2021 period. Key housing policies and programs from the Housing Element have been reflected within the Consolidated Plan. Table 5 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts 245 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 15 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, 2020 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 30-day period beginning on April 3, 2020 and concluding on May 4, 2020. A public hearing was held on May 4, 2020 providing residents and interested parties a final opportunity to comment on the Plans prior to adoption and submittal to HUD. 246 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 16 Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/ attendance Summary of Comments received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) Internet Outreach Non- targeted/broad community A Housing and Community Development Needs Survey was available on the City’s website during the month of August 2019. A total of 412 surveys were received. 7 were received in Spanish. The results are available as part of the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis. Not applicable. Public Meeting Non- targeted/broad community Three public input meetings were held on December 5, 2019. The community and Huntington Beach stakeholders were invited to attend to share their opinions on needs and gaps in service. A complete set of transcripts from the meeting is included in the Appendix. Not applicable. 247 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 17 Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/ attendance Summary of Comments received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) Public Hearing Minorities Non-English Speaking - Spanish Persons with disabilities Residents of Public and Assisted Housing Non-targeted/ broad community The Citizen Participation Advisory Board (CPAB), a group of appointed Huntington Beach citizens, held public hearings on 10/3/19, 11/7/19, and 12/5/19 to solicit input on housing and community development needs. See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. All comments received were accepted. Public Meeting Service providers and faith-based organizations representing seniors, youth, homeless, fair housing, code enforcement, infrastructure improvements, and housing. Agencies requesting CDBG funding in FY 2020/21 gave presentations and answered questions from the Citizen Participation Advisory Board (CPAB). Meetings took place on 1/30/20 and 2/6/20. Presentations from the various agencies covered need for service in Huntington Beach community and requested allocations. See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. All comments received were accepted. N/A 248 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 18 Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/ attendance Summary of Comments received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) Newspaper Ad Non-targeted/ broad community A newspaper advertisement was published on 01/30/2020 to solicit public comment on community development and housing needs and priorities and to notify the public of a public hearing on the matter scheduled for 2/20/2020. See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. No comments were received. N/A Public Hearing Non-targeted/ broad community A public hearing was held on 02/20/2020 to solicit public comment on community development and housing needs and priorities. See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. No comments were received. Public Meeting Non-targeted/ broad community A joint CPAB and City Council study session was held on 3/2/20. See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. All comments received were accepted. N/A 249 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 19 Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/ attendance Summary of Comments received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) Newspaper Ad Non-targeted/ broad community A newspaper advertisement was made soliciting public comment on 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 5/4/20. The public notice was published on 4/2/20. See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. All comments received were accepted. N/A Public Hearing Non-targeted/ broad community The City Council held a public hearing to adopt the FY 2020/21- 2024/25 Consolidated Plan and FY 2020/21 Annual Action Plan on 5/4/20. See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix. All comments received were accepted. N/A Table 6 - Citizen Participation Outreach 250 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 20 Expected Resources AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c) (1,2) Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Remainder of ConPlan $ Narrative Description Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG Public- Federal Acquisition, Planning, Economic Development, Housing, Public Improvements, Public Services $1,237,224 $200,000 $259,590 $1,696,814 $5,748,896 Entitlement funds allocation plus estimated program income plus prior-year resources. HOME Public- Federal Acquisition, Homebuyer assistance, Homeowner rehab, Multifamily rental new construction, Multifamily rental rehab, New construction for ownership, TBRA $619,677 $75,000 $1,229,139 $1,923,816 $2,778,708 Entitlement allocation plus estimated program income and prior-year resources. Table 7 - Expected Resources – Priority Table 251 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 21 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, 2018. 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. 252 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 22 Annual Goals and Objectives AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods 2020 2021 Affordable Housing Citywide Households with Housing Problems $100,000 (CDBG) $90,000 (CDBG) $65,000 (CDBG) $240,000 (CDBG) Homeowner Units Rehabilitated – 8 Household Housing Units (Owner-Occupied SF, Condo, and Mobile Home Grant Program) Homeowner Units Rehabilitated – 2 Household Housing Units (Owner-Occupied Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program) Homeowner Units Rehabilitated – 10 Household Housing Units (Housing Rehabilitation Loan Administration) Housing Code Enforcement/ Foreclosed Property Care – 600 Housing Units (Special Code Enforcement) 253 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 23 2 Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing 2020 2021 Affordable Housing Citywide Households with Housing Problems $1,304,348 (HOME) $175,000 (HOME) $175,000 (HOME) $200,000 (HOME) Rental Units Constructed – 6 Household Housing Units (TBD Acq/Rehab/New Construction) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance 20 Households (Interval House TBRA Program) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance 20 Households (Families Forward TBRA Program) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance 20 Households (Mercy House TBRA Program) 254 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 24 3 Support Efforts to Address Homelessness 2020 2021 Homeless Citywide Homelessness $85,000 (CDBG) $15,000 (CDBG) $10,000 (CDBG) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 400 Persons Assisted (Homeless Outreach Program) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 112 Persons Assisted (StandUp for Kids Street Outreach Program) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 9 Persons Assisted (Robyne’s Nest Housing for Homeless) 255 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 25 4 Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations 2020 2021 Non-Homeless Special Needs Citywide Priority Special Needs Populations $44,000 (CDBG) $10,000 (CDBG) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 165 Persons Assisted (Senior Services Care Management) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 190 Persons Assisted (Oakview Literacy) 5 Increase Access to Community Services to LMI Persons 2020 2021 Non-Housing Community Development Citywide Priority Community Services $60,637 (CDBG) Public service activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 400 Persons Assisted (Children’s Bureau) 6 Planning for Housing and Community Development 2020 2021 Other: Administration Not Applicable Other Housing and Community Development Needs $69,468 (HOME) $287,445 (CDBG) Other – Not Applicable (HOME Administration; CDBG Administration; Fair Housing Foundation) Unallocated Funds 2020 2021 N/A N/A N/A $689,732 (CDBG) $0 (HOME) N/A (Unallocated Funds) 256 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 26 Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities 2020 2021 Non-Housing Community Development Citywide Low- and Moderate- Income Areas Priority Community and Public Facilities $To be Determined (CDBG) $To be Determined (CDBG) Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 14,180 Persons Assisted (Central Library Lower Level Restrooms ADA Improvement Project) Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 200 Persons Assisted (Back-Up Project: 2019 Cameron Lane Navigation Center) Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements 2020 2021 Non-Housing Community Development Citywide Low- and Moderate- Income Areas Priority Infrastructure Improvements $To be Determined (CDBG) Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 1,939 Persons Assisted (ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3) Table 8 – Goals Summary 257 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 27 Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods Goal Description Using CDBG funds, the City will sustain and strengthen neighborhoods by 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 Housing Goal Description 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. HOME funds will also be used to fund tenant based rental assistance efforts. (Projects: Acquisition/Rehabilitation/New Construction Affordable Housing; Interval House Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program; Families Forward Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program; Mercy House Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program) 3 Goal Name Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Goal Description Using CDBG funds, the City will provide assistance to homeless service providers. (Projects: Homeless Outreach Program; StandUp for Kids Street Outreach Program; Robyne’s Nest Housing for Homeless High Schoolers) 4 Goal Name Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations Goal Description 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. (Projects: Senior Care Management; Oak View Family Literacy Program) 5 Goal Name Increase Access to Community Services to LMI Persons Goal Description 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. (Projects: Children’s Bureau) 6 Goal Name Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities Goal Description Using CDBG funds, the City will provide financial assistance to improve public facilities and parks. (Back-Up Projects: Central Library Lower Level Restrooms ADA Improvement Project; 2019 Cameron Lane Navigation Center) 7 Goal Name Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements Goal Description Using CDBG funds, the City will provide financial assistance to improve public infrastructure in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods or for low- and moderate-income persons. (Back-Up Projects: ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3 Project) 258 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 28 8 Goal Name Planning for Housing and Community Development Goal Description 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 10% of the HOME entitlement is allowed for administration activities. (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 $10,000 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 $10,000 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 $1.3 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 (Con Plan). The Con Plan has demonstrated a 259 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 29 need for housing for homeless persons, low- and moderate-income households, and large families. With a federal investment of $1.3 million, the City anticipates that 6 units will be HOME-restricted. • Tenant Based Rental Assistance: The City will continue working with Interval House, Mercy House, and Families Forward to provide a total of 60 households (20 each) with short and medium-term rental assistance as well as housing relocation and stabilization services. 260 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 30 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 is allowed to allocate a maximum of 15%, or $185,583, plus an additional 15% from prior year program income, for public services. This Annual Action Plan proposes to allocate $224,637 in public services towards the following activities: Homeless Outreach Program ($85,000); Senior Services Care Management ($44,000); Children’s Bureau ($60,637); StandUp for Kids Street Outreach ($15,000); Oakview Family Literacy Program ($10,000); and Robyne’s Nest Housing for Homeless High Schoolers ($10,000). 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, a maximum of 10% of the annual HOME entitlement plus 10% of program income, or $69,468, in HOME administration activities is allowed to be allocated in FY 2020/21. The City has allocated this amount for the HOME Program Administration activity in the Annual Action Plan. 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 261 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 31 that meet the needs of the community as defined in the Consolidated Plan. Projects # Project Name 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 Interval House Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program 7 Families Forward Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program 8 Mercy House Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program 9 Homeless Outreach Program 10 StandUp for Kids Street Outreach Program 11 Robyne’s Nest Housing for Homeless High Schoolers 12 Senior Services – Care Management 13 Oak View Family Literacy Program 14 Oak View Community Center – Children’s Bureau 15 HOME Administration 16 CDBG Administration 17 Fair Housing Foundation 18 Unallocated CDBG Funds Back-Up Project: Central Library Lower Level Restrooms ADA Improvement Project Back-Up Project: ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3 Back-Up Project: 2019 Cameron Lane Navigation Center Table 9 - 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. 262 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 32 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. 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. 263 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 33 AP-38 Project Summary Project Summary Information 1 Project Name Owner-Occupied SF, Condo, and Mobile Home Grant Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding CDBG: $100,000 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 $10,000 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. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 8 housing units Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. 264 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 34 2 Project Name Owner-Occupied Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding CDBG: $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 $10,000 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. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 2 housing units Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. 265 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 35 3 Project Name Housing Rehab Program Administration Target 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 will benefit from the proposed activities 10 housing units Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. 266 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 36 4 Project Name Special 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 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 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 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. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 600 housing units Location Description Low- and Moderate-Income Areas Planned Activities Same as description. 267 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 37 5 Project Name Acquisition/Rehabilitation/New Construction Affordable Housing Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding HOME: $1,304,348 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 $1.3 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 organization (CHDO). Target Date June 30, 2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Approximately 6 HOME units can be developed with HOME funds. Units will be restricted to low- and moderate-income households. Location Description To be determined. Planned Activities Same as description. 268 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 38 6 Project Name Interval House Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding HOME: $175,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 92.205(a)(1) – Tenant Based Rental Assistance National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) - Low Mod Housing Benefit The City will continue working with Interval House to provide 20 households with short and medium- term rental assistance as well as housing relocation and stabilization services. Target Date 06/30/2022 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 20 households Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Same as description. 269 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 39 7 Project Name Families Forward Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding HOME: $175,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 92.205(a)(1) – Tenant Based Rental Assistance National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) - Low Mod Housing Benefit The City will contract with Families Forward, a non- profit organization to provide 20 households with short and medium-term rental assistance. Families Forward will also assist households with case management, housing navigation, and supportive services. Target Date 06/30/2022 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 20 households Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Same as description. 270 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 40 8 Project Name Mercy House Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Households with Housing Problems Funding HOME: $200,000 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 92.205(a)(1) – Tenant Based Rental Assistance National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) - Low Mod Housing Benefit The City will enter into a new two-year agreement with Mercy House for administration of a TBRA program. It is estimated that 20 households will be served in FY 2020/21. Target Date 06/30/2022 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 20 households Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Same as description. 271 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 41 9 Project Name Homeless Outreach Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Needs Addressed Homelessness Funding 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 Entry meetings. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 400 persons (homeless) Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. 272 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 42 10 Project Name StandUp for Kids Street Outreach Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Needs Addressed Homelessness Funding 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 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 will benefit from the proposed activities 112 persons (homeless) Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. 273 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 43 11 Project Name Robyne’s Nest Housing for Homeless High Schoolers Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Needs Addressed Homelessness Funding CDBG: $10,000 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 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 up the student to focus on schoolwork. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 9 persons (homeless) Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. 274 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 44 12 Project Name Senior Services Care Management Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations Needs Addressed Priority Special Needs Populations 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 benefit from the proposed activities 165 persons (seniors) 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. 275 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 45 13 Project Name Oakview Family Literacy Program Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations Needs Addressed Priority Special Needs Populations Funding CDBG: $10,000 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 21st 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 benefit from the proposed activities 190 persons Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Same as description. 276 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 46 14 Project Name Children’s Bureau Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Increase Access to Community Services for LMI Persons Needs Addressed Priority Community Services Funding CDBG: $60,637 Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201(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 a non-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 benefit from the proposed activities 400 persons (youth) Location Description Oakview Enhancement Area Planned Activities See description. 277 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 47 15 Project Name HOME Program Administration Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Planning for Housing and Community Development Needs Addressed Other Housing and Community Development Needs Funding HOME: $69,468 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 10 percent of the HOME allocation, plus 10% of estimated program income, 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. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Not applicable. Location Description Not applicable. Planned Activities Same as description. 278 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 48 16 Project Name CDBG Program Administration 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: 24 CFR 570.206(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; (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 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 20% of the annual CDBG entitlement, plus 20% of estimated program income, is allowed for administration activities. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Not applicable. Location Description Not applicable. Planned Activities Same as description. 279 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 49 17 Project Name Fair Housing 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 570.206(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. Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Not applicable. Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Same as description. 280 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 50 18 Project Name Unallocated CDBG Funds Target Area Not applicable Goals Supported Not applicable Needs Addressed Not applicable Funding CDBG: $689,732 Description Unallocated CDBG Funds Target Date Not applicable Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Not applicable Location Description Not applicable Planned Activities Not applicable 281 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 51 Project Name Back-Up Project: Central Library Lower Level Restrooms ADA Improvement Project Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities Needs Addressed Priority Community and Public Facilities Funding CDBG: $0 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. 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 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 benefit from the proposed activities 14,180 persons Location Description 7111 Talbert Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Planned Activities Same as description. 282 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 52 Project Name Back-Up Project: ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3 Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements Needs Addressed Priority Infrastructure Improvements Funding CDBG: $0 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 100 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 benefit from the proposed activities 1,939 persons 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. 283 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 53 Project Name Back-Up Project: 2019 Cameron Lane Navigation Center Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities Needs Addressed Priority Community and Public Facilities Funding CDBG: $0 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 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 benefit from the proposed activities 200 persons Location Description 17631 Cameron Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Planned Activities Same as description. 284 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 54 AP-50 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 northw est, 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 Special Code Enforcement activities, the City has identified deteriorated areas based on observed violations of the Uniform Housing Code. This effort was undertaken to determine geographical areas meeting the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines to utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for special code enforcement and preservation activities in deteriorating areas. From this survey, staff identified four geographical areas that met the criteria for a deteriorating area, as well as meeting the CDBG national objective of serving low and moderate-income households: • Bolsa Chica – Heil • East – Central • South – Central • Southeast Geographic Distribution Target Area Percentage of Funds Low/Mod Income Areas 6.6% Special Code Enforcement Areas Citywide 93.4% Table 10 - Geographic Distribution 285 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 55 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 Areas that have been identified as deteriorated based on the observance of violations of the Uniform Housing Code. These areas include Bolsa Chica-Heil; East-Central; South-Central; and Southeast. 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. 286 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 56 Affordable Housing AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) Introduction One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 60 Non-Homeless 16 Special-Needs Total 76 Table 11 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 60 The Production of New Units 6 Rehab of Existing Units 10 Acquisition of Existing Units Total 76 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 $10,000 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 $10,000 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 $1.3 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 $1.3 million, 287 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 57 the City anticipates that 6 units will be HOME-restricted. Finally, the City will continue working with Interval House, Mercy House, and Families Forward to provide a total of 60 households (20 each) with short and medium-term rental assistance as well as housing relocation and stabilization services. 288 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 58 AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(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. 289 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 59 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 6,860 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 6,860 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 60 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 290 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 60 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 291 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 61 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 2019/20 Annual Action Plan, the City Council will consider an allocation of $791,200 of federal CDBG funds to help offset costs associated with the construction and/or installation of a structure to be used as a homeless shelter facility at the project site with a minimum of 50 beds, with space for administration, storage, dining/recreation, and sleeping purposes. The facility proposes to consist of a pre-engineered steel or membrane structure on a concrete slab foundation (with interior partition walls) or modular units, or a combination thereof. A 12 ft x 90 ft modular restroom/shower building is also proposed. All structures will be ADA compliant. The project will also entail construction of water, sewer, storm drain, and electrical utilities, and hardscape/landscape, as well. The Cameron Lane Navigation Center has a total project cost of approximately $2 million, of which $791,200 is proposed to be funded with CDBG. 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 partnership with Interval House, Mercy House, and 292 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 62 Families Forward to carryout tenant based rental assistance programs for households experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of becoming homeless. With a federal HOME allocation of $550,000, the City aims to assist 60 households over a two-year period. 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. 293 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 63 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 infill. 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 2013-2021 Housing Element specifically address 294 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 64 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 80 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 10. 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 11. 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 100% of application processing fees in the Code for projects with 10% 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. 295 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 65 AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(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 three qualified and experienced program operators of tenant based rental assistance programs in Huntington Beach. In FY 2020/21 alone, $550,000 in HOME funding will be allocated to this effort. The three providers include Interval House, Mercy House, and Families Forward. All three organizations are equipped to market and find eligible households to participate in the program. Over the next two years, the City is proposing to provide assistance to 60 households through this program. The City will also have over $1.3 million available HOME funds for the development of new affordable housing. The City plans to partner with a community housing development 296 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 66 organization, or CHDO, to develop an affordable housing project for low- and moderate- income Huntington Beach households. With $1.3 million, the City hopes to develop approximately 6 HOME-restricted units. Finally, the City is also proposing to use $190,000 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 $10,000 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 10 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 297 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 67 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 298 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 68 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 299 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 69 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 60 beds, coupled with wrap around homeless services to help participants transition to more stable living. 300 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 70 Program Specific Requirements AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l) (1,2,4) 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, 2020. The FY 2020/21 CDBG allocation of $1,237,224 will be used to implement CDBG projects and programs during the program year. Any additional funds received pursuant to the National Emergency Concerning COVID-19 Stimulus will be allocated at the discretion of the City Manager. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(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 the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed $39,054 2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan $0 3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements $0 4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan. $0 5. The amount of income from float-funded activities $0 Total Program Income $39,054 Other CDBG Requirements 1. The amount of urgent need activities $0 301 Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan 71 HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(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 2020/21HOME 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 92.206(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 92.206(b). 302 2020/21 -2024/25 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN (with Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT (APRIL 3, 2020 – MAY 4, 2020) For Council Consideration on May 4, 2020 303 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………1 OBJECTIVES …………………………………………………………………………………...1 ROLE OF 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 Assessment to Fair Housing Plan Revisions …………………………………...8 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) ………………9 PUBLIC COMMENT …………………………………………………………………………...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 ..13 304 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 ……………………………………………………………………………….17 305 1 | P a g e 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. 306 2 | P a g e ✓ 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://huntingtonbeach.legistar.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. 307 3 | P a g e 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 B oard 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 308 4 | P a g e 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 309 5 | P a g e 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.huntingtonbeachca.gov/business/economic-development/ : City of Huntington Beach Office of Business Development 2000 Main Street, 5th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Oak View Branch Library 17251 Oak Lane 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 310 6 | P a g e 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://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/business/economic- development/ : City of Huntington Beach Office of Business Development 2000 Main Street, 5th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Oak View Branch Library 17251 Oak Lane 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. 311 7 | P a g e 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: 312 8 | P a g e 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. 313 9 | P a g e • 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 314 10 | P a g e 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. 315 11 | P a g e ACCESS TO INFORMAT ION AND RECORDS Any citizen, organization, or other interested party 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, 5th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 316 12 | P a g e 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 IN TEREST 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 CPAB 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. 317 13 | P a g e 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. RESIDE NTIAL 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. 318 14 | P a g e • If feasible, demolish or convert only dwelling units that are unoccupied or vacant occupiable1 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 conversion2 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 Rep lacement 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 units4 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. 1 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. 2 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. 3 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. 4 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 of permanent, transitional or customary and usual residence. 319 15 | P a g e • 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). 320 16 | P a g e 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. 321 17 | P a g e 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. 322 ORANGE COUNTY ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE DRAFT HUNTINGTON BEACH PREPARED BY ORANGE COUNTY, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW April 1, 2020 323 2 Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Table of Contents I. Cover Sheet II. Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………...3 III. Community Participation Process………………………………………………………..8 IV . Assessment of Past Goals and Actions……………………………………………………9 V . Fair Housing Analysis A. Demographic Summary……………………………………………………………31 B. General Issues i. Segregation/Integration………………………………………………….…..93 ii. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)...…..128 iii. Disparities in Access to Opportunity………………………………….….136 iv. Disproportionate Housing Needs………………………...……………,…169 C. Publicly Supported Housing Analysis……………………………………………212 D. Disability and Access Analysis……………………………………………………239 E. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Analysis….…265 VI. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities…………………………………………………...…271 VII. Publicly Supported Housing Appendix……………………………………..…….......275 VIII. Glossary…………………………………………………………………………..….…294 IX. Contributing Factors Appendix……………………………………………….....……..301 324 3 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Orange County’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) 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 feder al Fair Housing Act (FHA). The AI also outlines fair housing priorities and goals to overcome fair housing issues. In addition, the Ai 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 and Santa Ana and with input from a wide range of stakeholders through a community participation process, prepared this AI. To provide a foundation for the conclusions and recommendations presented in this AI, the Lawyers’ Committee reviewed and analyzed:  Data from the U.S. Census Bureau and other sources about the demographic, housing, economic, and educational landscape of the County, nearby communities, and the broader Region;  Various County planning document 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 AI draws from these sources to conduct an analysis of fair housing issues such as patterns of integration and segregation of membe rs 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 city 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 AI identifies contributing factors to fair housing issues and steps that should be taken to overcome these barriers. The Orange County AI 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 AI, 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 have 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 2010 Census, 325 4 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, 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. 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, 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 severe housing cost burden, with monthly housing costs exceeding 30 percent of monthly income. 104,196 of these households are families. However, there are 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 AFH 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 7. Availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation 326 5 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 327 6 Proposed Goals and Strategies To address the contributing factors described above, the AI 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 affordable housing bond. 2. Using best practices from other jurisdictions, explore policies and programs that increase the supply affordable housing, such as affordable housing trust funds, linkage fees, inclusionary housing, public land set-aside, community land trusts, transit-oriented development, and expedited permitting and review. 3. 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 affordable housing in cities that have adopted these best practices. 4. Explore providing low-interest loans to single-family homeowners and grants to homeowners with household incomes of up to 120% of the Area Median Income to develop accessory dwelling units with affordability restriction on their property. 5. Review existing zoning policies and explore zoning changes to facilitate the development of affordable housing. 6. 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, 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% of all new units in city-supported LIHTC projects to be ADA- accessible with at least 4% of total units to be accessible for persons with hearing and/or vision disabilities. 328 7 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 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 5: 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. Explore the creation of 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 job centers in Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine. 4. Increase support for fair housing enforcement, education, and outreach. Huntington Beach Proposed Goals and Strategies Huntington Beach’s goals and strategies are in the process of being developed and will be included in the next version of the AI. The AI lays out a series of achievable action steps that will help both Orange County and the City of Huntington Beach to not only meet its obligation to affirmatively fair housing but to continue to be a model for equity and inclusion in Orange County. 329 8 III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PROCESS 1. Describe outreach activities undertaken to encourage and broaden meaningful community participation in the AI process, including the types of outreach activities and dates of public 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 AI 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 AI, 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 AI will be translated into Spanish and Vietnamese. Public hearings will be held in throughout the County during the Spring. All written comments received during the 30-day public comment period will be reviewed and either incorporated into the final AI or addressed as to why they were not incorporated in the Community Participation section. 330 9 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 Housing Discrimination  The City of Aliso Viejo contracted with the Fair Housing Foundation to conduct 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. Hate Crimes  The City contracted with the Fair Housing Foundation to prepare a Hate Crime Victims Resource Directory. 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. 331 10 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.  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 – 11 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. 332 11 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 AI: 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 inquires 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; and in 4 cases the allegations were sustained and the investigation is pending for 2 cases and resolved for 2 cases.  The City worked closel y 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). 333 12 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. 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 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. 334 13 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 mobilit y 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. 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 335 14 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. 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. 336 15  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. 337 16 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 Housing 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. 338 17 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. 339 18 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. 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 case 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 address 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 340 19  FHCOC’s multi-language website has an online housing discrimination complaint- reporting tool that generates. 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. Unfair Lending  Monitor Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data – analysis of 2008 HMDA data was included in the 2010-2015 Regional AI. 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 AI, 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 AI:  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. o 10 housing discrimination inquiries were received by the FHF. 4 inquires alleged discrimination based on a physical disability, 1 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, 341 20 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 AI provided technical assistance to cities that had identified public sector impediments such as: 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 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. Housing Dispute Evaluation & Resolution  Services provided by FHCOC included assisting approximately 188 unduplicated hRancho 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. 342 21  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. Monitoring 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.  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. 343 22 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 1 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 11 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.  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. 344 23 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 Or ange 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 execution of the PBV HAP Contract with Jamboree for this project, the 345 24 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 2019 -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 the following affordable housing projects: First Street Apartments (1440 E. First Street) Developer AMCAL Multi-Housing, LLC. Description Demolition and new construction of an affordable multifamily apartment complex consisting of 68 units of rental housing serving very-low and extremely-low income families, and 1 manager’s unit. City Funds Housing Successor Agency ($8,522,740) Santa Ana Arts Collective (1666 N. Main Street) Developer Meta Housing Corporation 346 25 Description Acquisition, adaptive reuse and new construction project comprised of 57 affordable rental units designated for professional artists of all disciplines, and 1 manager’s unit. Permanent supportive housing for 15 units will be funded by MHSA/SNHP funds from the County of Orange. City Funds Inclusionary Housing ($4,775,000), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) ($2,627,631), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ($500,000) Santa Ana Veterans Village (3312 W. First Street) Developer Jamboree Housing Corporation Description New construction of an affordable multifamily apartment complex consisting of 75 units of permanent supportive housing with wrap-around supportive services for HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) eligible homeless veterans and 1 manager’s unit. City Funds Seventy-five (75) HUD-VASH Project-Based Vouchers, HOME-CHDO ($477,345.90) Aqua Housing (317 E. 17th Street) Developer Community Development Partners with Mercy House as the service provider Description Acquisition, demolition and new construction of a former motel yielding 56 units of affordable permanent supportive housing with wrap-around supportive services for chronically homeless individuals and 1 manager’s unit. 28 of the 56 units will be funded by MHSA/SNHP funds from the County of Orange. City Funds Fifty-six (56) Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs) Tiny Tim Plaza (2239 West 5th Street) Developer Community Development Partners Description New construction of an affordable multifamily apartment complex consisting of 50 units of rental housing serving very-low and extremely-low income families, and 1 manager’s unit. City Funds Inclusionary Housing ($1,300,000), Housing Successor Agency ($4,700,000) Crossroads at Washington (1126 and 1146 E. Washington Avenue) Developer Related Companies of California with A Community of Friends (ACOF) as the service provider Description New construction of a 100% affordable multifamily apartment complex consisting of 85 units of rental housing and 1 manager’s unit. All units will be affordable to households earning less than 30% AMI of which 43 units will be set-aside for permanent supportive housing. City Funds HOME Investment Partnerships Program ($3,007,489), Neighborhood Stabilization Program ($963,951), sixty-two (62) year ground lease agreement 347 26 for 1126 and 1146 E. Washington Avenue (Appraised Value as of September 22, 2019: $4,108,136) Legacy Square (609 North Spurgeon Street) Developer National Community Renaissance with Mercy House as the service provider Description New construction of a 100% affordable multifamily apartment complex consisting of 92 units of rental housing and 1 manager’s unit. All units will be affordable to households earning less than 60% AMI of which 33 units will be set-aside for permanent supportive housing. City Funds Inclusionary Housing ($3,170,547) and eight (8) HUD-VASH PBVs  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. 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. 348 27 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. 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 349 28 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 – 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 Legacy Square – a 92-unit affordable rental project at 609 North Spurgeon Street. 350 29 City of Tustin Housing Discrimination  Although the 2015-2020 AI 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 351 30 Foundation 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. 352 31 III. 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 twenty-two jurisdictions within it. 1. Describe demographic patterns in the jurisdiction and region, and describe trends over time (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 (Orange County, CA CDBG, ESG) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 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% #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% #3 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% #5 country of origin China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 33,226 1.01% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin India 31,063 1.01% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% #7 country of origin Iran 27,718 1.01% China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 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 of origin Canada 14,179 0.46% India 79,608 0.66% #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 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Tagalog 2,146 0.40% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% 353 32 #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% 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% Male 274,258 48.38% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 292,676 51.62% 6,500,403 50.67% 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 354 33 County residents are 49.33% male and 50.67% female. 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: Demographic 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% 355 34 Table 2.1: Demographics, Aliso Viejo (Aliso Viejo, Orange County) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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% #1 country of origin Mexico 1,530 13.90% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 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% #7 country of origin China, excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan 562 5.11% China excl. Hong Kong & 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 of origin Peru 233 2.12% India 79,608 0.66% #1 LEP Language Spanish or Spanish Creole 943 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% #5 LEP Language Tagalog 133 0.29% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Japanese 127 0.28% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Other Asian languages 83 0.18% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Russian 77 0.17% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language French (incl. Patois, Cajun) 69 0.15% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Other Pacific Island languages 61 0.13% Arabic 23,275 0.19% 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% 356 35 Self-care difficulty 669 1.4% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 913 2.4% 496,105 4.13% Male 23,780 46.94% 6,328,434 49.33% 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% 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. 357 36 Table 3.1: Demographics, Anaheim (Anaheim, CA CDBG, HOME, ESG) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 401 0.11% 25,102 0.20% Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 6,137 1.82% 267,038 2.08% Other, Non-Hispanic 623 0.18% 30,960 0.24% #1 country of origin 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% #7 country of origin El Salvador 2,646 0.76% China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin China excl. Hong Kong & 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 of origin Taiwan 1,001 0.29% India 79,608 0.66% #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% #7 LEP Language Persian 644 0.21% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Other Indic Language 533 0.17% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Gujarati 481 0.15% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Other Indo- European Language 479 0.15% Arabic 23,275 0.19% 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% 358 37 Male 168,317 49.85% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 169,326 50.15% 6,500,403 50.67% 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% 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. Table 3.2: Demographic Trends, Anaheim 359 38 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 (Buena Park, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 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% 360 39 #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% #7 country of origin Thailand 499 0.60% China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin El Salvador 436 0.53% Iran 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% #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% #6 LEP Language Other Indic 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% #9 LEP Language Other Pacific Island Language 276 0.36% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Urdu 213 0.28% Arabic 23,275 0.19% 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% Male 39,425 49.25% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 40,622 50.75% 6,500,403 50.67% 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% 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, 361 40 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%. 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. 362 41 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% 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% 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 Type 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) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 208 0.18% 25,102 0.20% 363 42 Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 2,725 2.48% 267,038 2.08% Other, Non-Hispanic 246 0.22% 30,960 0.24% #1 country of origin Mexico 14,995 13.28% Mexico 14,995 13.28% #2 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% #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% #7 LEP Language Other Pacific Island 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% 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% 496,105 4.13% Male 55,886 50.87% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 53,971 49.13% 6,500,403 50.67% Under 18 23,729 21.60% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 75,989 69.17% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 10,139 9.23% 1,415,376 11.03% 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%. 364 43 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, Jap anese, 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. 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% 365 44 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% 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% Table 6.1: Demographics, Fountain Valley (Fountain Valley, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 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% #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 of origin 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% #7 country of origin Egypt 454 0.80% China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin China, excl. Hong Kong 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% 366 45 #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% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Tagalog 182 0.34% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Persian 111 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% 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 3,093 5.48% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 1,266 2.24% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 2,261 4.01% 496,105 4.13% Male 27,076 48.76% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 28,451 51.24% 6,500,403 50.67% Under 18 11,794 21.24% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 34,068 61.35% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 9,664 17.40% 1,415,376 11.03% Families with children 5,656 39.90% 1,388,564 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. 367 46 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. Table 6.2: Demographic Trends, Fountain Valley 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 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% 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% 368 47 18-64 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 (Fullerton, CA CDBG, HOME) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 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 0.24% #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% #5 country of origin China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 1,836 1.31% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Vietnam 1,475 1.05% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% #7 country of origin Taiwan 1,105 0.79% China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin El Salvador 629 0.45% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Canada 494 0.35% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Japan 473 0.34% India 79,608 0.66% #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% #6 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% #9 LEP Language Other Asian Language 227 0.18% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Other Indo- European Language 204 0.16% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Hearing difficulty 3,344 2.40% 303,390 2.52% 369 48 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 1.93% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 4,992 3.59% 496,105 4.13% Male 66,653 49.10% 66,653 49.10% Female 69,094 50.90% 69,094 50.90% Under 18 31,953 23.54% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 87,901 64.75% 8,274,594 64.50% 65+ 15,893 11.71% 1,415,376 11.03% Families with children 14,582 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- 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. 370 49 Familial Status Families with children constitute 46.37% of Fullerton’s population. Table 7.2: Demographic 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% 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% 371 50 Table 8.1: Demographics, Garden Grove (Garden Grove, CA CDBG, HOME, ESG) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 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% #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% #7 country of origin Peru 650 0.37% China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin China excl. Hong Kong & 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% #1 LEP Language Vietnamese 28,226 17.39% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #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% #7 LEP Language Other Pacific Island Language 288 0.18% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Arabic 256 0.16% Japanese 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% 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% Male 86,373 49.85% 6,328,434 49.33% 372 51 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% Families with children 18,046 47.97% 1,388,564 47.84% 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 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, indepen dent 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. 373 52 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 49.94% 86,888 50.15% 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: Demographics, Huntington Beach (Huntington Beach, CA CDBG, HOME) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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% 374 53 Native American, Non-Hisp. 721 0.36% 25,102 0.20% Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 6,008 3.15% 267,038 2.08% Other, Non-Hispanic 392 0.21% 30,960 0.24% #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 of origin 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 of origin Egypt 1,159 0.58% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin China excl. Hong Kong and Taiwan 1,140 0.57% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% #7 country of origin Japan 1,135 0.57% China excl. Hong Kong & 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% #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% #9 LEP Language Other Indo- European Language 200 0.11% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Thai 150 0.08% Arabic 23,275 0.19% 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 4.61% 641,347 5.34% Self-care difficulty 3,952 1.98% 312,961 2.60% Independent living difficulty 6,816 3.41% 496,105 4.13% Male 94,733 49.60% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 96,243 50.40% 6,500,403 50.67% 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% Families with children 20,083 41.45% 1,388,564 47.84% 375 54 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. 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: Demographic Trends, Huntington 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% 376 55 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 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% Table 10.1: Demographics, Irvine (Irvine, CA CDBG, HOME) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 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% #1 country of origin Korea 14,066 5.48% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin China excl. Hong Kong & 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% 377 56 #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% #7 country of origin Philippines 4,792 1.87% China excl. Hong Kong & 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% #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% #8 LEP Language Other Indic Language 715 0.34% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Other Asian Language 578 0.28% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Russian 545 0.26% Arabic 23,275 0.19% 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 2.23% 496,105 4.13% Male 103,034 48.71% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 108,498 51.29% 6,500,403 50.67% 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% 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%. 378 57 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. 379 58 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. Table 10.2: Demographic 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% 380 59 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 (La Habra, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 96 0.15% 25,102 0.20% Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 969 1.61% 267,038 2.08% Other, Non-Hispanic 90 0.15% 30,960 0.24% #1 country of origin 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% #5 country of origin China excl. Hong Kong and Taiwan 334 0.54% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Indonesia 263 0.42% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% #7 country of origin India 233 0.38% China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin El Salvador 228 0.37% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Taiwan 220 0.36% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Nicaragua 199 0.32% India 79,608 0.66% #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 Tagalog 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% Tagalog 86,691 0.72% #7 LEP Language Hindi 98 0.17% Persian 41,051 0.34% #8 LEP Language Other Pacific Island 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% 381 60 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 2,354 3.81% 496,105 4.13% Male 29,680 49.24% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 30,594 50.76% 6,500,403 50.67% 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% 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 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. 382 61 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: Demographic Trends, La Habra 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicity # % # % # % 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 5.61% 4,782 8.03% 6,943 11.52% Native American, Non-Hispanic 201 0.38% 374 0.63% 325 0.54% 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% 383 62 Table 12.1: Demographics, La Palma (La Palma, Orange County) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 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% #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% #7 country of origin China, excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan 191 3.63% China excl. Hong Kong & 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% #1 LEP Language Korean 1,115 7.42% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 LEP Language Spanish or Spanish Creole 675 4.49% Chinese 239,576 1.98% #3 LEP Language Chinese 490 3.26% Korean 156,343 1.29% #4 LEP Language African 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% #10 LEP Language Other Indic languages 69 0.46% Arabic 23,275 0.19% 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% 384 63 Male 7,673 48.54% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 8,135 51.46% 6,500,403 50.67% Under 18 2,866 18.13% 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% Families with children 3,999 81.5% 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. 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. 385 64 Table 13.1: Demographics, Laguna Niguel (Laguna Niguel, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % White, Non-Hispanic 43,496 66.48% 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-Hisp. 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% #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% #3 country of origin China excl. Hong Kong & 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% #7 country of origin Canada 583 0.89% China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Korea 438 0.67% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Egypt 407 0.62% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Germany 320 0.49% India 79,608 0.66% #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% #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% #8 LEP Language Other Slavic 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% 496,105 4.13% Male 30,893 48.50% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 32,803 51.50% 6,500,403 50.67% 386 65 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% Families with children 7,796 44.73% 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. 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. 387 66 Table 13.2: Demographic Trends, Laguna Niguel 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% Table 14.1: Demographics, Lake Forest (Lake Forest, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 361 0.44% 361 0.44% 388 67 Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 2,393 3.09% 2,393 3.09% Other, Non-Hispanic 184 0.24% 184 0.24% #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% #7 country of origin El Salvador 704 0.86% China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin China excl. Hong Kong and Taiwan 576 0.70% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin Canada 509 0.62% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Guatemala 485 0.59% India 79,608 0.66% #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% #5 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% #8 LEP Language Other Pacific Island Language 205 0.28% Other Pacific Island Language 205 0.28% #9 LEP Language Arabic 145 0.20% Arabic 145 0.20% #10 LEP Language Scandinavian Language 96 0.13% Scandinavian Language 96 0.13% 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 38,359 49.58% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 39,011 50.42% 6,500,403 50.67% 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% Families with children 9,581 48.85% 1,388,564 47.84% 389 68 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 Laguna Niguel’s population. Table 14.2: Demographic 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% 390 69 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 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 Type 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) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 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 0.24% #1 country of origin 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 of origin Philippines 1,653 1.71% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin Vietnam 972 1.01% Vietnam 234,251 1.93% 391 70 #5 country of origin China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 690 0.71% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin Korea 640 0.66% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% #7 country of origin Taiwan 581 0.60% China excl. Hong Kong & 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 of origin El Salvador 341 0.35% India 79,608 0.66% #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% Tagalog 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% #9 LEP Language Other Pacific Island Language 95 0.11% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Russian 78 0.09% Arabic 23,275 0.19% Hearing difficulty 3,325 3.46% 303,390 2.52% Vision difficulty 1,719 1.79% 227,927 1.90% Cognitive difficulty 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% Male 45,368 49.01% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 47,192 50.99% 6,500,403 50.67% Under 18 21,375 23.09% 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% Families with children 10,884 44.01% 1,388,564 47.84% 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%. 392 71 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 68.38% 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% 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% 393 72 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, Orange (City) (Orange, CA CDBG, HOME) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 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% #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 of origin 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% #7 country of origin Taiwan 682 0.49% China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Iran 640 0.46% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin China excl. Hong Kong and Taiwan 558 0.40% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin El Salvador 526 0.37% India 79,608 0.66% 394 73 #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% Japanese 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% 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 popula tion 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. 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. 395 74 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, Orange (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% 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% 396 75 18-64 75,361 66.91% 81,767 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 Margarita, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 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 0.24% #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% #5 country of origin China excl. Hong Kong and Taiwan 439 0.89% Korea 224,370 1.85% #6 country of origin India 356 0.73% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% #7 country of origin Vietnam 345 0.70% China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Germany 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% #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% #9 LEP Language Other Slavic Language 54 0.12% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language German 42 0.09% Arabic 23,275 0.19% 397 76 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% 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% 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. 398 77 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: Demographic Trends, Rancho Santa Margarita 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% 399 78 Table 19.1: Demographics, San Clemente (San Clemente, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % White, Non-Hispanic 47,747 73.20% 4,056,820 31.62% Black, Non-Hispanic 433 0.66% 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-Hisp. 75 0.11% 25,102 0.20% Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 1,551 2.49% 267,038 2.08% Other, Non-Hispanic 89 0.14% 30,960 0.24% #1 country of origin Mexico 2,877 4.41% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Canada 400 0.61% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin 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% #7 country of origin Colombia 198 0.30% China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin Korea 179 0.27% Iran 133,596 1.10% #9 country of origin India 175 0.27% Taiwan 87,643 0.72% #10 country of origin Poland 162 0.25% India 79,608 0.66% #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% #10 LEP Language Other Pacific Island 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% Male 31,315 50.27% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 30,980 49.73% 6,500,403 50.67% 400 79 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% 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. 401 80 Table 19.2: Demographic 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 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 County) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 140 0.39% 25,102 0.20% 402 81 Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 595 1.66% 267,038 2.08% Other, Non-Hispanic 322 0.90% 30,960 0.24% #1 country of origin Mexico 5,627 68.92% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 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% #7 country of origin Philippines 147 1.80% China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 174,424 1.44% #8 country of origin China, excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan 142 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% #1 LEP Language Spanish or Spanish Creole: 5,935 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% #4 LEP Language Other Indic languages: 54 0.16% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 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% #9 LEP Language Mon- Khmer, Cambodian: 29 0.09% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Tagalog: 28 0.08% Arabic 23,275 0.19% 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% Male 48.03% 11.0% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 51.97% 9.4% 6,500,403 50.67% 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% Families with children 8,839 72.3% 1,388,564 47.84% 403 82 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 CDBG, HOME, ESG) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 430 0.13% 25,102 0.20% Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 2,184 0.68% 267,038 2.08% Other, Non-Hispanic 377 0.12% 30,960 0.24% 404 83 #1 country of origin Mexico 108,270 32.37% Mexico 108,270 32.37% #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 of origin Guatemala 3,153 0.94% Guatemala 3,153 0.94% #5 country of origin Philippines 2,234 0.67% Philippines 2,234 0.67% #6 country of origin China excl. Hong Kong and Taiwan 1,215 0.36% China excl. Hong Kong 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 of origin Honduras 707 0.21% Honduras 707 0.21% #10 country of origin Peru 494 0.15% Peru 494 0.15% #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% Tagalog 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% #9 LEP Language Other Indic Language 222 0.07% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Other Pacific Island 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% 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% Families with children 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 405 84 the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 0.68%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.12%. 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: Demographic 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% 406 85 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 49.39% 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: Demographics, Tustin (Tustin, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 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% #1 country of origin 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% 407 86 #6 country of origin China excl. Hong Kong & Taiwan 1,250 1.56% Guatemala 188,854 1.56% #7 country of origin Taiwan 1,040 1.30% China excl. Hong Kong & 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% #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% #4 LEP Language Chinese 816 1.15% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22% #5 LEP Language Tagalog 400 0.57% Armenian 87,201 0.72% #6 LEP Language Other Indic 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% Japanese 32,457 0.27% #9 LEP Language Other Asian Language 183 0.26% Russian 28,358 0.23% #10 LEP Language Arabic 165 0.23% Arabic 23,275 0.19% 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 difficulty 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% Male 36,263 48.83% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 37,995 51.17% 6,500,403 50.67% 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% 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 408 87 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. 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% 409 88 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% 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) Jurisdiction (Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA) Region Race/Ethnicity # % # % 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-Hisp. 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% #1 country of origin Vietnam 26,801 29.20% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34% #2 country of origin Mexico 7,184 7.83% Philippines 288,529 2.38% #3 country of origin Philippines 906 0.99% El Salvador 279,381 2.31% #4 country of origin China excl. Hong Kong & 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% #7 country of origin Peru 294 0.32% China excl. Hong Kong & 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 of origin Korea 254 0.28% India 79,608 0.66% #1 LEP Language Vietnamese 22,514 26.32% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79% #2 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% 410 89 #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% Independent living difficulty 5,665 6.19% 496,105 4.13% 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% 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% 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. 411 90 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. Familial Status Families with children constitute 44.54% of Westminster’s population. Table 23.2: Demographic 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 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 412 91 Families with children 9,049 46.90% 9,753 49.37% 9,079 44.54% 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 24: Demographic Trends, Region 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Race/Ethnicit y # % # % # % White, Non- Hispanic 5,166,768 45.86% 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% Hispanic 3,914,001 34.74% 5,117,049 41.38% 5,700,862 44.44% Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 1,146,691 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 Foreign-born 3,469,567 30.80% 4,299,323 34.77% 4,380,850 34.15% LEP Limited English Proficiency 2,430,630 21.57% 3,132,663 25.33% 3,053,077 23.80% Sex Male 5,626,077 49.94% 6,107,286 49.39% 6,328,434 49.33% Female 5,640,051 50.06% 6,258,058 50.61% 6,500,403 50.67% Age Under 18 2,911,031 25.84% 3,518,245 28.45% 3,138,867 24.47% 18-64 7,280,517 64.62% 7,641,369 61.80% 8,274,594 64.50% 413 92 65+ 1,074,580 9.54% 1,205,730 9.75% 1,415,376 11.03% Family Type Families with children 1,318,473 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%). 414 93 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 Value Level of Segregation Dissimilarity Index Value (0-100) 0-40 Low Segregation 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. Orange City, 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. 415 94 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 Ethnicity for Orange County Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 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 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index Current Non-White/White 13.03 Black/White 50.89 Hispanic/White 22.57 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 14.98 416 95 Table 3: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Anaheim Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current 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 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current 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 11.56 13.87 16.44 15.49 Table 5: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Costa Mesa Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current 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 42.65 417 96 Table 6: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Fountain Valley Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current 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 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 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/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current 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 38.21 418 97 Table 9: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Huntington Beach Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current 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 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current 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 Table 11: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for La Habra Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 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 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 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 Laguna Niguel Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current Non-White/White 9.17 12.98 16.34 20.29 Black/White 13.82 22.75 16.24 45.64 419 98 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 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current 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 Viejo Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current Non-White/White 13.67 15.18 15.75 29.15 Black/White 18.03 20.63 16.83 43.54 Hispanic/White 12.26 18.75 20.96 20.00 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 20.00 16.83 13.98 16.84 420 99 Table 16: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Orange (City) Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current 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 Table 17: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Rancho Santa Margarita Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 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/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 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 20: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Santa Ana Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 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 21: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Tustin Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current Non-White/White 26.33 36.73 32.93 48.19 Black/White 42.49 35.11 29.03 66.02 421 100 Hispanic/White 31.14 48.19 42.55 57.43 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 19.20 17.74 19.76 28.73 Table 22: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Westminster Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current 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 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 groups within a cty 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 23 Isolation Index Values by Race and Ethnicity, Orange County Isolation Index Current White/White 55.16 Black/Black 3.32 Hispanic/Hispanic 52.81 Asian/Asian 31.84 Table 24: Aliso Viejo Isolation Index Current White/White 62.94 Black/Black 3.97 Hispanic/Hispanic 19.52 Asian/Asian 16.32 Table 25: Anaheim Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current White/White 78.8 62.1 44.9 37.1 35.8 422 101 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 26: Buena Park Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 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 27: Costa Mesa Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current White/White 84.1 74.8 64.6 59.7 57.38 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 28: Fountain Valley Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current 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 29: Fullerton Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 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 30: Garden Grove Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current 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 31: Huntington Beach Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current White/White 85.4 80.5 74.4 69.8 63.99 423 102 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 32: Irvine Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 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 33: La Habra Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current White/White 76.6 64.7 46.5 34.7 35.40 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 34: Laguna Niguel Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 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 35: Lake Forest Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 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 36: Mission Viejo Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current 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 37: Orange (City) Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current White/White 82.9 70.3 58.5 50.4 52.18 424 103 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 38: Rancho Santa Margarita Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 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 39: San Clemente Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current White/White 88.4 84.5 80.4 77.1 75.50 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 40: Santa Ana Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 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 41: Tustin Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current 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 42: Westminster Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current 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 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, W hite residents have an 425 104 Isolation Index value of 55.16, Black residents 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. 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 43 Exposure Index Values for Orange County Exposure Index Current 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 44: Anaheim Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 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 2.03 426 105 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 45: Buena Park Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 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 46: Costa Mesa Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current 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 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 47: Fountain Valley Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current Black/White 83.5 70.8 54.9 47 40.9 427 106 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 48: Fullerton Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 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 49: Garden Grove Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 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 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 35.94 428 107 Table 50: Huntington Beach Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current 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 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 51: Irvine Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current 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 Table 52: La Habra Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current 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 12.95 429 108 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 53: Laguna Niguel Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 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 54: Lake Forest Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current 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 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 55: Mission Viejo Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 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 15.89 430 109 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 56: Orange (City) Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current 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 10.22 Hispanic/Asian 3.4 7 9.3 11.2 9.19 Table 57: Rancho Santa Margarita Exposure Index 1980 1990 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 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 58: San Clemente Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current 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 0.75 431 110 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 59: Santa Ana Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current 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 60: Tustin Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 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 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 61: Westminster Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current Black/White 78.8 57.8 38.6 29.6 17.19 432 111 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 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. 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/ethnicity, national origin, or LEP group, and indicate the predominant groups living in each area. 433 112 Race/Ethnicity Map 1: Race/Ethnicity, North Orange County, CA 434 113 Map 2: Race/Ethnicity, Central Orange County, CA Map 2.1: Hispanic Origin, Central Orange County 435 114 Map 3: Race/Ethnicity, South Orange County, CA 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. 436 115 National Origin Map 4: National Origin, North Orange County, CA Map 5: National Origin, North Orange County, CA 437 116 Map 6: National Origin, Central Orange County, CA Map 7: National Origin, Central Orange County, CA 438 117 Map 8: National Origin, South Orange County, CA Map 9: National Origin, South Orange County, CA 439 118 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 area bordering 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 440 119 Map 11: Central Orange County, Housing Tenure Map 12: South Orange County, Housing Tenure 441 120 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 over time (since 1990). 442 121 Maps 13 & 14: Race/Ethnicity in 1990 443 122 Maps 15 & 16: Race/Ethnicity in 2000 444 123 Maps 17 & 18: Race/Ethnicity in 2010 445 124 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 religious 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. 446 125 Table 65.1: Religious Centers, Orange County Religious Center ALISO VIEJO ANAHEIM BUENA PARK COSTA MESA FOUNTAIN VALLEY FULLERTON BUDDHIST 25 1 8 5 1 CATHOLIC 22 3 2 4 11 CHRISTIAN- OTHER 1 42 10 26 10 28 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- INTERRELIGIOU S 1 1 OTHER- JAPANESE 5 3 PENTECOSTAL 1 PROTESTANT 12 452 143 177 70 266 Grand Total 15 628 173 245 100 343 Table 65.2: Religious Centers, Orange County Religious Center GARDEN GROVE HUNTINGTON BEACH IRVINE LA HABRA LA PALMA LAGUNA NIGUEL BUDDHIST 46 1 4 CATHOLIC 4 18 8 3 2 CHRISTIAN- OTHER 33 20 19 6 8 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- INTERRELIGIOU S OTHER- JAPANESE PENTECOSTAL PROTESTANT 301 180 150 124 16 39 Grand Total 413 232 228 144 17 54 447 126 Table 65.3: Religious Centers, Orange County Religious Center LAKE FOREST MISSION VIEJO NEWPORT BEACH ORANGE RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA BUDDHIST 2 1 CATHOLIC 7 27 1 CHRISTIAN- OTHER 5 13 20 19 5 HINDU 1 1 2 JEWISH 6 9 2 1 MUSLIM 1 2 ORTHODOX 1 OTHER 2 15 13 14 OTHER-INDIA 2 OTHER- INTERRELIGIOUS 1 1 OTHER- JAPANESE 5 PENTCOSTAL PROTESTANT 16 64 51 263 13 Grand Total 25 102 104 335 20 Table 65.4: Religious Centers, Orange County Religious Center SAN CLEMENTE SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO TUSTIN WESTMINSTER 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 78 136 209 448 127 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 449 128 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 R/ECAP tracts within the jurisdiction and Region. 450 129 Map 1: R/ECAPs in Orange County 451 130 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 R/ECAP is located along North Spurgeon Street, while the more southern R/ECAP 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 - R/ECAP Demographics Jurisdiction R/ECAP Race/Ethnicity # % Total Population in R/ECAPs 33458 White, Non-Hispanic 7858 23.49% Black, Non-Hispanic 7858 1.63% Hispanic 48.50% Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 79300 23.70% Native American, Non-Hispanic 48 0.14% R/ECAP Family Type Total Families in R/ECAPs 7848 Families with children 2529 32.22% R/ECAP 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% 452 131 #5 country of origin India 459 1.37% #6 country of origin Iran 395 1.18% #7 country of origin Saudi Arabia 219 0.65% #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-documentation). 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). 453 132 Map 2: R/ECAPs 1990, Orange County In 1990, one R/ECAP was present in Orange County, along E La Palma Ave in Yorba Linda. This R/ECAP had a low population, with 82 total residents. 47.56% of the population was Hispanic, 8.54% was Asian, and the remainder were White. 454 133 Map 3: R/ECAPs 2000, Orange County By 2000, the R/ECAP present in Orange County had shifted slightly to the West, in the area between E Orangethorpe Ave and E Frontera St. This R/ECAP 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 R/ECAP had a larger Hispanic population than before, and a shrinking White population. Another R/ECAP appeared in the northernmost portion of the University of California, Irvine campus, likely due to the presence of students. The R/ECAP 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. 455 134 Map 4: R/ECAPs 2010, Orange County By 2010, the R/ECAP in Santa Ana was no longer present. The high level of fluctuation in this R/ECAP indicates that the area hovers around the 40% poverty threshold to qualify as a R/ECAP. The second R/ECAP, 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 456 135 ● 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 457 136 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 high levels of opportunity is made more difficult due to discrimination and when there is not 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 Map1. The Economic Opportunity Index is a composite of four indicators2 depicting elements of neighborhood socio-economic character. The Environmental Opportunity Index reflects indicators3 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 indicators4 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 County5, 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)6. 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. 1. Educational Opportunities 1. For the protected class group(s) 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 458 137 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 opportunit y 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. 2. 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. 459 138 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. b. 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. No n- 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 o ther 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 460 139 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 opportunit y 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 10s). 2. 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 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. c. 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- 461 140 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 g roup 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 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. 462 141 f. 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. 463 142 Maps and Tables Appendix: Table 1: Index Values, Aliso Viejo Aliso Viejo "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 72.30550385 83.83909607 72.71175385 37.90481567 2.982049465 Black, Non- Hispanic 66.52386475 85.23960114 71.72485352 43.27718735 3.305222511 Hispanic 65.70877838 85.67479706 69.67499542 43.99542999 3.4930861 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 71.44657135 87.03471375 72.0605011 38.21439362 3.052240849 Native American, Non-Hispanic 66.95543671 85.84021759 72.0728302 44.31396484 3.418583393 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 72.1219101 76.88407898 76.13404083 40.00963593 3.032668829 Black, Non- Hispanic 73.1000061 82.69999695 66.6000061 30.55382347 2.297693729 Hispanic 67.39414215 84.66527557 75.61569214 42.99341965 3.097574472 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 67.48900604 85.0457077 69.90343475 44.67321396 3.799084425 Native American, Non-Hispanic 73.30000305 88 66.19999695 30.19909286 2.297693729 Table 2: Index Values, Anaheim Anaheim "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio 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 35.78163528 45.57190704 28.93398666 38.00388718 40.76144028 464 143 Islander, Non- Hispanic Native American, Non-Hispanic 31.95301437 39.92325211 25.63920212 40.02379227 43.23343277 Population 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 Buena Park "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit 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- 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 41.90719986 39.55010986 39.26160431 35.59976578 37.79622269 465 144 Islander, Non- Hispanic Native American, Non-Hispanic 81.6641922 33.69506073 49.20370483 31.88211632 37.17000198 Table 4: Index Values, Costa Mesa Costa Mesa "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population 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 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 466 145 Table 5: Index Values, Fountain Valley Fountain Valley "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost 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 Population below federal poverty line 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 Fullerton "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 55.78549576 26.03284073 58.12939072 38.56270599 36.36819077 Black, Non- Hispanic 43.93449402 23.39889526 50.62736893 43.17352676 39.78337097 Hispanic 37.14920425 20.28424263 43.05700684 41.48886108 39.47481537 Asian or Pacific 64.09486389 25.70118332 65.7769165 35.43569183 35.37657928 467 146 Islander, Non- Hispanic Native American, Non-Hispanic 42.6170578 22.90802765 48.14080048 41.21847534 38.35867691 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 42.62480927 23.49648094 50.72012711 45.41986847 40.98034668 Black, Non- Hispanic 26.27262497 20.02443314 37.49615479 50.76286316 44.32195663 Hispanic 29.84314728 19.52399254 38.35726547 43.06222916 41.15517044 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 57.70301437 27.73388481 64.75909424 42.01194 39.39395523 Native American, Non-Hispanic 43.26682663 22.70192337 51.35336685 38.76887131 34.99217987 Table 7: Index Values, Garden Grove Garden Grove "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 36.39666367 47.3960228 40.38077927 36.63133621 39.78887558 Black, Non- Hispanic 27.92678833 47.87880325 33.18390274 41.15602112 41.82769394 Hispanic 22.90080643 47.05417633 29.86315918 41.03567505 42.94892883 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 23.95595741 49.54003143 35.30280304 40.51235199 40.41277313 Native American, Non-Hispanic 27.66724777 46.53165817 34.10087204 41.22572708 41.86322403 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 30.0959301 47.71313477 35.78342056 39.06194305 41.55861664 Black, Non- Hispanic 27.44144821 54.79440689 33.70690918 39.97136688 38.74142075 Hispanic 18.94665909 46.0896759 26.74869919 43.83759689 44.6900177 Asian or Pacific 22.66533279 47.17929077 37.85955429 40.4188385 39.69983673 468 147 Islander, Non- Hispanic Native American, Non-Hispanic 18.80149269 38.3007431 27.1022377 48.05475616 43.73262405 Table 8: Index Values, Huntington Beach Huntington Beach "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 64.58568573 71.44684601 69.54529572 37.66327667 35.70833206 Black, Non- Hispanic 55.74852371 61.43478394 59.94100952 40.57863235 36.41617966 Hispanic 48.91268921 56.34483719 59.14129257 42.3997879 36.54937363 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 55.79597092 58.89957809 60.11377335 38.13786316 35.30189133 Native American, Non-Hispanic 59.45223999 69.95332336 66.42298126 39.55618668 36.38960266 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 63.94906235 71.72304535 68.93916321 40.83568192 37.38664627 Black, Non- Hispanic 46.80564499 57.03628922 63.21209335 44.36582947 38.40356827 Hispanic 37.6064682 48.60849762 55.68051147 45.98036194 37.06981277 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 55.28670883 58.22230911 58.15016174 42.73658752 36.3033371 Native American, Non-Hispanic 63.99184036 89.20612335 79.1040802 25.95944023 33.74476242 469 148 Table 9: Index Values, Irvine Irvine "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 73.63127136 39.08622742 81.49776459 36.18370819 35.191082 Black, Non- Hispanic 70.55041504 36.09516525 81.03330994 39.19680023 37.68433762 Hispanic 68.2244339 34.8563385 75.89785004 37.90677261 35.78848267 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 73.3141861 38.35515213 85.66765594 37.19092941 37.06846237 Native American, Non-Hispanic 68.81182861 37.30687332 78.0866394 37.68278122 34.32770157 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 62.00982285 41.2605896 81.79143524 41.65803909 40.29730606 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 Islander, Non- Hispanic 50.49572372 45.72290802 87.87575531 44.2512207 42.13927078 Native American, Non-Hispanic 34.17985535 56.2374115 91.07769775 53.02960205 50.96051407 Table 10: Index Values, Los Angeles County Los Angeles County "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 65.67538452 55.94469833 67.478302 18.965065 21.0825634 Black, Non- Hispanic 40.16342545 53.13132858 33.42098999 21.05691338 24.56006813 Hispanic 36.33623123 45.2298851 38.80290604 19.82450485 23.3633194 Asian or Pacific 57.39865494 49.95420074 61.21666336 20.27166367 23.09456062 470 149 Islander, Non- Hispanic Native American, Non-Hispanic 45.30443192 51.25786972 49.35198593 19.37051392 21.6207428 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 57.50989532 51.78505325 59.31045151 23.57732391 25.74990845 Black, Non- Hispanic 31.36289787 50.94706726 26.02533722 23.28333092 27.20900345 Hispanic 31.3007412 42.91162491 31.26461411 22.65198517 26.92627716 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 50.03251266 47.77090454 55.55622864 24.86695862 28.33756065 Native American, Non-Hispanic 34.06453323 48.27433014 35.94702911 22.76408005 26.06622124 Table 11: Index Values, Laguna Niguel Laguna Niguel "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 51.88405609 94.96172333 69.4879303 26.46920204 2.232567787 Black, Non- Hispanic 49.20069885 94.27303314 70.40055847 27.88728714 2.385162592 Hispanic 46.48111725 94.03167725 69.29504395 29.60008812 2.543926477 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 51.05093765 94.28031921 70.32914734 28.43764305 2.466272593 Native American, Non-Hispanic 52.94462585 95.30413055 70.03966522 27.89173698 2.296560049 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 48.66943741 93.59718323 70.38157654 27.90661812 2.297754049 Black, Non- Hispanic 61.86949158 94.28262329 58.08516693 32.82440567 2.653566122 Hispanic 47.95252228 94.91544342 73.69073486 29.40856171 2.452992439 Asian or Pacific 42.89958572 90.35707855 72.27500153 34.07725906 2.88683486 471 150 Islander, Non- Hispanic Native American, Non-Hispanic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Table 12: Index Values, La Habra La Habra "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 40.55103683 27.87729454 48.14756012 35.66272736 35.27762604 Black, Non- Hispanic 35.30363846 29.53260612 45.65385437 39.55151749 35.42910004 Hispanic 32.31658936 27.45372391 44.28807068 38.3514595 34.83366394 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 39.38534927 24.85019112 49.1582222 37.03078079 37.28299713 Native American, Non-Hispanic 38.17602921 30.35684967 47.53630066 35.54092407 33.94094467 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 40.29798126 29.05448341 48.00325012 35.98387527 34.38015747 Black, Non- Hispanic 31.18307686 28.36153793 45.95999908 39.51876068 36.60215759 Hispanic 27.1908226 25.55690002 41.80315781 39.25904846 35.26225281 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 32.04285431 28.29251671 42.60680389 37.83418655 36.04021072 Native American, Non-Hispanic 24.10000038 11.80000019 38 44.92282867 41.23970032 472 151 Table 13: Index Values, La Palma La Palma "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 60.54538345 52.2887764 74.90605927 31.26264191 33.98268509 Black, Non- Hispanic 62.44117737 50.76352692 79.34926605 30.94960976 32.45330429 Hispanic 60.14683151 53.11293411 76.4289093 31.19957161 33.79656219 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 59.61754608 54.71827316 80.94405365 30.98505211 33.03434372 Native American, Non-Hispanic 66.49090576 44.5484848 74.41212463 31.03777504 32.16746521 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 56.16556168 58.63651657 78.42116547 31.26299286 34.6687851 Black, Non- Hispanic 62 52.13999939 83.30000305 30.76098061 31.77929115 Hispanic 62.43789673 49.73848724 74.32682037 31.21320152 33.49207687 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 57.32141113 57.53029633 80.26992798 31.11726379 33.91407013 Native American, Non-Hispanic 59.40000153 51.29999924 62.90000153 31.94073486 36.83267593 Table 14: Index Values, Lake Forest Lake Forest "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 52.10555649 54.81097412 60.88927078 31.83229065 3.096983671 Black, Non- Hispanic 49.18192673 55.03483963 61.46455765 34.36283493 3.168195009 Hispanic 39.65441513 43.67831039 53.05497742 35.60156631 3.339822292 Asian or Pacific 51.61265182 53.55771637 59.62294769 32.0095787 2.971857309 473 152 Islander, Non- Hispanic Native American, Non-Hispanic 45.60740662 53.91375732 59.4603157 34.44470978 3.268085241 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 42.87811661 48.27126312 56.19835281 35.24717331 3.274830103 Black, Non- Hispanic 58.93999863 62.13200378 49.3239975 28.69176102 3.198252678 Hispanic 23.69203186 17.86175346 43.00056839 33.14248276 3.199719906 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 34.96779251 36.78378296 52.04999924 39.137043 3.588968277 Native American, Non-Hispanic 6.400000095 10.10000038 39.90000153 50.44693375 4.321035862 Table 15: Index Values, Mission Viejo Mission Viejo "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 54.71001434 80.4629364 68.59661865 20.06777954 2.14685297 Black, Non- Hispanic 53.97848892 77.18696594 69.5125351 22.50149727 2.178300142 Hispanic 49.20601654 77.96643066 69.57389832 24.251894 2.186423779 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 56.29401779 79.96483612 69.64553833 20.08021736 2.172489405 Native American, Non-Hispanic 52.15392685 77.70209503 68.03507996 20.00351524 2.125685453 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 52.77148438 79.52762604 68.10930634 20.6295166 2.147603989 Black, Non- Hispanic 47.77692413 72.13846588 60.4153862 30.359375 2.514009476 Hispanic 41.74552917 75.55897522 73.74349976 27.94129181 2.138385296 Asian or Pacific 50.18946457 76.0255127 75.70388031 27.29961014 2.231768131 474 153 Islander, Non- Hispanic Native American, Non-Hispanic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Table 16: Index Values, Orange City Orange City "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 59.93873978 24.79452133 42.08477402 31.92243958 36.35044479 Black, Non- Hispanic 54.84865952 18.7726078 35.12828445 37.30315018 39.30299377 Hispanic 47.76997757 19.34976578 33.2277832 36.87007141 38.43082809 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 61.62908554 28.02267647 45.12159348 31.81376266 35.78025818 Native American, Non-Hispanic 52.82477188 20.58942604 36.06827545 34.44309235 37.73715973 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 53.57085419 17.67649841 33.95972061 36.44538879 39.62675095 Black, Non- Hispanic 35.50442505 12.76637173 29.51858521 37.15558624 28.86623383 Hispanic 41.78118134 23.23805237 32.39267731 36.83862305 39.01893616 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 61.44256592 21.8933773 41.95364761 37.79168701 37.63070297 Native American, Non-Hispanic 31.33373451 10.93734932 20.50963974 41.80668259 43.29630661 475 154 Table 17: Index Values, Orange County Orange County "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 59.36914825 53.88697052 58.6191597 33.84046555 27.43986702 Black, Non- Hispanic 45.8503685 45.21717072 45.6352005 39.68424606 36.21459579 Hispanic 31.86008644 41.02077866 30.86243248 41.80742645 41.28927612 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 49.36313629 46.78428268 52.50125504 37.48302841 36.11438751 Native American, Non-Hispanic 46.39406204 48.79929352 45.07330704 37.47456741 33.02807617 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 51.70472336 51.01126099 52.13442612 39.18977356 32.26565933 Black, Non- Hispanic 36.25161743 40.4234581 37.29018784 40.77672958 35.60103607 Hispanic 22.65623665 39.02124786 23.81145287 45.65877533 46.35126877 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 38.94393158 46.38044739 48.32249832 41.97251129 39.51419449 Native American, Non-Hispanic 35.89070892 38.62186813 40.92134476 40.15331268 40.17951965 Table 18: Index Values, Rancho Santa Margarita Rancho Santa Margarita "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 55.31455231 77.42084503 74.73116302 22.26515198 1.739218593 Black, Non- Hispanic 48.5736618 78.66453552 72.82685852 29.90576553 2.138027906 Hispanic 46.87901688 79.68223572 71.21639252 31.94477654 2.276622057 Asian or Pacific 52.71126556 76.4618454 74.23796082 25.72115326 1.882683992 476 155 Islander, Non- Hispanic Native American, Non-Hispanic 52.11122513 76.42857361 73.22245026 27.17526817 1.988348365 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 46.90814972 80.66777802 70.89245605 30.65854645 2.180054665 Black, Non- Hispanic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hispanic 37.29422379 84.92796326 66.2130661 40.81872559 2.736426592 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 60.54124069 82.12485504 78.08983612 16.653265 1.491689444 Native American, Non-Hispanic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Table 19: Index Values, San Clemente San Clemente "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 43.86069107 53.53229904 26.15826035 20.86557388 1.323781729 Black, Non- Hispanic 44.58891678 53.67986298 26.91267014 20.62924576 1.308523178 Hispanic 40.03211212 58.22519684 23.51825714 25.35934067 1.459569693 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 46.24467087 51.4276619 27.82583618 19.14149284 1.219676495 Native American, Non-Hispanic 41.8181076 55.99135971 26.10987663 23.12410355 1.460949898 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 40.29958344 52.50610733 22.75804329 23.32270622 1.429345369 Black, Non- Hispanic 21.60899544 46.30582047 12.44285679 22.93115044 1.561009169 Hispanic 38.13341522 59.1672554 19.66854095 25.5105629 1.351897478 Asian or Pacific 36.40293121 78.38371277 26.14299583 19.77955627 0.901919305 477 156 Islander, Non- Hispanic Native American, Non-Hispanic 40.5885849 56.44565201 26.93206596 15.30980492 0.906552672 Table 20: Index Values, San Juan Capistrano San Juan Capistrano "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 24.8559227 40.60459518 3.96122098 28.67803192 2.159676313 Black, Non- Hispanic 17.48586845 44.83804321 4.980434895 30.27136993 2.118023157 Hispanic 9.223362923 51.43849182 6.480751991 31.45836258 1.975713015 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 24.93882942 43.21843719 4.463120461 27.79998398 2.022916555 Native American, Non-Hispanic 12.91760635 49.70633698 6.045070648 30.53370857 1.976489902 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 24.2220974 38.93087769 3.655807257 29.47362709 2.26116538 Black, Non- Hispanic 53.59999847 39.20000076 2.900000095 17.58180046 1.543227077 Hispanic 8.015656471 53.10263824 6.83494997 31.40584183 1.918851495 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 8.699999809 32.79999924 2.900000095 37.69218826 2.949278355 Native American, Non-Hispanic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 478 157 Table 21: Index Values, Santa Ana Santa Ana "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 40.84465027 33.96951294 24.41191101 47.15653229 52.06034851 Black, Non- Hispanic 29.20541 38.66877747 19.36479187 48.0304451 54.12454987 Hispanic 18.03375626 41.18429947 15.26601601 46.74744034 54.8878212 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 25.11046028 46.18630219 18.69794273 47.20291138 54.18437576 Native American, Non-Hispanic 25.56700134 38.30905533 17.4342041 45.30844498 52.30129623 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 31.77580452 34.26587677 19.81741333 48.76362228 52.66421127 Black, Non- Hispanic 25.08537483 23.57221222 20.0210247 50.08654785 50.39803314 Hispanic 14.87970352 41.16586304 15.27909184 50.43182755 57.66402054 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 25.55044937 45.79997253 17.13907242 48.1301918 52.26394272 Native American, Non-Hispanic 16.78843117 43.75597 12.58059692 42.92389297 57.04358673 Table 22: Index Values, Tustin Tustin "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 77.3833313 55.53118134 57.9779892 37.03637695 41.61579132 Black, Non- Hispanic 49.5615654 33.86757278 33.26813889 54.51399994 60.01934433 Hispanic 42.9604187 28.64287949 27.41756248 56.88419342 63.88144684 Asian or Pacific 67.04686737 46.94258499 49.78988266 44.89656067 48.62200546 479 158 Islander, Non- Hispanic Native American, Non-Hispanic 63.12244797 43.92755127 47.4581604 43.06391144 49.6460228 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 57.39323807 42.8909874 38.77998352 47.96840286 52.79444885 Black, Non- Hispanic 36.90000153 22.5 25.10000038 55.18679047 64.45001984 Hispanic 32.15452576 17.71869659 18.61776543 65.68024445 74.0960083 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 42.37282944 30.59916115 25.81988907 55.87603378 61.07912064 Native American, Non-Hispanic 26.20000076 13.69999981 14.19999981 65.00455475 66.8004303 Table 23: Index Values, Westminster Westminster "Economic Opportunity Index" "Environment al Opportunity Index" "Educational Opportunity Index" "Low Transportatio n Cost Index" Transit Index Total Population White, Non- Hispanic 13.81653023 42.93841171 35.6662941 44.7712059 37.7172699 Black, Non- Hispanic 10.56679821 38.13873291 32.76600647 45.53092575 37.15086365 Hispanic 11.77696323 40.45322037 32.86334991 44.28075409 36.86459732 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 14.33915138 46.11770248 35.44109344 44.00982666 37.56019592 Native American, Non-Hispanic 15.28125 44.0395813 36.25625229 43.3792572 37.29174042 Population below federal poverty line White, Non- Hispanic 15.20829582 44.93229675 37.83362961 45.77521515 38.73999023 Black, Non- Hispanic 8.191836357 21.56734848 37.28163528 40.71427536 33.28907013 Hispanic 10.51876068 37.48429489 28.36954689 43.8158226 36.38402557 Asian or Pacific 12.96408653 44.58031464 32.6651535 44.92889404 37.62247467 480 159 Islander, Non- Hispanic Native American, Non-Hispanic 25.30000114 48.70000076 52.20000076 45.22904587 41.23970032 Map 1: Economic Opportunity Index, North Orange County 481 160 Map 2: Economic Opportunity Index, South Orange County 482 161 Map 3: Educational Opportunity Index, North Orange County 483 162 Map 4: Educational Opportunity Index, South Orange County 484 163 Map 5: Environmental Opportunity Index, North Orange County 485 164 Map 6: Environmental Opportunity Index, South Orange County 486 165 Map 7: Transportation Cost Index, North Orange County 487 166 Map 8: Transportation Cost Index, South Orange County 488 167 Map 9: Transit Trips Index, North Orange County 489 168 Map 10: Transit Trips Index, South Orange County 490 169 iv. Disproportionate Housing Needs 1 Which groups (by race/ethnicity 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;2 and 4) household is cost burdened”3. 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%. 1 The AFFH rule defines “disproportionate housing needs” as “a condition in which there are s ignificant 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 2 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 ex cludes bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half-rooms. 3 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp/CHAS/bg_chas.html 491 170 Housing Problems Table 1: Housing Problems, Orange County Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with 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- Hispanic 84,193 186,038 45.26% 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems 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- Hispanic 50205 186,038 26.99% Native American, Non-Hispanic 544 2,179 24.97% Total 267,641 987,550 27.10% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe cost burden White, Non-Hispanic 93564 540,773 17.30% Black, Non-Hispanic 3774 16,719 22.57% Hispanic 59920 241,841 24.78% 492 171 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 36879 186,038 19.82% Native American, Non-Hispanic 432 2,179 19.83% Total 194,569 987,550 19.70% Household Type and Size 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 Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with 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- Hispanic 995 2,830 35.16% 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems Race/Ethnicity White, Non-Hispanic 2075 12,570 16.51% 493 172 Black, Non-Hispanic 140 380 36.84% Hispanic 400 2,120 18.87% Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 425 2,830 15.02% Native American, Non-Hispanic 0 70 0.00% Total 3,040 17,970 16.92% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 350 2,830 12.37% Native American, Non-Hispanic 0 70 0.00% Total 2,555 17,970 14.22% Household Type and Size 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 Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with problems 494 173 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- Hispanic 8,305 17,464 47.55% 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 5065 17,464 29.00% Native American, Non-Hispanic 85 170 50.00% Total 35,158 98,221 35.79% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe cost burden White, Non-Hispanic 7210 36,390 19.81% Black, Non-Hispanic 810 2,688 30.13% Hispanic 11330 41,509 27.30% 495 174 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 3290 17,464 18.84% Native American, Non-Hispanic 50 170 29.41% Total 22,690 98,221 23.10% Household Type and Size 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 Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with 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% Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 3,505 6,830 51.32% 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems 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- Hispanic 2070 6,830 30.31% 496 175 Native American, Non-Hispanic 50 99 50.51% Total 6,595 23,009 28.66% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 1515 6,830 22.18% Native American, Non-Hispanic 50 99 50.51% Total 4,555 23,009 19.80% Household Type and Size Family households, <5 people 2445 14230 17.18% Family households, 5+ people 770 4930 15.62% Non-family households 569 3910 14.55% Table 5: Housing Problems, Costa Mesa Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with 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- Hispanic 1,670 3,870 43.15% Native American, Non-Hispanic 25 70 35.71% Total 18,890 39,970 47.26% Household Type and Size 497 176 Family households, <5 people 8775 20195 43.45% Family households, 5+ people 3175 4175 76.05% Non-family households 7325 15975 45.85% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 804 3,870 20.78% Native American, Non-Hispanic 15 70 21.43% Total 11,004 39,970 27.53% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 610 3,870 15.76% Native American, Non-Hispanic 15 70 21.43% 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 Valley Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with problems 498 177 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- Hispanic 2,425 5,785 41.92% 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems 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- Hispanic 1419 5,785 24.53% Native American, Non-Hispanic 0 55 0.00% Total 3,889 18,594 20.92% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 1105 5,785 19.10% Native American, Non-Hispanic 0 55 0.00% Total 3,110 18,594 16.73% Household Type and Size Family households, <5 people 1245 12275 10.14% Family households, 5+ people 250 2200 11.36% 499 178 Non-family households 629 4325 14.54% Table 7: Housing Problems, Fullerton Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with 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- Hispanic 5,085 10,615 47.90% 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems 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- Hispanic 3125 10,615 29.44% Native American, Non-Hispanic 20 90 22.22% Total 13,148 44,048 29.85% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe cost burden White, Non-Hispanic 3665 20,005 18.32% Black, Non-Hispanic 375 1,448 25.90% Hispanic 2950 11,890 24.81% 500 179 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 2495 10,615 23.50% Native American, Non-Hispanic 0 90 0.00% Total 9,485 44,048 21.53% Household Type and Size 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 Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with 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% Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 10,303 18,418 55.94% 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 experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems Race/Ethnicity White, Non-Hispanic 2645 14,255 18.55% 501 180 Black, Non-Hispanic 173 592 29.22% Hispanic 6540 13,550 48.27% Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 6775 18,418 36.78% Native American, Non-Hispanic 85 148 57.43% Total 16,218 46,963 34.53% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 4685 18,418 25.44% Native American, Non-Hispanic 85 148 57.43% Total 10,485 46,963 22.33% Household Type and Size Family households, <5 people 4950 26390 18.76% Family households, 5+ people 1945 10735 18.12% Non-family households 1450 9854 14.71% Table 9: Housing Problems, Huntington Beach Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with problems Race/Ethnicity 502 181 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- Hispanic 3,089 8,114 38.07% 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems 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- Hispanic 1669 8,114 20.57% Native American, Non-Hispanic 55 274 20.07% Total 15,218 73,646 20.66% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 1475 8,114 18.18% Native American, Non-Hispanic 45 274 16.42% Total 13,269 73,646 18.02% Household Type and Size Family households, <5 people 5195 43760 11.87% Family households, 5+ people 899 5995 15.00% Non-family households 3245 24905 13.03% 503 182 Table 10: Housing Problems, Irvine Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with 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- Hispanic 13,955 33,220 42.01% 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems 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- Hispanic 7850 33,220 23.63% Native American, Non-Hispanic 10 130 7.69% Total 19,320 87,440 22.10% 504 183 Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 6110 33,220 18.39% Native American, Non-Hispanic 10 130 7.69% Total 15,645 87,440 17.89% Household Type and Size 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 Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with 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- Hispanic 965 2,260 42.70% 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% 505 184 Family households, 5+ people 2325 3285 70.78% Non-family households 2240 4600 48.70% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems 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- Hispanic 700 2,260 30.97% Native American, Non-Hispanic 10 10 100.00% Total 5,684 18,807 30.22% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 485 2,260 21.46% Native American, Non-Hispanic 10 10 100.00% Total 3,555 18,807 18.90% Household Type and Size 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 of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with problems Race/Ethnicity 506 185 White, Non-Hispanic 430 1,619 26.56% Black, Non-Hispanic 150 370 40.54% Hispanic 320 709 45.13% Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 810 2,148 37.71% 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 434 2,148 20.20% Native American, Non-Hispanic 0 30 0.00% Total 958 4,876 19.65% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 340 2,148 15.83% Native American, Non-Hispanic 0 30 0.00% Total 725 4,876 14.87% Household Type and Size Family households, <5 people 325 3220 10.09% Family households, 5+ people 160 765 20.92% Non-family households 75 930 8.06% 507 186 Table 13: Housing Problems, Laguna Niguel Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with 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- Hispanic 835 2,350 35.53% 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 390 2,350 16.60% Native American, Non-Hispanic 15 85 17.65% Total 5,125 24,320 21.07% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe cost burden White, Non-Hispanic 3310 18,280 18.11% Black, Non-Hispanic 35 395 8.86% Hispanic 905 3,210 28.19% 508 187 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 325 2,350 13.83% Native American, Non-Hispanic 15 85 17.65% Total 4,590 24,320 18.87% Household Type and Size 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 Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with 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- Hispanic 1,310 3,870 33.85% 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems Race/Ethnicity White, Non-Hispanic 2740 18,240 15.02% 509 188 Black, Non-Hispanic 135 535 25.23% Hispanic 1855 4,370 42.45% Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 660 3,870 17.05% Native American, Non-Hispanic 15 19 78.95% Total 5,405 27,034 19.99% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 435 3,870 11.24% Native American, Non-Hispanic 15 19 78.95% Total 4,285 27,034 15.85% Household Type and Size 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 Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with problems Race/Ethnicity 510 189 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- Hispanic 955 3,050 31.31% 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems 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- Hispanic 465 3,050 15.25% Native American, Non-Hispanic 20 30 66.67% Total 5,338 32,833 16.26% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 335 3,050 10.98% Native American, Non-Hispanic 20 30 66.67% Total 4,785 32,833 14.57% Household Type and Size Family households, <5 people 1770 22375 7.91% Family households, 5+ people 245 3305 7.41% Non-family households 725 7870 9.21% 511 190 Table 16: Housing Problems, Orange (City) Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with 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% 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 experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems 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- Hispanic 1130 4,979 22.70% Native American, Non-Hispanic 4 75 5.33% Total 11,054 41,709 26.50% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden 512 191 Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 795 4,979 15.97% Native American, Non-Hispanic 4 75 5.33% Total 8,084 41,709 19.38% Household Type and Size Family households, <5 people 3145 23870 13.18% Family households, 5+ people 1105 6705 16.48% Non-family households 2185 11369 19.22% Table 17: Housing Problems, Rancho Santa Margarita Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with 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- Hispanic 565 1,855 30.46% Native American, Non-Hispanic 0 0 #DIV/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% 513 192 Non-family households 2250 3975 56.60% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems 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- Hispanic 175 1,855 9.43% Native American, Non-Hispanic 0 0 #DIV/0! Total 2,979 16,704 17.83% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 130 1,855 7.01% Native American, Non-Hispanic 0 0 #DIV/0! Total 2,575 16,704 15.42% Household Type and Size Family households, <5 people 1220 11285 10.81% Family households, 5+ people 140 1720 8.14% Non-family households 570 3975 14.34% Table 18: Housing Problems, San Clemente Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with problems Race/Ethnicity 514 193 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- Hispanic 310 970 31.96% 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems 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- Hispanic 145 970 14.95% Native American, Non-Hispanic 10 20 50.00% Total 5,605 23,869 23.48% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 95 970 9.79% Native American, Non-Hispanic 10 20 50.00% Total 4,770 23,869 19.98% Household Type and Size Family households, <5 people 1855 14590 12.71% Family households, 5+ people 405 2445 16.56% Non-family households 1149 7229 15.89% 515 194 Table 19: Housing Problems, San Juan Capistrano Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with 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- Hispanic 115 340 33.82% 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems 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- Hispanic 70 340 20.59% Native American, Non-Hispanic 30 80 37.50% Total 3,820 11,775 32.44% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden 516 195 Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 65 340 19.12% Native American, Non-Hispanic 30 80 37.50% Total 3,180 11,775 27.01% Household Type and Size 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 Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with 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% Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 5,440 9,959 54.62% Native American, Non-Hispanic 63 128 49.22% Total 47,553 74,351 63.96% 517 196 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems 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- Hispanic 3450 9,959 34.64% Native American, Non-Hispanic 8 128 6.25% Total 35,582 74,351 47.86% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe 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- Hispanic 2155 9,959 21.64% Native American, Non-Hispanic 10 128 7.81% Total 17,290 74,351 23.25% Household Type and Size Family households, <5 people 8010 34015 23.55% Family households, 5+ people 4990 27010 18.47% 518 197 Non-family households 1809 13590 13.31% Table 21: Housing Problems, Tustin Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs Jurisdiction Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with 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- Hispanic 2,644 6,089 43.42% 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% Households experiencing any of 4 Severe Housing Problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems 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- Hispanic 1519 6,089 24.95% Native American, Non-Hispanic 10 120 8.33% Total 7,734 25,018 30.91% Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity # with severe cost burden # households % with severe cost burden White, Non-Hispanic 1840 10,495 17.53% Black, Non-Hispanic 170 609 27.91% Hispanic 1975 7,705 25.63% 519 198 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic 969 6,089 15.91% Native American, Non-Hispanic 0 120 0.00% Total 4,954 25,018 19.80% Household Type and Size 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 written in San Juan Capistrano. It may be that this figure was lower than the margin of error, so figures with lo w 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 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 differin g 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 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%, 520 199 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 north and south Orange County, including Anaheim, Buena Park, Garden Grove, Orange, San Juan Capistrano, and Santa Ana. 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 30.66% in Lake Forest, and 39.27% in San Juan Capistrano. Table 17: Percentage of Overcrowded Households by Race or Ethnicity, 2013-2017 American Community Survey Geography White, Non- Hispanic Black Native American Asian American or Pacific Islander Hispanic 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, California 1.93% 0.00% 0.00% 6.46% 15.37% Fullerton city, California 2.63% 4.20% 23.42% 6.42% 23.52% Garden Grove city, California 3.46% 9.69% 15.77% 12.23% 30.05% Huntington Beach city, California 1.50% 6.45% 0.00% 3.16% 14.59% 521 200 Irvine city, California 4.21% 11.78% 0.00% 6.79% 6.30% Laguna Niguel city, California 0.67% 2.91% 0.00% 1.52% 13.74% 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% Orange city, California 1.67% 11.81% 5.02% 8.05% 21.46% Rancho Santa Margarita city, California 1.40% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 8.33% San Clemente city, California 1.36% 0.00% 0.00% 3.52% 18.12% San Juan Capistrano city, California 0.11% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 26.44% 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/ethnicity or national origin groups in such areas? 522 201 Map 1: Housing Problems in North Orange County, Race 523 202 Map 2: Housing Problems in Central Orange County, Race 524 203 Map 3: Housing Problems in South Orange County, Race 525 204 Map 4: Housing Problems in North Orange County, National Origin 526 205 Map 5: Housing Problems in Central Orange County, National Origin 527 206 Map 6: Housing Problems in South Orange County, National Origin 528 207 Map 7: Housing Problems in North Orange County, National Origin 529 208 Map 8: Housing Problems in Central Orange County, National Origin 530 209 Map 9: Housing Problems in South Orange County, National Origin 531 210 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 Hi spanic residents in Anaheim and Santa Ana, both of which have slightly higher percentages of housing problems. In Central Orange County, west 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. Homelessness Contributing Factors of Disproportionate Housing Needs 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 532 211 ● Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities ● Land use and zoning laws ● Lending discrimination ● Loss of affordable housing ● Source of income discrimination 533 212 C. Publicly Supported Housing Analysis 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 analys is (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 Housing Units # % Total housing units 219,058 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 429 0.20% Other Multifamily 33 0.02% HCV Program 2,286 1.04% LIHTC 2,110 0.96% Table 2: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Aliso Viejo Housing Units # % Total housing units 19,786 - LIHTC 128 0.65% Table 3: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Anaheim Housing Units # % Total housing units 103,787 - 534 213 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 Housing Units # % 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 Housing Units # % Total housing units 41,933 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 110 0.26% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 604 1.44% LIHTC 266 0.63% Table 6: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Fountain Valley Housing Units # % Total housing units 19,050 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 71 0.37% Other Multifamily N/a N/a 535 214 HCV Program 502 2.64% LIHTC 154 0.81% Table 7: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Fullerton Housing Units # % 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 Housing Units # % 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 1.38% Table 9: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Huntington Beach Housing Units # % 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% 536 215 Table 10: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Irvine Housing Units # % 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 Housing Units by Program Category, La Habra Housing Units # % 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 Housing Units by Program Category, La Palma Housing Units # % Total housing units 5,039 - LIHTC 304 6.03% Table 13: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Laguna Niguel Housing Units # % 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% 537 216 Table 14: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Lake Forest Housing Units # % 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 Housing Units by Program Category, Mission Viejo Housing Units # % 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 Housing Units by Program Category, Newport Beach Housing Units # % Total housing units 44,242 - Public Housing N/a N/a Project-based Section 8 100 0.23% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 139 0.31% LIHTC 205 0.46% Table 17: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Orange (City) Housing Units # % Total housing units 45,363 - 538 217 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 Housing Units # % 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 Housing Units by Program Category, San Clemente Housing 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 Housing Units by Program Category, San Juan Capistrano Housing Units # % Total housing units 12,905 - LIHTC 215 1.67% Table 21: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Santa Ana Housing Units # % 539 218 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 Housing Units by Program Category, Tustin Housing Units # % 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 Housing Units by Program Category, Westminster Housing Units # % 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 540 219 (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: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Orange County Orange County White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % Project-Based Section 8 164 40.80 % 9 2.24% 88 21.89 % 138 34.33% Other Multifamily 22 95.65 % 0 0.00% 1 4.35% 0 0.00% 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 Households 140,530 67.71 % 2,907 1.40% 30,185 14.54 % 29,767 14.34% 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% Region White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % Public Housing 683 6.99% 2,627 26.90% 6,110 62.56 % 344 3.52% Project-Based Section 8 9,154 23.86 % 6,942 18.10% 10,365 27.02 % 11,753 30.64% 541 220 Other Multifamily 1,707 33.38 % 465 9.09% 1,094 21.39 % 1,839 35.96% HCV Program N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Total Households 1,766,510 41.80 % 333,08 0 7.88% 1,405,07 0 33.25 % 629,34 9 14.89% 0-30% of AMI 215,775 29.59 % 86,225 11.83% 305,885 41.95 % 105,31 4 14.44% 0-50% of AMI 343,565 26.07 % 135,74 0 10.30% 587,685 44.60 % 175,81 4 13.34% 0-80% of AMI 590,895 28.77 % 195,15 5 9.50% 905,370 44.09 % 272,54 9 13.27% Table 25: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Aliso Viejo 4 Aliso Viejo White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % LIHTC 239 75.39% 22 6.94% 91 28.71% 15 4.73% Table 26: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Anaheim Anaheim White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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% 4 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. 542 221 0-80% of AMI 15,335 28.28% 1,845 3.40% 26,855 49.52% 7,835 14.45% Table 27: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Buena Park Buena Park White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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% 1,120 4.87% 7,060 30.68% 6,669 28.98% 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 Demographics, Costa Mesa Costa Mesa White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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% 543 222 Table 29: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Fountain Valley Fountain Valley White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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% Table 30: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Fullerton Fullerton White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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 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% 544 223 Table 31: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Garden Grove Garden Grove White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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 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% Table 32: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Huntington Beach Huntington Beach White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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% 545 224 Table 33: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Irvine Irvine White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % Project-Based Section 8 433 60.99% 20 2.82% 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% 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% Table 34: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, La Habra La Habra White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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% of AMI 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% 546 225 Table 35: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, La Palma 5 La Palma White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % LIHTC 144 15.62% 35 3.80% 156 16.92% 454 49.24% Table 36: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Laguna Niguel Laguna Niguel White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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% Table 37: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Lake Forest Lake Forest White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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 65.95% 560 2.08% 4,310 16.05% 3,539 13.18% 5 As with Aliso Viejo, HUD-provided demographic data for residents of publicly supported housing was not available for La Palma. 547 226 0-30% of AMI 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 Housing Demographics, Mission Viejo Mission Viejo White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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 Newport Beach White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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% Total Households 32,490 84.94% 135 0.35% 2,485 6.50% 2,477 6.48% 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% 548 227 Table 40: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Orange (City) Orange (City) White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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 Demographics, Rancho Santa Margarita Rancho Santa Margarita White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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% Table 42: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, San Clemente San Clemente White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 549 228 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 Housing Demographics, San Juan Capistrano6 San Clemente White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % LIHTC 207 81.50% 3 1.18% 30 11.81% 5 1.97% Table 44: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Santa Ana Santa Ana White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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% 6 As with Aliso Viejo and La Palma, HUD -provided demographic data for residents of publicly supported housing in San Juan Capistrano was not available. 550 229 0-80% of AMI 5,370 11.10% 685 1.42% 35,940 74.29% 5,523 11.42% Table 45: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Tustin Tustin White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % 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% LIHTC 480 24.33% 85 4.31% 1052 53.32% 223 11.30% 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 Housing Demographics, Westminster Westminster White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # % Project-Based Section 8 2 2.08% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 94 97.92% HCV Program 146 6.33% 17 0.74% 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 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% 551 230 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 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 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 of publicly 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. 552 231 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 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 publicl y 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 of publicly 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 553 232 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 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 R/ECAPs 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 R/ECAP 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 C apistrano, 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 554 233 population. In the broader region, publicly supported housing for elderly residents across categories is comparatively likely to be located in non-R/ECAP 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), Anaheim (Avenida 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-R/ECAP areas. ii. How does the demographic composition of occupants of publicly supported housing in R/ECAPS compare to the demographic composition of occupants of publicly supported housing outside of R/ECAPs in the jurisdiction and region? Only jurisdictions which contain R/ECAPs have been pasted below. Rows with only 0 and/or N/A values have been deleted for space Table 48: Irvine Irvine Total # units (occupied) % White % Black % Hispanic % Asian or Pacific Islander % Families with children % Elderly % with a disability Project-based Section 8 R/ECAP tracts 98 60.00% 2.00% 9.00% 29.00% 16.83% 68.32% 6.93% Non R/ECAP tracts 619 61.15% 2.95% 4.92% 30.82% 14.04% 60.45% 14.04% Other Multifamily R/ECAP tracts N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Non R/ECAP tracts 22 52.17% 26.09% 0.00% 21.74% 0.00% 50.00% 70.83% HCV Program R/ECAP tracts 18 85.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 0.00% 56.52% 43.48% Non R/ECAP 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 555 234 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 R/ECAPS was nearly double that outside of R/ECAPs. This is likely an aberration 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 Santa Ana Total # units (occupied) % White % Black % Hispanic % Asian or Pacific Islander % Families with children % Elderly % with a disability Project-based Section 8 R/ECAP tracts N/a N/a 0.00% N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Non R/ECAP tracts 790 5.70% 0.89% 24.68% 62.78% 3.60% 92.31% 14.64% HCV Program R/ECAP tracts 130 6.02% 3.61% 26.51% 63.86% 22.35% 47.06% 25.88% Non R/ECAP tracts 2,512 10.40% 2.72% 31.62% 55.14% 25.97% 50.88% 21.17% LIHTC R/ECAP tracts 126 8.83% 1.42% 84.33% 5.98% N/A N/A N/A Non R/ECAP 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 R/ECAP – 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 556 235 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 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. 557 236 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.7 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. The Orange County Housing Authority maintains a similar list of deed-restricted units for the entire county.8 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 of publicly 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/ethnicity are located in areas occupied largely by the same race/ethnicity. 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 7 https://www.anaheim.net/770/Affordable-Housing 8 http://www.ochousing.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=39906 558 237 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 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 LIHTC) 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 publicl y 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 of fair housing issues related to publicly supported housing, including Segregation, R/ECAPs, 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: 559 238  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  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 560 239 D. Disability and Access Population Profile Map 1: Disability by Type, North Orange County 561 240 Map 1: Disability by Type, Central Orange County 562 241 Map 1: Disability by Type, South Orange County 563 242 Table 4: Disability by Type, Orange County, Region Orange County Region Disability Type # % # % 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 Disability Type # % 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 Disability Type # % 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 Disability Type # % Hearing Difficulty 2,462 2.19% Vision Difficulty 1,967 1.75% 564 243 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 Valley Disability Type # % 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 Type # % Hearing Difficulty 3,344 2.40% Vision Difficulty 2,406 1.73% Cognitive Difficulty 4,478 3.22% Ambulatory Difficulty 6,425 4.62% Self-Care Difficulty 2,683 1.93% Independent Living Difficulty 4,992 3.59% Table 11: Garden Grove Disability Type # % 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 Disability Type # % 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% 565 244 Table 13: Irvine Disability Type # % 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 Disability Type # % 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 2.48% Independent Living Difficulty 2,354 3.81% Table 15: La Palma Disability Type # % 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 Disability Type # % 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 Disability Type # % Hearing Difficulty 2,141 2.62% Vision Difficulty 715 0.88% Cognitive Difficulty 2,001 2.45% Ambulatory Difficulty 2,705 3.31% 566 245 Self-Care Difficulty 1,371 1.68% Independent Living Difficulty 2,451 3.00% Table 18: Mission Viejo Disability Type # % 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 Disability Type # % Hearing Difficulty 2,487 2.87% Vision Difficulty 1,341 1.55% Cognitive Difficulty 2,265 2.62% Ambulatory Difficulty 3,243 3.75% Self-Care Difficulty 1,330 1.54% Independent Living Difficulty 2,619 3.03% Table 20: Orange (City) Disability Type # % 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 Margarita Disability Type # % 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 Disability Type # % Hearing Difficulty 1,950 3.01% 567 246 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 Capistrano Disability Type # % 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 Disability Type # % Hearing Difficulty 6,745 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 # % Hearing Difficulty 1,749 2.19% Vision Difficulty 1,216 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 Disability Type # % 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% 568 247 How are people with disabilities geographically dispersed or concentrated in the jurisdiction and region, including R/ECAPs 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 the y 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 569 248 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 570 249 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 11B. 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. Fair Housing Amendments Act Units 571 250 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 II. 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 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 572 251 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. 573 252 Map 4: Median Year Structure Built by Census Tract, Orange County To what extent are people with different disabilities able to access and live in the different categories of publicly 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% 574 253 Project-Based Section 8 5,013 12.71% Other Multifamily 869 15.62% HCV Program N/a N/a Table 28: Anaheim People with a Disability # % 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 People with a Disability # % 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 People with a Disability # % 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 Valley People with a Disability # % Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 14 20.59% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 157 29.40% 575 254 Table 32: Fullerton People with a Disability # % Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 4 3.92% Other Multifamily 40 80.00% HCV Program 203 26.68% Table 33: Garden Grove People with a Disability # % 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 People with a Disability # % 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 People with a Disability # % 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 People with a Disability # % Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 6 4.08% 576 255 Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 34 17.62% Table 37: Laguna Niguel People with a Disability # % Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 45 29.61% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 44 40.00% Table 38: Lake Forest People with a Disability # % 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 People with a Disability # % 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 People with a Disability # % 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) People with a Disability # % Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 71 36.98% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 167 24.52% 577 256 Table 42: Rancho Santa Margarita People with a Disability # % 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% Table 43: San Clemente People with a Disability # % 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 People with a Disability # % 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 People with a Disability # % Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 11 10.68% Other Multifamily N/a N/a HCV Program 108 19.82% Table 46: Westminster People with a Disability # % Public Housing N/a N/a Project-Based Section 8 5 5.10% Other Multifamily N/a N/a 578 257 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.9 The table below shows that the extremely low- 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 disability, Orange County Type of Disability Percentage of Cost- Eligible Population Number of People in Cost- Eligible Population with a Disability Hearing or Vision 9.97% 20,220 Ambulatory 13.80% 27,990 Cognitive 8.97% 18,195 Self-Care or Independent Living 12.02% 24,375 No Disability 55.23% 111,985 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 9 Elderly individuals are significantly more likely to have disabilities than non-elderly individuals. 579 258 individuals with psychiatric disabilities in large state-run institutions. In California, institutions for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are called developmental centers, an d 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. 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 Regional Center of Orange County, December 2018 Dec. 2018 Performance Reports Fewer consumers live in developmental centers More children live with families More adults live in home settings Fewer children live in large facilities (more than 6 people) Fewer adults live in large facilities (more than 6 people) State Average 0.12% 99.38% 80.20% 0.04% 2.31% 580 259 Regional Center of Orange County 0.26% 99.32% 77.45% 0.03% 2.93% 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. 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 disab ilities 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 581 260 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. 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 582 261 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 Consumers with Earned Income Percentage of Adults with Integrated Employment as a Goal in their Individual Program Plan State Average 17% 27% Regional Center of Orange County 21% 30% 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. 583 262 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. Table 50: Residents experiencing 1 or more housing problems by Disability Type, Orange County Disability Type Has 1 or more housing problems Total Percent 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 Independent Living 46,695 90370 51.67% 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 t ype 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 584 263 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 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 585 264  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 586 265 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 587 266 ● Application and selection process ● Unlawful evictions ● Terms and conditions of tenancy ● 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. 588 267 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. 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 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. 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. 589 268 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.”10 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 10https://library.municode.com/ca/la_palma/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH44ZO_ARTVPEPLCE_ DIV15REACRE 590 269 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.”11 The main office is located in Santa Ana, with additional offices in Norwalk, Anaheim, and Compton. Across four offices, the organization 11 https://www.communitylegalsocal.org/programs-services/area-of-law/housing/ 591 270 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. 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 592 271 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 I. Goal #1: 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, are the primary driver of most fair housing issues for members of protected classes in the area. 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 re flect a need to expand the both the supply and geographical diversity of affordable housing. a. Explore the creation of a new countywide affordable housing bond. 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 affordable housing trust funds, linkage fees, 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 Count y, 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 proposed single-family home statewide. Due to high construction costs and high demand, the small 593 272 size of ADUs may not be sufficient to ensure that they will be affordable by design. Local governments may need to provide financial assistance in order to incentivize homeowners to make their ADUs affordable. 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 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. II. 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. III. Goal 3: Increase community integration for persons with disabilities 594 273 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% of all new units in city-supported LIHTC projects to be ADA-accessible with at 4% 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,12 Orange County should consider adopting the same standards; nearby Santa Monica is also planning to confirm to the requirements in the VCA. IV. 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 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 to 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 for municipalities could catch issues such as the distribution of unit sizes in proposed developments while it is still feasible to amend plans. V. 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 12 https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Main/documents/HUD-City-of-Los-Angeles-VCA.pdf 595 274 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. Explore the creation of 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 job 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 5% 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. VI. Huntington Beach-Specific Goals Huntington Beach’s goals and strategies are in the process of being developed and will be included in the next version of the AI. 596 275 VII. PUBLICLY SUPPORTED HOUSING APPENDIX 597 276 Table 1: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics and Surrounding Census Tract Demographics, Orange County Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Propert y White (%) Proper ty Black (%) Proper ty Hispan ic (%) Propert y Asian (%) Households with children in the development OR Developmen t Type Censu s Tract Numb er Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Tract Asian (%) Censu s Tract Povert y Rate Project- Based Section 8 Laurel Park Manor 70 22% N/a 4% 74% N/a 1101. 13 49.1% 2.5% 18.7% 22.1 % 5.6% Project- Based Section 8 Villa La Jolla 55 36% 2% 36% 26% 45% 0117. 20 4.5% 2% 89.2% 3.2% 29.1% Project- Based Section 8 Vista Aliso 70 88% N/a 6% 4% N/a 0626. 32 81.6% 0.2% 8.9% 3.9% 4.1% Project- Based Section 8 Rancho Moulton 51 27% 8% 45% 20% 34% 0626. 25 52.4% 0% 34% 11.1 % 17.9% Project- Based Section 8 Rancho Niguel 51 14% 4% 58% 18% 26% 0626. 25 52.4% 0% 34% 11.1 % 17.9% Project- Based Section 8 Cypress Sunrise 74 30% N/a 4% 66% N/a 1101. 04 36.7% 2% 20% 38% 8.5% Project- Based Section 8 Imperial Villas 58 61% 6% 24% 9% 30% 0117. 17 54.3% 1.6% 20.4% 20.1 % 3.5% Other Multifa mily Hagan Place 24 92% N/a 8% N/a N/a 626.0 5 84.2% 1.8% 8.7% 4.8% 10.6% Other Multifa mily Stanton Accessibl e 9 N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a 878.0 1 25.3% 1.8% 45.4% 24.9 % 11.7% LIHTC Stonegat e II 25 26 0.00% 6.52% 21.74 % 0.00% Large Family 878.0 5 16.1% 4.0% 55.7% 22.9 % 16.2% LIHTC Birch Hills Apartme nts 114 11 5 22.82 % 5.63% 62.82 % 13.80 % Large Family 218.1 4 47.7% 1.2% 24.3% 22.3 % 4.4% LIHTC Bonterra Apartme nts Homes 93 94 26.13 % 5.23% 40.07 % 6.97% Large Family 218.1 5 42.7% 3.0% 17.9% 31.8 % 2.6% LIHTC Imperial Park Apartme nts 91 92 10.95 % 1.09% 31.75 % 0.36% Non Targeted 15.03 48.5% 0.8% 35.8% 11.4 % 15.4% LIHTC Vintage Canyon Sr. Apartme nts 104 10 5 64.41 % 3.39% 16.95 % 17.80 % Senior 15.06 48.3% 0.0% 23.6% 25.5 % 12.2% LIHTC Walnut Village Apartme nts 46 46 6.76% 2.03% 33.78 % 0.00% Large Family 15.03 48.5% 0.8% 35.8% 11.4 % 15.4% 598 277 LIHTC Tara Village Apartme nts 168 17 0 12.85 % 4.80% 8.05% 73.53 % Large Family 1101. 04 36.7% 2.0% 20.0% 38.8 % 8.5% LIHTC Glenneyr e Apartme nts 26 27 84.62 % 3.85% 11.54 % 7.69% SRO 626.0 5 84.2% 1.8% 8.7% 4.9% 10.6% LIHTC Jackson Aisle Apartme nts 29 30 76.67 % 10.00 % 16.67 % 6.67% Special Needs 997.0 2 21.2% 0.9% 23.8% 51.1 % 21.2% LIHTC Park Stanton Seniors Apts 335 33 5 31.19 % 5.31% 9.29% 13.50 % Senior 881.0 1 27.8% 5.7% 43.1% 20.7 % 10.9% LIHTC Plaza Court 102 10 3 4.64% 0.55% 67.49 % 1.09% Large Family 879.0 1 16.3% 1.5% 41.4% 39.6 % 21.7% LIHTC Continen tal Gardens Apartme nts 297 29 7 0.00% 0.00% 2.37% 32.69 % Non Targeted 878.0 3 7.9% 0.8% 65.3% 23.0 % 33.3% LIHTC Oakcrest Heights (Savi Ranch II) 53 54 Large Family 219.2 4 45.2% 4.3% 22.4% 23.1 % 5.8% LIHTC Oakcrest Terrace 68 69 60.61 % 3.03% 51.52 % 2.02% Large Family 219.2 4 45.2% 4.3% 22.4% 23.1 % 5.8% LIHTC Parkwoo d Apartme nts 100 10 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Senior 218.0 9 68.8% 1.0% 15.0% 9.1% 2.9% LIHTC Villa Plumosa 75 76 55.10 % 0.00% 58.50 % 0.68% Large Family 218.0 2 60.8% 0.3% 28.0% 8.1% 9.5% LIHTC Vintage at Stonehav en Apartme nts 124 12 5 57.24 % 1.97% 9.21% 7.89% Seniors 218.2 5 65.1% 0.3% 16.2% 16.3 % 4.2% LIHTC Yorba Linda Palms Apartme nts 43 44 31.58 % 9.21% 33.55 % 5.92% Large Family 218.0 2 60.8% 0.3% 28.0% 8.1% 9.5% LIHTC Sendero Bluffs 106 10 7 58.91 % 1.55% 14.73 % 6.20% Seniors 320.5 6 61.8% 1.4% 17.8% 12.6 % 4.2% LIHTC Esencia Norte Apartme nts 111 11 2 50.82 % 6.01% 53.28 % 4.10% Large Family 320.5 6 61.8% 1.4% 17.8% 12.6 % 4.2% Table 2: Aliso Viejo Progra m Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Propert y White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispani c (%) Propert y Asian (%) Households with children in the developme nt OR Developme nt Type Census Tract Numbe r Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Tract Asian (%) Cens us Tract Pover ty Rate 599 278 LIHTC Woodpark Apartment s 12 8 12 8 75.39% 6.94% 28.71% 4.73% Large Family 626.39 62.9% 4.3% 11.7% 14.4% 4.0% Table 3: Anaheim Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Propert y White (%) Property Black (%) Proper ty Hispa nic (%) Propert y Asian (%) Households with children in the developme nt OR Developme nt Type Census Tract Numbe r Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispa nic (%) Tract Asian (%) Cens us Tract Pove rty Rate Project- Based Section 8 Village Center Apts 100 11% N/a 8% 81% N/a 0873.0 0 16.2% 0.8% 69.1% 11.7 % 19.7 % Project- Based Section 8 Westchest er Housing 64 16% 25% 48% 11% 49% 0869.0 1 17.3% 6.1% 50.4% 24.6 % 26.4 % Project- Based Section 8 Anaheim Memorial Manor 75 19% 1% 5% 73% N/a 0873.0 0 16.2% 0.8% 69.1% 11.7 % 19.7 % Project- Based Section 8 Carbon Creek Shores 40 66% 11% 24% N/a 14% 864.07 18.9% 1.3% 63.7% 9.8% 15.7 % LIHTC Anton Monaco Apartment s 22 9 23 2 26.39% 9.99% 50.21 % 9.13% Non- Targeted 871.02 16.8% 4.3% 62.1% 13.6 % 17.9 % LIHTC Arbor View Apartment s 45 46 56.07% 4.62% 65.32 % 2.89% Large Family 870.02 24.9% 3.0% 48.9% 21.5 % 13.5 % LIHTC Avenida Villas 28 29 41.67% 19.44% 13.89 % 11.11% Special Needs 877.01 19.8% 1.4% 57.4% 18.3 % 12.4 % LIHTC Avon Dakota Phase I 15 16 28.33% 3.33% 90.00 % 0.00% Large Family 874.04 4.1% 1.0% 91.5% 3.5% 24.9 % LIHTC Belage Manor Apartment s 17 7 18 0 32.88% 7.66% 23.87 % 22.97% Senior 871.05 25.8% 0.5% 40.8% 24.7 % 21.7 % LIHTC Broadway Village 45 46 79.40% 0.00% 95.98 % 0.00% Large Family 863.01 17.2% 1.2% 69.7% 11.2 % 15.7 % LIHTC Calendula Court 31 32 24.04% 16.35% 36.54 % 11.54% Large Family 870.02 24.9% 3.0% 48.9% 21.5 % 13.5 % LIHTC California Villas 33 34 31.11% 2.22% 26.67 % 35.56% Senior 870.02 24.9% 3.0% 48.9% 21.5 % 13.5 % LIHTC Casa Alegre 22 23 41.38% 10.34% 31.03 % 10.34% Special Needs 870.01 17.8% 9.5% 51.9% 18.7 % 18.8 % LIHTC Cerritos Avenue Apartment s 59 60 16.48% 6.25% 13.07 % 2.84% Large Family 877.03 22.3% 1.9% 40.9% 29.7 % 16.9 % LIHTC Cornersto ne 48 49 2.41% 1.20% 9.64% 0.00% Large Family 877.01 19.8% 1.4% 57.4% 18.3 % 12.4 % LIHTC Diamond Aisle 24 25 54.84% 12.90% 19.35 % 6.45% Special Needs 872 22.6% 4.4% 61.7% 9.6% 15.9 % 600 279 Apartment s LIHTC Elm Street Commons 51 52 68.69% 4.55% 77.78 % 2.02% Large Family 873 16.2% 0.8% 69.1% 11.8 % 19.7 % LIHTC Greenleaf Apartment s 19 20 55.56% 11.11% 55.56 % 4.76% Large Family 867.02 13.6% 2.5% 68.5% 11.9 % 23.1 % LIHTC Hermosa Village aka Jeffrey- Lynne Perimeter Re 11 1 11 8 18.40% 5.10% 72.28 % 3.55% Large Family 875.05 15.9% 1.1% 63.8% 15.2 % 24.3 % LIHTC Jeffrey Lynne Neighborh ood Revitalizat ion Phase IV 36 36 22.96% 8.89% 86.67 % 1.48% Large Family 875.05 15.9% 1.1% 63.8% 15.2 % 24.3 % LIHTC Jeffrey- Lynne Apartment s Phase I 19 2 20 0 9.51% 7.61% 74.46 % 2.58% Large Family 875.05 15.9% 1.1% 63.8% 15.2 % 24.3 % LIHTC Jeffrey- Lynne Neighborh ood Revitalizat ion Phase 3 76 85 11.90% 13.49% 64.29 % 10.71% Large Family 875.05 15.9% 1.1% 63.8% 15.2 % 24.3 % LIHTC Jeffrey- Lynne Neighborh ood Revitalizat ion PhaseII 99 10 0 20.67% 3.35% 73.46 % 6.15% Large Family 875.05 15.9% 1.1% 63.8% 15.2 % 24.3 % LIHTC Linbrook Court 80 81 17.39% 0.00% 0.00% 78.26% Senior 871.01 25.4% 5.3% 40.1% 26.1 % 11.0 % LIHTC Lincoln Anaheim Phase I 71 72 31.29% 4.68% 35.97 % 9.71% Large Family 873 16.2% 0.8% 69.1% 11.8 % 19.7 % LIHTC Lincoln Anaheim Phase II 73 74 41.44% 4.79% 59.93 % 6.51% Large Family 873 16.2% 0.8% 69.1% 11.8 % 19.7 % LIHTC Magnolia Acres 40 40 90.00% 0.00% 10.00 % 10.00% Senior 870.01 17.8% 9.5% 51.9% 18.7 % 18.8 % LIHTC Monarch Pointe Apartment Homes 62 63 62.76% 7.14% 72.96 % 5.10% Large Family 867.02 13.6% 2.5% 68.5% 11.9 % 23.1 % LIHTC Palm West Apartment s 57 58 22.82% 7.38% 33.56 % 14.09% Non- Targeted 1102.0 2 28.5% 3.8% 37.6% 26.0 % 24.2 % LIHTC Park Vista Apartment s 39 0 39 2 2.95% 1.82% 63.14 % 1.13% Non- Targeted 866.01 6.8% 3.4% 82.5% 5.8% 26.0 % LIHTC Paseo Village Family Apartment s 17 4 17 4 2.82% 7.13% 82.92 % 2.82% Large Family 866.01 6.8% 3.4% 82.5% 5.8% 26.0 % LIHTC Pebble Cove 11 0 11 1 31.58% 6.58% 37.28 % 14.91% Non- Targeted 878.06 18.7% 2.0% 56.6% 17.5 % 17.2 % LIHTC Renaissaa nce Park 12 4 12 6 8.27% 8.27% 24.41 % 3.94% Non- Targeted 869.01 17.3% 6.1% 50.4% 24.6 % 26.4 % 601 280 Apartment s aka Monterey Apts. LIHTC Rockwood Apartment s 51.43% 9.80% 54.29 % 4.49% LIHTC Solara Court 13 1 13 2 14.86% 0.57% 11.43 % 76.00% Senior 1102.0 1 26.7% 4.1% 27.3% 38.3 % 17.3 % LIHTC South Street Anaheim Housing Partners LP 91 92 30.47% 5.26% 40.72 % 14.68% Large Family 874.01 20.5% 1.1% 53.7% 21.6 % 8.7 % LIHTC Stonegate 37 38 9.87% 4.61% 9.87% 1.32% Large Family 878.06 18.7% 2.0% 56.6% 17.5 % 17.2 % LIHTC The Crossings at Cherry Orchard 44 44 4.46% 0.00% 8.28% 1.27% Large Family 1102.0 1 26.7% 4.1% 27.3% 38.3 % 17.3 % LIHTC The Vineyard Townhom es 50.00% 14.29% 85.71 % 0.00% 873.00 16.2% 0.8% 69.1% 11.7 % 19.7 % LIHTC Tyrol Plaza Senior Apartment s 59 60 71.62% 6.76% 27.03 % 13.51% Senior 863.01 17.2% 1.2% 69.7% 11.2 % 15.7 % LIHTC Villa Anaheim 13 4 13 5 26.44% 0.57% 18.97 % 37.36% Senior 1102.0 1 26.7% 4.1% 27.3% 38.3 % 17.3 % Table 4: Buena Park Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Propert y White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispan ic (%) Propert y Asian (%) Households with children in the developme nt OR Developme nt Type Censu s Tract Numb er Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Trac t Asia n (%) Censu s Tract Pover ty Rate Project- Based Section 8 Newport House 10 73% 7% 13% 7% N/a 1103. 03 36.1% 0.8% 40.2% 18.2 % 5.2% Project- Based Section 8 Casa Santa Maria 100 6% N/a 3% 91% N/a 1105. 00 15.2% 5.9% 54.9% 20.7 % 25.5 % LIHTC City Yard Workforce Housing 8.05% 15.44% 24.16% 35.57% LIHTC Dorado Senior Apartment s 32.65 % 2.04% 15.31% 53.06% 868.0 3 25.2% 1.3% 44.9% 26.0 % 17.6 % LIHTC Emerald Gardens Apartment s 18.21 % 10.49% 42.28% 7.10% 1102. 01 26.7% 4.1% 27.3% 38.3 % 17.3 % LIHTC Harmony Park Apartment s 12.00 % 4.00% 6.67% 61.33% 1105. 00 15.2% 5.9% 54.9% 20.7 % 25.5 % LIHTC Park Landing 42.33 % 18.60% 40.93% 22.33% 868.0 1 29.3% 3.7% 40.7% 25.0 % 5.3% 602 281 Apartment s LIHTC Walden Glen Apartment s 18 5 186 14.81 % 8.83% 22.22% 9.12% Non- targeted 1105 15.2% 5.9% 54.9% 20.7 % 25.5 % Table 5: Costa Mesa Progra m Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Propert y White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispani c (%) Propert y Asian (%) Households with children in the developme nt OR Developme nt Type Census Tract Numbe r Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Tract Asian (%) Censu s Tract Pover ty Rate Project -Based Section 8 Casa Bella 74 68% 1% 17% 14% N/a 0637.0 2 35.1% 0.7% 56.5% 4.7% 17% Project -Based Section 8 St. Johns Manor 36 77% N/a 9% 14% N/a 0632.0 2 35.1% 0.7% 56.5% 4.7% 17% LIHTC Tower on 19th 26 6 26 9 52.73% 2.12% 10.30% 17.58% Seniors 637.01 17.4% 0.8% 78.4% 2.5% 31.7% Table 6: Fountain Valley Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Property White (%) Propert y Black (%) Proper ty Hispan ic (%) Propert y Asian (%) Households with children in the developme nt OR Developme nt Type Censu s Tract Numb er Tract White % Trac t Blac k (%) Tract Hispani c (%) Trac t Asia n (%) Censu s Tract Povert y Rate Project- Based Section 8 Our Lady of Guadalup e 71 15% N/a 1% 84% N/a 0992. 33 51.4% 0% 10.7% 37.1 % 4.4% LIHTC Fountain Valley Senior The Jasmine 15 4 156 49.00% 0.50% 12.00 % 46.00% Senior 992.5 0 39.5% 1.2% 28.5% 28.6 % 16.6% 603 282 Table 7: Fullerton Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Propert y White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispan ic (%) Propert y Asian (%) Households with children in the developmen t OR Developmen t Type Censu s Tract Numb er Tract White % Trac t Blac k (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Trac t Asia n (%) Censu s Tract Povert y Rate Project- Based Section 8 Amerige Villa Apts 101 9% N/a 1% 90% N/a 0112. 00 50.6% 1.4 % 34.4% 9.8 % 15.8% Other Multifamil y Casa Maria Del Rio 24 73% N/a 23% 4% N/a 0115. 02 30% 1.8 % 46.1% 19% 16.7% Other Multifamil y Harbor View Terrace 24 71% 13% 8% 8% 4% 0017. 06 50.1% 0.2 % 10.1% 34.8 % 8.9% LIHTC Courtya rd Apartme nts 10 8 108 64.43% 3.08% 60.78% 26.89% Large Family 112 50.6% 1.4 % 34.4% 9.8 % 15.8% LIHTC East Fullerto n Villas 26 27 10.64% 2.13% 82.98% 6.38% Large Family 115.0 2 30% 1.8 % 46.1% 19% 16.7% LIHTC Fullerto n City Lights Resident ial Hotel 13 4 137 63.19% 9.03% 13.89% 4.17% SRO 113 58.7% 4.3 % 19.3% 11.1 % 12.0% LIHTC Fullerto n Family Housing 54 55 30.61% 15.65 % 60.54% 12.93% Large Family 113 58.7% 4.3 % 19.3% 11.1 % 12.0% LIHTC Fullerto n Heights 35 36 43.18% 9.09% 39.77% 12.50% Special Needs 1162 LIHTC Garnet Lane Apartme nts 17 18 2.60% 0.00% 61.04% 0.00% Large Family 117.1 1 30.6% 3.6 % 43.7% 20.2 % 11.7% LIHTC Klimpel Manor 58 59 48.00% 2.00% 22.00% 32.00% Senior 113 58.7% 4.3 % 19.3% 11.1 % 12.0% LIHTC North Hills Apartme nts 20 3 204 54.76% 1.57% 67.91% 0.60% Non- Targeted 16.01 44.8% 2.3 % 23.3% 26.6 % 9.2% LIHTC Palm Garden Apartme nts 22 3 224 0.28% 0.00% 20.51% 0.14% Non- Targeted 116.0 1 9.4% 5.3 % 75.1% 9.5 % 30.1% LIHTC Ventana Senior Apartme nts 18.25% 4.76% 4.76% 29.37% Senior Table 8: Garden Grove Progra m Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Property White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispani c (%) Proper ty Asian (%) Households with children in the developmen t OR Censu s Tract Numb er Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Trac t Asia n (%) Censu s Tract Povert y Rate 604 283 Developmen t Type Project -Based Section 8 Donald Jordan Senior Manor 65 8% 2% 2% 89% N/a 0886. 02 19.7% 1.1% 35.6% 39.1 % 12.4% Project -Based Section 8 Acacia Villa Apts 160 4% 1% 1% 94% N/a 0886. 01 18.7% 1.4% 30.2% 47.8 % 12.5% LIHTC Briar Crest+ Rosecrest Apartments 40 41 53.78% 0.00% 89.92% 0.84% Large Family 885.0 1 14.6% 0.8% 54.4% 28.8 % 16.6% LIHTC Garden Grove Senior Apartments 84 85 13.79% 0.86% 6.90% 74.14 % Senior 885.0 2 12.0% 0.7% 47.0% 36.8 % 21.1% LIHTC Grove Park Apartments 10 3 10 4 3.30% 6.60% 33.02% 55.66 % At-Risk 891.0 4 2.2% 0.2% 79.8% 17.5 % 22.7% LIHTC Malabar Apartments 12 5 12 5 12.90% 2.30% 26.04% 3.00% Large Family 882.0 3 25.3% 0.6% 30.4% 37.2 % 18.6% LIHTC Stuart Drive Apts. Rose Garden Apts. 23 9 23 9 2.16% 0.00% 16.19% 39.41 % Non- Targeted 885.0 1 14.6% 0.8% 54.4% 28.8 % 16.6% LIHTC Sungrove Sr. Apts 80 82 33.00% 4.00% 13.00% 42.00 % Senior 885.0 2 12.0% 0.7% 47.0% 36.8 % 21.1% Table 9: Huntington Beach Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Property White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispan ic (%) Proper ty Asian (%) Households with children in the developmen t OR Developme nt Type Census Tract Number Tract White % Trac t Blac k (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Tract Asian (%) Cens us Tract Pover ty Rate Project- Based Section 8 Huntingt on Gardens 185 60% 2% 5% 33% N/a 0994.13 64.3% 0.2 % 17.5% 16.5 % 12.9 % Project- Based Section 8 Huntingt on Villa Yorba 192 20% 1% 17% 63% 12% 0992.41 43.9% 3% 21% 27.1 % 9.5% LIHTC Beachvie w Villa 10 6 107 39.05% 5.71% 18.10% 3.81% SRO 992.35 66.7% 2.2 % 20.5% 8.5% 12.4 % LIHTC Bowen Court 20 20 60.87% 0.00% 17.39% 26.09 % Senior 993.05 57.1% 0.7 % 30.1% 5.4% 7.3% LIHTC Emerald Cove Senior Apartme nts 16 2 164 20.71% 1.78% 0.59% 0.00% Senior 994.13 64.3% 0.2 % 17.5% 16.5 % 12.9 % LIHTC Hermosa Vista Apartme nts 87 88 50.71% 1.90% 62.56% 7.58% Non Targeted 996.05 57.6% 0.0 % 20.7% 16.7 % 5.2% LIHTC Oceana Apartme nts 77 78 52.63% 14.04% 39.04% 1.32% Large Family 994.13 64.3% 0.2 % 17.5% 16.5 % 12.9 % LIHTC Pacific Court 47 48 88.96% 0.00% 48.05% 0.65% Large Family 993.05 57.1% 0.7 % 30.1% 5.4% 7.3% 605 284 Apartme nts LIHTC Pacific Sun Apartme nts 6 6 34.78% 0.00% 13.04% 0.00% Special Needs 994.02 20.0% 0.4 % 68.3% 6.6% 35.4 % LIHTC Quo Vadis Apartme nts 10 2 104 69.01% 2.92% 19.88% 8.77% Non Targeted 994.13 64.3% 0.2 % 17.5% 16.5 % 12.9 % Table 10: Irvine Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Proper ty White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispani c (%) Propert y Asian (%) Households with children in the developmen t OR Developmen t Type Censu s Tract Numb er Tract White % Tract Blac k (%) Tract Hispa nic (%) Tract Asian (%) Censu s Tract Pover ty Rate Project- Based Section 8 Woodbri dge Manor I, Ii & Iii 165 64% N/a 1% 34% N/a 0525. 11 54.7% 1.9% 6.4% 30.3% 6.2% Project- Based Section 8 Access Irvine, Inc.(aka Skyloft) 39 64% 8% 5% 23% N/a 0626. 11 35.3% 6.8% 9.9% 43.9 % 34.7% Project- Based Section 8 The Parkland s 120 41% 4% 8% 48% 25% 0525. 25 31.3% 1.9% 9.6% 49.9 % 9.7% Project- Based Section 8 Windwo od Knoll 60 49% 10% 11% 30% 14% 0525. 27 37.1% 5.6% 7.5% 42.1 % 8.5% Project- Based Section 8 Woodbri dge Oaks 120 68% 1% 6% 25% 21% 0525. 14 50.9% 0.2% 13.8 % 31.7 % 8.9% Project- Based Section 8 Woodbri dge Villas 60 73% 5% 3% 17% 18% 0525. 19 51.4% 2.5% 5.8% 33.4 % 10.8% Project- Based Section 8 Orchard Park Apts 59 58% 5% 10% 27% 27% 0525. 17 44.2% 5.6% 4.5% 42.2 % 9.2% Project- Based Section 8 Harvard Manor 100 60% 2% 9% 29% 17% 0626. 27 33.4% 1.9% 13.1 % 47.9 % 38.3% Project- Based Section 8 Sutton Irvine Residenc es 9 100% N/a 0% N/a N/a 525.2 6 38.8% 0.9% 16.4 % 37.5 % 5.8% Other Multifam ily Villa Hermosa - Irvine 24 50% 25% 4% 21% 4% 0525. 27 37.1% 5.6% 7.5% 42.1 % 8.5% LIHTC Anesi Apartme nts (aka Alegre Apts) 10 2 104 21.52 % 7.62% 21.19% 36.42% Large Family 525.1 8 61.0% 1.8% 6.6% 26.8 % 11.3% LIHTC Anton Portola Apartme nts 25 3 256 9.04% 1.69% 3.95% 3.58% Non- Targeted 524.0 4 30.2% 2.9% 29.7 % 37.3 % 0.0% LIHTC Cadence Family Irvine Housing 81 82 36.06 % 3.35% 14.50% 7.43% Large Family 524.0 4 30.2% 2.9% 29.7 % 37.3 % 0.0% 606 285 (aka Luminara ) LIHTC D1 Senior Irvine Housing (aka Luxaira) 15 6 156 18.66 % 0.48% 4.31% 15.31% Seniors 524.0 4 30.2% 2.9% 29.7% 37.3 % 0.0% LIHTC Parc Derian Apartme nts 79 80 67.38 % 10.73% 31.76% 10.30% Large Family 755.1 5 27.4% 1.1% 36.0 % 31.7 % 19.4% LIHTC Doria Apartme nt Homes Phase I 59 60 18.31 % 3.52% 12.68% 23.94% Large Family 524.2 6 45.10% 0.50 % 9.50 % 39.7 0% 6.1% LIHTC Doria Apartme nts Homes Phase II 74 74 21.84 % 1.72% 9.77% 15.52% Large Family 755.0 5 41.5% 2.8% 38.8 % 12.5 % 8.3% LIHTC Granite Court 71 71 45.36 % 1.64% 20.22% 9.29% Non Targeted 755.1 5 27.4% 1.1% 36.0 % 31.7 % 19.4% LIHTC Irvine Inn 19 2 192 19.05 % 2.65% 2.65% 4.76% SRO 755.1 5 27.4% 1.1% 36.0 % 31.7 % 19.4% LIHTC Laguna Canyon Apartme nts 12 0 120 47.57 % 0.00% 30.10% 4.85% Large Family 525.1 8 61.0% 1.8% 6.6% 26.8 % 11.3% LIHTC Montecit o Vista Apartme nt Homes 16 1 162 9.24% 8.84% 14.86% 17.27% Large Family 525.2 5 31.3% 1.9% 9.6% 50.6 % 9.7% LIHTC Paramou nt Family Irvine Housing Partners LP (aka Espaira) 83 84 21.82 % 4.89% 15.31% 5.21% Large Family 524.0 4 30.2% 2.9% 29.7 % 37.3 % 0.0% LIHTC Pavilion Park Senior I Housing Partners LP (aka Solaira) 21 9 221 19.54 % 0.99% 1.99% 15.56% Seniors 524.2 6 45.1% 0.5% 9.5% 39.7 % 6.1% LIHTC San Paulo Apartme nts 15 3 382 37.31 % 2.09% 11.94% 5.67% Non Targeted 525.2 1 38.3% 3.6% 20.1 % 33.8 % 15.6% LIHTC Santa Alicia Apartme nts 84 84 31.82 % 0.00% 10.00% 18.18% Large Family 525.1 5 36.9% 0.3% 9.0% 46.7 % 12.7% LIHTC The Arbor at Woodbur y 90 90 2.12% 6.36% 8.05% 24.15% Large Family 524.1 8 32.6% 3.0% 6.5% 53.8 % 14.0% LIHTC The Inn At Woodbri dge 12 0 120 64.05 % 1.31% 7.84% 15.03% Senior 525.2 1 38.3% 3.6% 20.1 % 33.8 % 15.6% LIHTC Windrow Apartme nts 96 96 21.80 % 4.51% 18.80% 16.54% Large Family 524.1 7 37.0% 1.2% 7.5% 49.9 % 9.8% 607 286 LIHTC Woodbur y Walk 15 0 150 49.01 % 0.00% 12.58% 17.88% Large Family 524.1 8 32.6% 3.0% 6.5% 53.8 % 14.0% Table 11: La Habra Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Propert y White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispani c (%) Propert y Asian (%) Households with children in the developme nt OR Developme nt Type Census Tract Numbe r Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Tract Asian (%) Censu s Tract Pover ty Rate Project- Based Section 8 Las Lomas Gardens 93 44% 1% 44% 11% 47% 0013.0 3 24.3% 1.4% 59.1% 13.6 % 9.2% Project- Based Section 8 Casa El Centro Apts. 55 11% N/a 21% 68% N/a 0012.0 2 12.7% 0.2% 85.1% 1.8% 15.1% Table 12: La Palma Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Propert y White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispani c (%) Propert y Asian (%) Households with children in the developme nt OR Developme nt Type Census Tract Numbe r Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Tract Asian (%) Cens us Tract Pove rty Rate LIHTC Camden Place Apartment s 35 35 9.30% 9.30% 9.30% 65.12% Senior 1101.1 6 24.5% 5.6% 17.6% 47.0 % 8.4% LIHTC Casa La Palma Apartment s 26 9 26 9 15.93% 3.53% 17.29% 48.46% Non Targeted 1101.1 6 24.5% 5.6% 17.6% 47.0 % 8.4% 608 287 Table 13: Lake Forest Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Property White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispani c (%) Propert y Asian (%) Households with children in the developme nt OR Developme nt Type Census Tract Numbe r Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Tract Asia n (%) Censu s Tract Pover ty Rate LIHTC Baker Ranch Affordab le (aka Arroyo at Baker Ranch) 18 7 18 9 7.45% 7.45% 36.86% 5.49% Large Family 524.22 55.5% 2% 20.2% 13.7 % 7% Table 14: Laguna Niguel Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Propert y White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispani c (%) Propert y Asian (%) Households with children in the developme nt OR Developme nt Type Census Tract Numbe r Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Tract Asian (%) Cens us Tract Pove rty Rate Project- Based Section 8 Village La Paz 100 84% 2% 7% 7% 11% 0423.3 4 55.5% 2% 20.2% 13.7 % 7% Project- Based Section 8 Alicia Park Apartment s 56 75% 4% 13% 8% 17% 0423.2 6 62% 4.7% 19.1% 8% 8.6% 609 288 Table 15: Mission Viejo Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Propert y White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispani c (%) Propert y Asian (%) Household s with children in the developm ent OR Developm ent Type Census Tract Numbe r Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Tract Asian (%) Census Tract Povert y Rate LIHTC Arroyo Vista Apartmen ts 15 5 15 5 64.75% 1.36% 37.97% 15.93% Large Family 320.22 38.9% 1.4% 47.2% 8.3% 7.5% LIHTC Heritage Villas Senior Housing 14 1 14 3 6.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Non Targeted 320.13 74.5% 4.3% 10.0% 3.3% 4.8% Table 16: Newport Beach Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Propert y White (%) Propert y Black (%) Property Hispani c (%) Property Asian (%) Househ olds with children in the develop ment OR Develop ment Type Census Tract Numbe r Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Tract Asian (%) Censu s Tract Pover ty Rate Project- Based Section 8 Seaview Luthera n Plaza 100 86% N/a 4% 10% N/a 0626.44 84.4% 0% 6% 8.9% 9.2% LIHTC Bayvie w Landing 11 9 120 79.43 % 1.42% 6.38% 5.67% Senior 630.04 82.3% 2.9% 7.4% 6.6% 4.8% LIHTC Lange Drive Family 74 74 50.81 % 1.61% 55.24% 1.61% Large Family 740.03 20.7% 1.6% 64.9% 11.3 % 12.2 % LIHTC Newport Veteran s Housing 12 12 0.00% 15.38% 7.69% 0.00% Non- Targete d 636.03 75.8% 0.3% 15.7% 4.7% 6.1% Table 17: Orange (City) Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Propert y White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispan ic (%) Propert y Asian (%) Household s with children in the developme nt OR Developme nt Type Censu s Tract Numb er Tract Whit e % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Tract Asian (%) Census Tract Povert y Rate Project- Based Section 8 Triangle Terrace 75 57% 3% 24% 15% N/a 0759.0 2 56.3 % 1% 37.3% 3.7% 18.3% Project- Based Casa Ramon 75 19% N/a 77% 3% 37% 0759.0 1 51.9 % 1.4% 41.9% 2.8% 24.1% 610 289 Section 8 Project- Based Section 8 Casas Del Rio 39 89% N/a 8% N/a N/a 758.06 46.6 % 0.4% 47.6% 3.8% 15.7% Project- Based Section 8 Friendly Center 8 N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a 759.01 51.9 % 1.4% 41.9% 2.8% 24.1% LIHTC Buena Vista Apartment s 17 17 66.18% 0.00% 64.71% 1.47% Large Family 762.02 52.7 % 1.0% 38.3% 7.1% 7.4% LIHTC Chestnut Place (Fairway Manor LP) 49 50 46.15% 1.54% 15.38% 24.62% Large Family 758.06 46.6 % 0.4% 47.6% 3.8% 15.7% LIHTC Citrus Grove Apartment s 56 57 85.65% 3.59% 81.17% 0.00% Large Family 762.04 11.6 % 1.3% 79.6% 5.7% 23.1% LIHTC Communit y Garden Towers 33 2 33 3 2.44% 0.00% 0.44% 4.44% Senior 761.02 28.7 % 7.0% 47.1% 16.1 % 19.4% LIHTC Harmony Creek Apartment s 83 83 39.13% 1.09% 13.04% 9.78% Senior 758.06 46.6 % 0.4% 47.6% 3.8% 15.7% LIHTC Orangeval e Apartment s 64 64 9.76% 1.63% 82.52% 2.44% Non Targeted 762.05 52.0 % 0.7% 32.5% 11.0 % 14.0% LIHTC Serrano Woods 62 63 83.81% 2.02% 85.02% 0.00% Large Family 758.11 35.2 % 0.2% 53.7% 9.6% 18.1% LIHTC Stonegate Senior Apartment s 19 20 62.50% 4.17% 37.50% 0.00% Senior 758.16 34.7 % 1.7% 47.1% 11.0 % 17.2% LIHTC The Knolls Apartment s aka Villa Santiago 26 0 26 0 33.80% 2.66% 71.18% 5.90% Non Targeted 758.16 34.7 % 1.7% 47.1% 11.0 % 17.2% LIHTC Walnut- Pixley 22 22 88.89% 1.85% 72.22% 1.85% Large Family 760 33.1 % 2.5% 49.9% 12.9 % 15.1% Table 18: San Clemente Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Property White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispani c (%) Propert y Asian (%) Households with children in the developme nt OR Developme nt Type Census Tract Numbe r Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Trac t Asia n (%) Censu s Tract Povert y Rate Project- Based Section 8 Casa De Seniors 72 78% N/a 15% 7% N/a 0421.1 3 82.8% 0.4% 15.2% 1% 9.4% LIHTC Cottons Point Senior 75.82% 0.00% 7.69% 7.69% 611 290 Apartment s LIHTC Las Palmas Village (aka Avenida Serra) 18 19 30.77% 0.00% 42.31% 3.85% Large Family 421.08 69.9% 0.0% 26.3% 1.4 % 12.1% LIHTC Talega Jamboree Apartment s Phase I 12 3 124 48.60% 1.40% 64.02% 1.87% Large Family 320.23 75.5% 0.7% 11.4% 6.3 % 2.2% LIHTC Talega Jamboree Apt Ph. II Mendocin o at Talega II 61 62 52.25% 2.25% 51.35% 2.70% Large Family 320.23 75.5% 0.7% 11.4% 6.3 % 2.2% LIHTC The Presidio (formerly known as Wycliffe Casa de S 71 72 76.74% 0.00% 16.28% 10.47% Seniors 421.13 82.8% 0.4% 15.2% 1% 9.4% LIHTC Vintage Shores 12 0 122 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 Capistrano Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Property White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispani c (%) Property Asian (%) Househol ds with children in the developm ent OR Develop ment Type Censu s Tract Numb er Tract White % Tract Blac k (%) Tract Hispani c (%) Tract Asian (%) Censu s Tract Pover ty Rate LIHTC Seasons Senior Apartme nts at San Juan Capistra no 11 2 11 2 78.99% 1.45% 10.87% 2.17% Senior 423.1 2 25.2% 0.0% 68.0% 3.0% 19.4 % LIHTC Villa Paloma Senior Apartme nts 66 84 85.14% 0.00% 16.22% 2.70% Senior 423.1 2 25.2% 0.0% 68.0% 3.0% 19.4 % LIHTC Seasons II Senior Apartme nts 37 38 83.33% 2.38% 7.14% 0.00% Senior 423.1 2 25.2% 0.0% 68.0% 3.0% 19.4 % Table 20: Santa Ana Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Property White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispani c (%) Prope rty Asian (%) Households with children in the developmen t OR Developmen t Type Censu s Tract Numb er Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Tract Asian (%) Census Tract Povert y Rate 612 291 Project- Based Section 8 Flower Terrace 140 7% 1% 13% 78% N/a 0751. 00 17.3% 1.2% 77% 3.7% 23.8% Project- Based Section 8 Flower Park Plaza 199 3% 1% 14% 59% N/a 0749. 01 0.9% 0% 94.7% 4.3% 25.8% Project- Based Section 8 Highland Manor Apts. 12 18% N/a 82% N/a 36% 749.0 2 2.9% 0.1% 95.8% 1.3% 26.9% Project- Based Section 8 Rosswoo d Villa 198 3% 1% 33% 62% N/a 0750. 02 6% 0.3% 86.5% 5.8% 37.8% Project- Based Section 8 Santa Ana Towers 198 4% 2% 24% 69% N/a 0750. 02 6% 0.3% 86.5% 5.8% 37.8% Project- Based Section 8 Sullivan Manor 54 33% N/a 52% 15% 49% 0748. 02 1.6% 0.5% 88.1% 9.3% 25.5% LIHTC Andaluci a Apartme nts (aka 815 N. Harbor) 56 70 70.00% 2.35% 85.00% 2.65% Large Family 891.0 5 1.7% 0.0% 89.1% 9.2% 27.0% LIHTC City Gardens Apartme nts 27 4 274 7.24% 0.30% 84.77% 1.36% Non Targeted 753.0 1 21.1% 1.5% 66.6% 9.5% 16.6% LIHTC Depot at Santiago Apartme nts 69 70 89.80% 0.78% 91.37% 1.57% Large Family 744.0 5 5.3% 1.3% 89.8% 2.8% 20.8% LIHTC Guest House 71 72 1.22% 10.98% 30.49% 1.22% Special Needs 749.0 1 0.9% 0.0% 94.7% 4.3% 25.8% LIHTC Heninger Village Apartme nts 57 58 17.33% 5.33% 45.33% 37.33 % Senior 750.0 2 6.0% 0.3% 86.5% 5.9% 37.8% LIHTC La Gema Del Barrio 6 6 0.00% 0.00% 100.00 % 0.00% Large Family 740.0 3 20.70% 1.60 % 64.90 % 11.30 % 12.2% LIHTC Lacy & Raitt Apartme nts 34 35 86.32% 0.85% 88.03% 0.00% Large Family 748.0 6 1.4% 1.3% 93.0% 4.3% 30.8% LIHTC Raitt Street Apartme nts 6 6 0.00% 0.00% 100.00 % 0.00% Large Family 748.0 2 1.6% 0.5% 88.1% 9.5% 25.5% LIHTC Ross_Du rant Apartme nts 48 49 78.95% 0.00% 88.89% 0.00% Large Family 750.0 3 2.5% 0.1% 94.8% 1.6% 32.3% LIHTC Santa Ana Infill 50 51 94.00% 0.00% 95.60% 3.20% Large Family 750.0 2 6.0% 0.3% 86.5% 5.9% 37.8% LIHTC Santa Ana Station District Phase I 73 74 10.09% 1.26% 95.58% 0.32% Large Family 744.0 5 5.3% 1.3% 89.8% 2.8% 20.8% LIHTC Santa Ana Station District Phase II 39 40 16.46% 1.27% 89.24% 0.00% Large Family 744.0 5 5.3% 1.3% 89.8% 2.8% 20.8% LIHTC Vista Del Rio Apartme nts 40 41 78.33% 11.67% 41.67% 1.67% Special Needs 891.0 7 8.9% 0.0% 55.4% 35.2 % 8.3% 613 292 LIHTC Wakeha m Grant Apartme nts 12 6 127 8.83% 1.42% 84.33% 5.98% Non Targeted 745.0 1 1.0% 0.9% 91.2% 6.6% 39.8% LIHTC Wilshire & Minnie Apartme nts 14 3 144 97.57% 0.00% 97.76% 1.12% Large Family 744.0 3 3.6% 0.0% 93.9% 2.5% 28.8% Table 21: Tustin Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Property White (%) Propert y Black (%) Propert y Hispani c (%) Propert y Asian (%) Households with children in the developmen t OR Developmen t Type Censu s Tract Numb er Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Tract Asian (%) Censu s Tract Pover ty Rate Project- Based Section 8 Tustin Gardens 100 29% N/a 12% 59% N/a 755.0 5 41.5% 2.8% 38.8% 9.2% 8.3% LIHTC Anton Legacy Apartment s 16 1 22 5 37.90% 7.83% 33.10% 16.90% Non- Targeted 755.1 5 27.4% 1.1% 36.0% 31.7 % 19.4% LIHTC Coventry Court 97 24 0 40.47% 5.06% 8.56% 26.85% Senior 755.0 7 31.1% 3.8% 45.0% 16.7 % 13.2% LIHTC Hampton Square Apartment s 21 2 35 0 12.16% 1.54% 78.08% 1.03% Non- Targeted 744.0 7 10.8% 1.3% 84.1% 2.0% 22.9% LIHTC Heritage Place At Tustin 53 54 38.81% 2.99% 13.43% 25.37% Senior 755.1 5 27.4% 1.1% 36.0% 31.7 % 19.4% LIHTC Westchest er Park 14 9 15 0 13.12% 3.38% 75.35% 7.16% Non Targeted 755.1 3 14.4% 3.6% 57.9% 20.5 % 9.8% Table 22: Westminster Program Type Project Name Low Income Units vs. Units in Project Property White (%) Proper ty Black (%) Propert y Hispani c (%) Propert y Asian (%) Households with children in the developme nt OR Developme nt Type Censu s Tract Numb er Tract White % Tract Black (%) Tract Hispan ic (%) Tract Asian (%) Censu s Tract Povert y Rate Project- Based Section 8 Pacific Terrace Apts 97 3% N/a 1% 96% N/a 0997. 02 21.2% 0.9% 23.8% 51.1 % 21.2% LIHTC Cambrid ge Heights Senior Apartme nts 21 22 33.33% 0.00% 3.70% 55.56 % Senior 998.0 2 14.5% 1.0% 32.1% 49.7% 30.3 % LIHTC Coventry Heights 75 76 9.90% 0.00% 3.96% 67.33 % Senior 998.0 2 14.5% 1.0% 32.1% 49.7% 30.3 % LIHTC Royale Apartme nts 35 36 18.05% 5.26% 49.62% 12.03 % Large Family 998.0 1 14.5% 0.6% 40.4% 44.2% 26.7 % 614 293 LIHTC The Rose Gardens 13 2 13 3 9.15% 0.61% 3.05% 84.76 % Large Family 998.0 3 17.5% 0.0% 24.4% 54.3% 23.0 % LIHTC Westmin ster Senior Apartme nts 91 91 9.38% 0.00% 4.69% 81.25 % Senior 998.0 2 14.5% 1.0% 32.1% 49.7% 30.3 % LIHTC Windsor Court - Stratford Place 85 86 20.30% 5.08% 19.80% 55.84 % Large Family 998.0 3 17.5% 0.0% 24.4% 54.3% 23.0 % 615 294 VIII. 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. 616 295 Continuum of Care (CoC): 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 amount 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. Environmental Justice: the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, especially minorities, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental 617 296 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 envi ronmental 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 providin g 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. 618 297 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 619 298 (TANF)). 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), R/ECAPS 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. 620 299 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 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the 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, 621 300 protections for victims who are 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. 622 301 IX. 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.13 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 stu dents 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.14 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,15 the two largest cities in the county and areas with concentrations of Hispanic population. Although larger banks like Chase and Bank of 13 Rex Dalton, OC Families Face Fierce Fight for Special Ed Services, VOICE OF OC (Sep. 25, 2012), https://voiceofoc.org/2012/09/oc-families-face-fierce-fight-for-special-ed-services/. 14 Kenya Barrett, Best of Orange County 2019: Best Bank, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER (Sep. 19, 2019), https://www.ocregister.com/2019/09/19/best-of-orange-county-2019-best-bank/. 15 https://www.calbanktrust.com/locations/ 623 302 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 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%.16 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. 16 The Demographics of California Payday Lending: A Zip Code Analysis of Storefront Locations , CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS OVERSIGHT (2016), https://dbo.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/296/2019/02/The- Demographics-of-CA-Payday-Lending-A-Zip-Code-Analysis-of-Storefront-Locations.pdf. 624 303 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 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 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. 625 304 Community Opposition Community Opposition may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. The County is now only plurality White,17 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.18 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.19 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, and “attract people from other cities” that would become the responsibility of Fullerton residents.20 Additionally, in early 2019, opposition to state plans to increase affordable housing forced California to sue the City of Huntington Beach to force compliance.21 Finally, State and regional landlord associations have organized to oppose rent control and anti-eviction legislation.22 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,23 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. 17 QuickFacts: Orange County, California, UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/orangecountycalifornia (last visited Jan. 16, 2020). 18 See, e.g.,Hosam Elattar and Noah Biesiada, OC Cities Pushing Back Against Housing Target Increases, VOICE OF OC (Jan. 14, 2020), https://voiceofoc.org/2020/01/oc-cities-pushing-back-against-housing-target-increases/. 19 Id. Complaints included that the state plan’s “methodology was unfair” and not done in “good faith.” 20 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/. 21 Don Thompson, California Sues Wealthy Coastal City Over Low-Income Housing, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Jan. 25, 2019), https://apnews.com/f5c6edc6bd31442082f5b4964a0bc51d . 22 Marisa Kendall, California-Wide Rent Cap Advances Despite Landlord Opposition, O.C. REGISTER (July 10, 2019), https://www.ocregister.com/2019/07/10/ab-1482-set-for-senate-hearing/. 23 Alejandra Molina, No More Eyesores: Santa Ana Asks Courts to Intervene and Fix Abandoned Properties , O.C. REGISTER (Mar. 11, 2015), https://www.ocregister.com/2015/03/11/no-more-eyesores-santa-ana-asks-courts-to- intervene-and-fix-abandoned-properties/. 626 305 Table: Other Vacant Housing Units by City, 2013-2017 American Community Survey City Number of Other Vacant Units % of Vacant Units That Are 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% 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 627 306 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.24 The tenant must provide written notice to the landlord, along with a copy of a temporary restraining o rder, 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 24 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1946.7 628 307 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. 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. 629 308 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. Lack of Access to Opportunity Due to High Housing Costs 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 630 309 intensive models of community-based services like Assertive Community Treatment,25 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 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 oth er 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. 25 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. 631 310 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 exist s, 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.26 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. 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. 26 Priscella Vega et al., State Sues Huntington Beach over Blocked Homebuilding, L.A. TIMES (Jan. 25, 2019), https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-hb-housing-lawsuit-20190125-story.html. 632 311 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.27 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. 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. include Dana 27 Erualdo R. González et al., The Gentrification of Santa Ana: From Origin to Resistance, KCET (Sep. 13, 2017), https://www.kcet.org/shows/city-rising/the-gentrification-of-santa-ana-from-origin-to-resistance. 633 312 Point, Laguna Beach, Mission Viejo, Villa Park, and Yorba Linda. 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. 634 313 635 314 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. 636 315 637 316 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 Mortgage 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 $721,400,28 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 refinan cing 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 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 28 https://www.zillow.com/orange-county-ca/home-values/ 638 317 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 Mortgage 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 639 318 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 t he county’s students. 640 319 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. Loss of Affordable Housing The loss of affordable housing is 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 convert ed 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.29 Group home operators have also challenged the City of Costa Mesa’s ordinance, though a jury found in the City’s favor.30 Following the jury’s verdict in that case, there were reports that Orange County was considering similar restrictions for its unincorporated areas.31 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 29 Hannah Fry, Newport Will Pay Group Homes $5.25 Million Settlement, L.A. TIMES (July 16, 2015), https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-0716-newport-group-home-settlement-20150716- story.html. 30 Alicia Robinson, Federal Jury Sides with Costa Mesa in Sober Living Case, O.C. REGISTER (Dec. 7, 2018), https://www.ocregister.com/2018/12/07/federal-jury-sides-with-costa-mesa-in-sober-living-case/. 31 Teri Sforza, Orange County, Following Costa Mesa’s Lead, May Regulate Sober Living Homes, O.C. REGISTER (Sep. 20, 2019), https://www.ocregister.com/2019/09/20/orange-county-following-costa-mesas-lead-may-regulate- sober-living-homes/. 641 320 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 holders make moves that foster integration.32 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 32 Mary K. Cunningham et al., Moving to Better Neighborhoods with Mobility Counseling, URBAN INSTITUTE (Mar. 2005), https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/51506/311146 -Moving-to-Better-Neighborhoods-with- Mobility-Counseling.PDF. 642 321 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%). Source of Income Discrimination Source of income discrimination is 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.33 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 33 Jeff Collins, No Voucher, No Vacancy, No Help: The Cruel Realities of Section 8 Housing in Orange County , O.C. REGISTER (Oct. 5, 2016), https://www.ocregister.com/2016/10/05/no-voucher-no-vacancy-no-help-the-cruel- realities-of-section-8-housing-in-orange-county/. 643 322 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 disa bilities, 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. 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. 644 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND PUBLIC COMMENT REVIEW 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, May 4, 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 $7.5 million in CDBG funds and $4.7 million in unallocated HOME funds, a total of $12.2 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 645 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 $1,696,814 million in CDBG and $1,923,816 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 $60,637 City of Huntington Beach – CDBG Program Administration $257,445 Fair Housing Foundation – Fair Housing Program $30,000 Unallocated Funds for Back-Up Projects $689,732 Central Library Lower Level Restrooms ADA Improvements ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3 Additional Funds to 2019 Cameron Lane Navigation Center Total CDBG Projects $1,696,814 City of Huntington Beach – Affordable Housing Program $1,304,348 Interval House – Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program $175,000 Families Forward – Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program $175,000 Mercy House – Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program $200,000 City of Huntington Beach – HOME Program Administration $69,468 Total HOME Projects $1,923,816 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 646 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 (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 AI, 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 AI 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. 647 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 April 3, 2020 through May 4, 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/government/departments/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@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, 5th Floor, Huntington Beach, CA 92648, by phone to Robert Ramirez, Economic Development Project Manager at (714) 375-5186, or via email at Robert.Ramirez@surfcity-hb.org at least one week prior to the May 4, 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 (AI) will be submitted to HUD and will remain available for public review throughout the program year. Publication date: Huntington Beach Wave, April 2, 2020 648 City of Huntington Beach File #:20-1544 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager PREPARED BY:Scott Haberle, Fire Chief Subject: Adopt Resolution No. 2020-16 approving City authorized agents to apply for and obtain Financial Assistance for Disaster and Emergency Relief Statement of Issue: The State of California previously required jurisdictions to update their list of authorized agents who will submit claims for state and federal reimbursement every three years. However, in 2019 these guidelines were revised to require agencies to annually adopt this type of resolution. The attached resolution will allow staff to apply for and obtain emergency disaster relief through the end of 2020. Financial Impact: Not applicable. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2020-16, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Authorizing Certain City Officials to Execute Applications and Documents to Obtain Disaster and Emergency Relief.” Alternative Action(s): Do not adopt the resolution and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: State law requires that all claims for state and federal disaster reimbursement be accompanied by a list of City officials authorized to act as agents for the purpose of applying for and obtaining financial assistance for disaster and emergency relief. The State of California requires jurisdictions to update their list each year. The resolution shown as Attachment 1 includes the positions of City Manager, Fire Chief, Chief Financial Officer and Emergency Services Coordinator as authorized agents. The newly adopted resolution will accompany City claims for financial reimbursement from the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal-EMA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In conformance with State of California requirements, City staff will return during the first part of each calendar year with a similar resolution to obtain these authorizations. City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™649 File #:20-1544 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 At this time, approval of the resolution is requested. Environmental Status: None. Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance and modernize public safety service delivery Attachment(s): 1. Resolution No. 2020-16, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Authorizing Certain City officials to Execute Applications and Documents to Obtain Disaster and Emergency Relief.” City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™650 651 City of Huntington Beach File #:20-1560 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 REQUEST FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY ACTION SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Chair and Commissioners SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, Executive Officer PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development Subject: Adopt Resolution No. 06, authorizing the Housing Authority Clerk to accept deeds on behalf of the Huntington Beach Housing Authority Statement of Issue: It is requested that the Board of Commissioners of the Huntington Beach Housing Authority adopt Resolution No. 06, authorizing the Housing Authority Clerk or his/her designee to accept deeds and grants of real property on behalf of the Housing Authority. Financial Impact: There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 06, “A Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Huntington Beach Housing Authority designating the Clerk to accept Deed and Real Property Interests on behalf of the Housing Authority.” Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the resolution, and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: CA Government Code Section 27281 stipulates that deeds and grants conveying any interest in real property, or an easement over real property, to a public agency for public purposes cannot be recorded by the County Recorder’s Office without a certificate or resolution of acceptance. In 1972, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3537, authorizing the City Clerk to accept and consent to deeds and grants of real property to the City, in accordance with said Section. In 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2011-18, establishing the Huntington Beach Housing Authority as a separate public entity. Recently, the Board of Commissioners approved the acquisition of real property at 17631 Cameron City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™652 File #:20-1560 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 Lane and an option to acquire the neighboring property at 17642 Beach Boulevard. The Cameron Lane acquisition will require a formal acceptance of the grant deed at the close of escrow. The proposed Resolution will authorize the Authority Clerk to accept the grant deed on behalf of the Housing Authority and set protocols that comply with Government Code Section 27281. Environmental Status: Not applicable. Strategic Plan Goal: Strengthen long-term financial and economic sustainability Attachment(s): 1. Resolution No. 06, “A Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Huntington Beach Housing Authority designating the Clerk to accept Deed and Real Property Interests on behalf of the Housing Authority” City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™653 654 655 City of Huntington Beach File #:20-1546 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager PREPARED BY:Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager Subject: Introduction of the Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Between the Huntington Beach Management Employees’ Organization (MEO) and the City of Huntington Beach for November 1, 2019, through October 31, 2020 Statement of Issue: The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach Management Employees’ Organization (MEO) expired on October 31, 2019. Subsequently, the City and MEO engaged in good-faith negotiations, ultimately reaching tentative agreement on terms in February 2020 on a 1-year contract covering the period November 1, 2019, through October 31, 2020. Financial Impact: Pursuant to the terms reached in the MOU with MEO, the total annual projected cost of the labor pact as estimated by the Finance Department is $430,439. This constitutes a 0.3% increase in the City’s overall FY 2019/20 personnel budget of $162.04 million. Recommended Action: Introduction of the Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Between the Huntington Beach Management Employees’ Organization and the City of Huntington Beach for the period November 1, 2019, through October 31, 2020. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the introduction of the proposed successor MOU for MEO employees, and direct staff to: (1) continue to meet and confer with the Association, or (2) utilize the impasse procedures contained within the City’s Employer-Employee Relations Resolution. City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™656 File #:20-1546 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 Analysis: The Management Employees’ Organization (MEO) represents around 100 employees in the City. Starting in late 2019, representatives for the City and MEO engaged in active negotiations on a new labor agreement, ultimately reaching tentative agreement on contract terms for a one-year period in February 2020. Key changes in the proposed MOU include the following: Term of Agreement November 1, 2019 through October 31, 2020. Wage Increase Employees shall receive a 3.5% pay increase. CalPERS Cost Sharing Employees shall contribute an additional 1% contribution towards CalPERS costs. Medical Benefits The City’s monthly contribution to medical plan rates will increase $50 per plan per tier. There were several other modifications to contract provisions, including deletion of obsolete language, regulatory compliance language changes, and general clean-up language. A summary of these and all other negotiated provisions are included as Exhibit “A”. Environmental Status: Not applicable. Strategic Plan Goal: Non-Applicable - Administrative Item Attachment(s): 1. Summary of Memorandum of Understanding Modifications 2. Fiscal Impact Report 3. Proposed Memorandum of Understanding - Exhibit “A” City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™657 City of Huntington Beach Management Employees Organization (MEO) Summary of MOU Modifications Article I - Term of Agreement November 1, 2019 through October 31, 2020 Article VI - Wage Increase Employees shall receive a 3.5% pay increase Article X – Health Benefits The City’s monthly contribution to medical premiums will increase $50 per month per medical plan per enrollment tier (not to exceed the monthly plan premium). Article XI – Retirement/CalPERS Cost Sharing Employees shall contribute an additional 1% contribution towards CalPERS costs Article XIV – During the Term of the Agreement Class/Comp Study – During the term of the agreement, the parties agree to commence a city-wide classification and compensation study. The City shall meet and confer regarding parameters and procedures of the study. Holiday Closure City Hall will be closed to the public on December 24, 2020 and December 31, 2020. During the term of the agreement, the parties agree to meet and discuss holiday closure procedures. 658 These estimates are subject to change.For Discussion Purposes Only City of Huntington Beach MEO City Proposal DRAFT Year 1 MOU Item #Description Rate / $ Estimated Impact Total Cost of Proposal Notes: 1 Term: 1 year (November 1, 2019 - October 31, 2020) 2a Base Salary Pay Increase of 3.5 percent effective the start of the contract term.Various 481,629 481,629 Effective November 1, 2019 2b CalPERS Pick Up by Employees of one percent (1%) effective the start of the contract term. Various (120,788) (120,788) Effective November 1, 2019 3 The City’s contribution towards employees’ health insurance at each plan level (i.e., E/ee, E/ee+1, E/ee+2 or more) shall be increased $50 per benefit tier.Various 39,678 39,678 Effective the the pay period that includes November 1, 2019. 4 Bereavement Leave (from 24 work hours to three work shifts)29,920 29,920 5 Class/Comp Study - - Part of Citywide Class/Comp Study Total Cost of Proposal 430,439 430,439 659 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN HUNTINGTON BEACH MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION AND CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH November 1, 20179 – October 31, 201920 660 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 i PREAMBLE ................................................................................................................................. 1 ARTICLE I - TERM OF MOU ....................................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE II - REPRESENTATIONAL UNIT/CLASSIFICATIONS ............................................... 1 ARTICLE III - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS ...................................................................................... 2 ARTICLE IV - EXISTING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ...................................................... 2 ARTICLE V - SEVERABILITY ..................................................................................................... 2 ARTICLE VI - SALARY SCHEDULE ........................................................................................... 2 A. SALARY SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................................. 2 1. Wage Increase ARTICLE VII - SPECIAL PAY ..................................................................................................... 3 A. EDUCATIONAL TUITION ....................................................................................................................... 3 B. BILINGUAL PAY ................................................................................................................................... 3 ARTICLE VIII - UNIFORMS ......................................................................................................... 3 A. GENERAL POLICY ............................................................................................................................... 4 B. AFFECTED PERSONNEL ....................................................................................................................... 4 C. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................... 4 D. EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................................................................. 4 E. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES ....................................................................................................................... 5 F. DEPARTMENT HEAD OR DESIGNEE RESPONSIBILITIES .......................................................................... 5 ARTICLE IX - HOURS OF WORK/ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE ................................................... 5 A. OVERTIME ......................................................................................................................................... 5 B. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE ...................................................................................................................... 6 C. FLEX SCHEDULE AND HOURS OF W ORK ............................................................................................... 6 1. 5/40 Work Schedule ............................................................................................................................................ 6 2. 9/80 Work Schedule ............................................................................................................................................ 6 3. 4/10 Work Schedule ............................................................................................................................................ 7 ARTICLE X - HEALTH AND OTHER INSURANCE BENEFITS .................................................. 7 A. HEALTH ............................................................................................................................................. 7 B. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND COST .......................................................................................................... 7 1. City and Employee Paid Medical Insurance – Employee and Dependents ..................................................... 7 2. Health and Other Insurance Premiums ............................................................................................................ 8 a. Health Premiums and Contributions ........................................................................................................... 8 3. Future Premiums and City Contributions ........................................................................................................ 9 4. Medical Cash-Out .......................................................................................................................................... 10 5. Section 125 Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 10 C. LIFE AND ACCIDENTAL DEATH AND DISMEMBERMENT ......................................................................... 10 D. LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE .................................................................................................. 10 E. MISCELLANEOUS .............................................................................................................................. 11 1. City Paid Premiums While On Medical Disability .......................................................................................... 11 2. Insuance Benefits Advisory Committee ......................................................................................................... 11 F. RETIREE MEDICAL COVERAGE FOR RETIREES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CITY MEDICAL SUBSIDY PLAN ................ 11 G. POST 65 SUPPLEMENTAL MEDICARE COVERAGE ................................................................................. 12 661 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 ii H. ANNUAL MAXIMUM BENEFIT FOR DENTAL PPO PLAN ............................................................................ 12 ARTICLE XI - RETIREMENT BENEFITS .................................................................................. 12 A. BENEFITS......................................................................................................................................... 12 1. Self Funded Supplemental Retirement Benefit ............................................................................................. 12 2. Medical Insurance for Retirees ...................................................................................................................... 13 a. Medical Insurance Upon Retirement ......................................................................................................... 13 B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTIONS AND REPORTING ..................................... 13 1. Classic Member Miscellaneous Unit Members ............................................................................................. 13 2. New Member Retirement Benefits 23. Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit .................................................................................... 14 34. Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits ......................................................................................................... 14 ARTICLE XII - LEAVE BENEFITS ............................................................................................. 14 A. GENERAL LEAVE .............................................................................................................................. 14 1. Accrual ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 2. Eligibility and Approval ................................................................................................................................... 14 3. Leave Benefit Entitlements............................................................................................................................ 15 4. Conversion to Cash ....................................................................................................................................... 15 B. CITY PAID HOLIDAYS ........................................................................................................................ 15 C. SICK LEAVE ..................................................................................................................................... 16 D. VOLUNTARY CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION PROGRAM .................................................................. 17 E. BEREAVEMENT LEAVE ....................................................................................................................... 17 F. RELEASE TIME .................................................................................................................................. 17 ARTICLE XIII - CITY RULES ..................................................................................................... 18 A. PERSONNEL RULES ......................................................................................................................... 18 B. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS RESOLUTION .............................................................................. 18 1. Modification of Section 7 - Decertification and Modification ............................................................................... 18 C. RULES GOVERNING LAYOFF, REDUCTION IN LIEU OF LAYOFF AND RE-EMPLOYMENT .......................... 19 1. Part 1 - Layoff Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 19 2. Order of La yoff .................................................................................................................................................. 21 3. Notification of Employees .................................................................................................................................. 21 4. Part 2 - Bumping Rights .................................................................................................................................... 22 5. Part 3 - Re-Employment .................................................................................................................................... 23 ARTICLE XIV - DURING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT ....................................................... A. CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY ......................................................................................... B. HOLIDAY CLOSURE ................................................................................................................................ ARTICLE XIV - MISCELLANEOUS ........................................................................................... 24 A. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION ................................................................................................................... 24 B. VEHICLE POLICY .............................................................................................................................. 25 C. DEFERRED COMPENSATION LOAN PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 26 D. COLLECTION OF PAYROLL OVERPAYMENTS ........................................................................................ 26 E. REQUIRED FINGERPRINTING OF EMPLOYEES THAT W ORK WITH SENIOR CITIZENS ................................ 27 F. ACTING ASSIGNMENT ....................................................................................................................... 27 G. RETURN TO W ORK ........................................................................................................................... 27 H. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND ALCOHOL TESTING............................................................................. 27 I. MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE ............................................... 27 J. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISASTER W ORKER ............................................................................................. 27 662 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 iii ARTICLE XV - CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL ............................................................................. 28 EXHIBIT A - SALARY SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................ 29 EXHIBIT B - RETIREE SUBSIDY MEDICAL PLAN ................................................................................ 32 SCHEDULE OF BENEFITS ...................................................................................................................... 32 A. MINIMUM ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS .............................................................................................. 33 B. DISABILITY RETIREES.................................................................................................................... 33 C. MAXIMUM MONTHLY SUBSIDY PAYMENTS .................................................................................................. 34 RETIREE SUBSIDY MEDICAL PLAN/MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ........................................................... 34 A. ELIGIBILITY ................................................................................................................................... 34 B. BENEFITS ..................................................................................................................................... 35 C. SUBSIDIES ................................................................................................................................... 35 D. MEDICARE ................................................................................................................................... 35 E. CANCELLATION ............................................................................................................................. 36 EXHIBIT C - VEHICLE USE/ASSIGNMENT ........................................................................................... 37 EXHIBIT D - PHYSICAL EXAMINATION DESCRIPTION....................................................................... 38 EXHIBIT E - 9/80 WORK SCHEDULE .................................................................................................... 39 9/80 WORK SCHEDULE DEFINED ........................................................................................................... 39 A. FORTY (40) HOUR WORK WEEK ....................................................................................................... 39 B. TWO-WEEK PAY PERIOD .................................................................................................................. 39 C. A/B SCHEDULES .............................................................................................................................. 40 D. EMERGENCIES ................................................................................................................................. 40 LEAVE BENEFITS .................................................................................................................................. 40 EXHIBIT F- 4/10 WORK SCHEDULE ..................................................................................................... 41 EXHIBIT G - VOLUNTARY CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES .............. 42 663 MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (Hereinafter called CITY) and THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION (Hereinafter called ASSOCIATION or MEO) PREAMBLE This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into by and between the City of Huntington Beach, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California, herein called “City,” and the Huntington Beach Management Employees’ Organization, a California Organization, herein called “Association.” WHEREAS, pursuant to California law, the City, acting by and through its designated representatives, duly appointed by the governing body of said City, and the representatives of the Association, a duly recognized employee association have met and conferred in good faith and have fully communicated and exchanged information concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment for the period November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920. WHEREAS, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of this Agreement shall apply to all employees represented by the Association, and WHEREAS, the representatives of the City and Association desire to reduce their agreements to writing, NOW THEREFORE, this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made to become effective November 1, 20179 and it is agreed as follows: ARTICLE I - TERM OF MOU This Agreement shall be in effect for a period of two (2) years one (1) year commencing November 1, 20179, the effective date, and ending midnight October 31, 201920. The parties agree to commence negotiations on a successor MOU by not later than August 1, 2019.May 1, 2020. ARTICLE II - REPRESENTATIONAL UNIT/CLASSIFICATIONS It is recognized that the Association is the employee association which has the right to meet and confer in good faith with the City on the behalf of employees whose classifications are listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 664 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 2 ARTICLE III – MANAGEMENT’S RIGHTS The parties agree the City has the right to make unilateral management decisions that are outside the scope of bargaining, as defined by state and federal law and Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) decisions. Except as expressly abridged or modified herein, the City retains all rights, powers and authority with respect to the management and direction of the performance of City services and the work forces performing such services, provided that nothing herein shall change the City’s obligation to meet and confer as to the effects of any such management decision upon wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment or be construed as granting the City the right to make unilateral changes in wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment. Such rights include, but are not limited to, consideration of the merits, necessity, level or organization of City services, including establishing of work stations, nature of work to be performed, contracting for any work or operation, reasonable employee performance standards, including reasonable work and safety rules and regulations in order to maintain the efficiency and economy desirable for the performance of City services. ARTICLE IV - EXISTING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the adoption of this Memorandum of Understanding shall not change existing benefits and terms and conditions of employment which have been established in prior Memoranda of Understanding, and/or provided for in the Personnel and Departmental Rules of the City of Huntington Beach. ARTICLE V - SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this MOU or any additions or amendments thereof, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this MOU and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion, and any additions or amendments thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions, or the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. ARTICLE VI - SALARY SCHEDULE A. Salary Schedule All employees are required to utilize direct deposit of payroll checks. The City shall issue each employee direct deposit advice (payroll receipt) each pay period that details all income, withholdings, and deductions. 1. Wage Increases a. Upon the effective date of this agreement, all bargaining unit members will receive a three and one-half percent (3.5%) wage increase. 665 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 3 ARTICLE VII - SPECIAL PAY A. Educational Tuition 1. Upon approval of the Department Head and the Director of Human Resources, permanent employees may be compensated for courses from accredited educational institutions, including vocational schools. Tuition reimbursement shall be limited to job- related courses or job-related educational degree objectives and requires prior approval by the Department Head and the Director of Human Resources. 2. Education costs shall be reimbursed to permanent employees for tuition, books, parking (if a required fee) and any other required fees upon presentation of receipts. However, the maximum reimbursement shall be not more than one thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($1,750) in any fiscal year period per employee. a. Employees may not carry-over and be reimbursed for prior fiscal year education costs in successive fiscal years. 3. Reimbursements shall be made when the employee presents proof to the Director of Human Resources that he/she has successfully completed the course with a grade of “C” or better; or a “Pass” if taken for credit. B. Bilingual Pay Permanent employees who are required by their Department Head to use Spanish, Vietnamese, or American Sign Language skills as part of their job assignment, shall be paid an additional five-percent (5%) of their base hourly rate in addition to their regular bi-weekly salary. Permanent employees may accept assignments utilizing bilingual skills in other languages on a short-term assignment with approval by the City Manager. Such employees shall receive the additional five percent (5%) for every bi-weekly pay period that the assignment is in effect. In order to be eligible for said compensation, an employee’s language proficiency will be tested and certified by the Director of Human Resources or designee. The special pay shall be effective the first full pay period following certification as verified to the Department Head in writing by the Director of Human Resources or designee. The parties agree that to the extent permitted by law, Bilingual Pay is special compensation and shall be reported to CalPERS as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(4) Bilingual Premium. ARTICLE VIII - UNIFORMS 666 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 4 The City agrees to provide uniforms to employees on active duty who are required to wear uniforms. A. General Policy The City shall furnish uniforms to those employees designated by the various Department Heads as required to wear a standard uniform for appearance, uniformity and public recognition purposes, in the procedures and guidelines set forth hereinafter. B. Affected Personnel All employees in classifications listed below shall wear a standard City adopted uniform. Each Department Head shall determine which employees must wear a uniform. Department Job Type Classification Uniform Items Community Dev 0125 Code Enforcement Supervisor 3-polo shirts, 2-pair of paints (khaki style), one hat and one pair of safety boots. Community Dev 0072 Principal Electrical Inspector 5 Polo Shirts, 1 Jacket, 1 Windbreaker (not annually), 1 Hat, shoes PPE/Safety Community Dev 0073 Inspection Supervisor 5 Polo Shirts, 1 Jacket, 1 Windbreaker (not annually), 1 Hat, shoes PPE/Safety Community Dev 0076 Principal Inspector Plum/Mech 5 Polo Shirts, 1 Jacket, 1 Windbreaker (not annually), 1 Hat, shoes PPE/Safety Community Dev 0075 Inspection Manager 5 Polo Shirts, 1 Jacket, 1 Windbreaker (not annually), 1 Hat, shoes PPE/Safety Community Dev 0598 Building Manager 5 Polo Shirts, 1 Jacket, 1 Windbreaker (not annually), 1 Hat, shoes PPE/Safety Community Srvcs 0044 Beach Operations Supervisor 5 Polo Shirts, 1 jacket (not annually), 1 pair boots (not annually), 1 hat Community Srvcs 0133 Supv Parking & Camping Facility 5 shirts, 1 Jacket (not annually), 1 hat Fire 0595 Assistant Fire Marshall 5 shirts, 5 pants, 1 dress shirt, 1 belt, 1 pair boots, 1 badge Fire 0131 Fire Med Coordinator 1 blouse, 1 pant, 1 dress pant, 1 skirt, 1 pair dress shoes, 1 badge Fire 0130 Fire Protection Analyst 5 shirts, 5 pants, 1 dress shirt, 1 belt, 1 pair boots, 1 badge Police 0486 Detention Administrator 1 shirt/1 pants/1 jacket, 1 BDU pants/1 polo, name tag, tie, tie bar C. Personal Protective Equipment All personal protective equipment shall be provided based on employee safety needs for the performance of duties as approved by the Department Head. D. Employee Responsibilities 1. Wear a clean and complete uniform as required. 2. Uniform appearance shall include: a. Patch to be worn above left shirt or jacket pocket. b. Pants to have no cuffs. c. Worn with pride in appearance to public, i.e., shirt buttoned, shirttail tucked in. 3. Wash and provide minimum repair; i.e., buttons, small tears. 667 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 5 4. Provide any alterations necessary including sewing on of City patches. 5. Wear uniform only when on duty or performing work for the City. 6. Notify supervisor of need to replace due to disrepair or severe staining producing an undesirable appearance. 7. Turn in all uniform components, including patches, upon termination. 8. Turn in all personal protective equipment upon termination. 9. Wear all personal protective equipment prescribed by the City safety officer and/or Supervisor of the division. E. City Responsibilities 1. Pay for City-required uniforms. 2. Report to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) the cost of uniforms provided as set forth in Section B (above) for each classification as special compensation in accordance with Title 2, California Code of Regulations, Section 571(a)(5). For employees that are not required to wear uniforms on a daily basis or who are not actively employed for an entire payroll calendar year, a prorated cost of uniforms may apply. 3. Provide one or more retail clothing outlets for the various allotments. City reserves the right to name vendor. 4. Maintain records of purchases. F. Department Head or Designee Responsibilities 1. Ensure employee compliance with the Uniform Policy. 2. Approve replacement of deteriorated uniform component(s) and personnel protective equipment as required and to maintain a listing for each eligible employee, by name and classification, of all uniform component(s) and personal protective equipment purchased. 3. Confirm receipt of uniforms, patches and personal protective equipment from an employee upon termination. A Termination Checklist Form is to be completed, signed by the employee, and submitted to the Human Resources Department. 4. Report to the Director of Human Resources any changes to the Uniform Listing by Category/Classification (Section B above). The City reserves the right to add, delete, change or modify the Uniform Listing as required. ARTICLE IX - HOURS OF WORK/ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE It is the intent of the City to provide an opportunity for MEO employees to select a flex schedule and/or alternative work schedule that is consistent with the City’s objective that such schedules shall not reduce service to the public, departmental effectiveness, productivity and/or efficiency as determined by the City Manager or designee. 668 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 6 A. Overtime Employees represented herein shall not be eligible for paid overtime compensation. B. Administrative Leave 1. All full-time unit employees shall be entitled to sixty (60) hours of administrative leave per calendar year. All part-time (50%) employees shall be entitled to thirty (30) hours of administrative leave per calendar year. Administrative leave shall not carry over to the next year and holds no cash value. a. Effective the beginning of the pay period following City Council final approval of this agreement, full time unit employees shall be granted a one-time (only) additional allotment of ten (10) hours of Administrative Leave for the term of this agreement. Part time (50%) employees shall be granted a one-time (only) additional allotment of five (5) hours of Administrative Leave for the term of this agreement. Administrative Leave shall not carry over to the next year and holds no cash value. b. The MOU provision regarding the additional one-time allotment of ten (10) hours of Administrative Leave for the term of this agreement, will expire with the expiration of this agreement and will not continue beyond the original expiration date of the agreement (even if the MOU is subsequently extended or amended), nor will it be automatically included as part of any successor MOU. The language as written herein sunsets. C. Flex Schedule and Hours of Work With supervisor and Department Head approval, MEO employees may flex regularly scheduled start times between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Flex schedules shall not reduce service to the public, departmental effectiveness, productivity and/or efficiency as determined by the City Manager or designee. MEO employees will have the option of working a 5/40 or 9/80 work schedule with supervisor and Department Head approval. MEO employees assigned the 4/10-work schedule shall retain the option of working the 4/10-work schedule with supervisor and Department Head approval. In order to maintain service to the public, departmental effectiveness, productivity and/or efficiency a Department Head may assign an employee a different work schedule that is in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) with City Manager approval. 1. 5/40 Work Schedule The 5/40 work schedule shall be defined as working five (5) eight (8) hour days Monday through Friday each week plus a one-hour lunch during each work shift, totaling a forty (40) hour work week. 2. 9/80 Work Schedule 669 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 7 The 9/80 work schedule, as outlined in Exhibit E, shall be defined as working nine (9) days for eighty (80) hours in a two-week pay period by working eight (8) days at nine (9) hours per day and working one (1) day for eight (8) hours (Friday), plus a one-hour lunch during each work shift, totaling forty (40) hours in each FLSA work week. The 9/80-work schedule shall not reduce service to the public, departmental effectiveness, productivity and/or efficiency as determined by the City Manager or designee. 3. 4/10 Work Schedule The 4/10 work schedule, as outlined in Exhibit F, shall be defined as working four (4) ten (10) hour days Monday through Thursday or Tuesday thru Friday each week plus a one- hour lunch during each work shift, totaling a forty (40) hours work week. The assigned 4/10-work schedule must be in compliance with the requirements of FLSA and all other applicable laws. The 4/10-work schedule shall not reduce service to the public, departmental effectiveness, productivity and/or efficiency as determined by the City Manager or designee. ARTICLE X - HEALTH AND OTHER INSURANCE BENEFITS A. Health The City shall make available group medical, dental and vision benefits to all employees. A copy of the medical, dental and vision plan brochures may be obtained from the Human Resources Department. B. Eligibility, Criteria and Cost 1. City and Employee Paid Medical Insurance – Employees and Dependents The City and employee shall each pay for health insurance premiums for qualified employees and dependent(s) effective the first of the month following the employee’s date of hire. The employee deduction for premium contributions shall be aligned with the effective date of coverage and the ending date of coverage upon the employee’s separation. The payroll deduction amount shall begin no later than the first full pay period following the effective date of coverage and pro-rated for coverage through the end of the month in which employment was separated. 670 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 8 2. Health and Other Insurance Premiums a. Health Premiums and Contributions 2018 Health Premiums and Contributions Effective 11/17/2018 MEO Plan Tier Monthly Premium Employer Monthly Contribution Employee Monthly Contribution Employee Bi-Weekly Contribution Kaiser Single 530.00 530.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,142.00 953.53 188.47 86.99 Family 1,495.00 1,117.56 377.44 174.20 Blue Shield HMO Single 705.00 701.43 3.57 1.65 Two-Party 1,540.00 1,011.06 528.94 244.13 Family 1,992.00 1,192.20 799.80 369.14 Blue Shield PPO Single 750.00 750.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,585.00 1,157.80 427.20 197.17 Family 1,964.00 1,323.36 640.64 295.68 Blue Shield CDHP Single 551.00 551.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,166.00 1,157.80 8.20 3.78 Family 1,443.00 1,323.36 119.64 55.22 Delta Dental PPO Single 56.00 42.88 13.12 6.06 Two-Party 104.60 81.82 22.78 10.51 Family 137.90 116.36 21.54 9.94 Delta Care HMO Single 30.11 23.00 7.11 3.28 Two-Party 51.19 39.11 12.08 5.58 Family 78.29 59.81 18.48 8.53 VSP Vision Single 23.86 17.84 6.02 2.78 Two-Party 23.86 17.84 6.02 2.78 Family 23.86 17.84 6.02 2.78 Medical Opt-Out (As stated in Article X.4): $530.00 per month ($244.62 bi-weekly) Employee and City contributions subject to change as a result of contract negotiations 671 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 9 2019 Health Premiums and Contributions Effective 1/1/2019 MEO Plan Tier Monthly Premium Employer Monthly Contribution Employee Monthly Contribution Employee Bi-Weekly Contribution Kaiser Single 551.00 551.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,188.00 1,053.53 134.47 62.06 Family 1,555.00 1,217.56 337.44 155.74 Blue Shield HMO Single 733.00 733.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,602.00 1,111.06 490.94 226.59 Family 2,072.00 1,292.20 779.80 359.91 Blue Shield PPO Single 780.00 780.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,649.00 1,257.80 391.20 180.55 Family 2,043.00 1,423.36 619.64 285.99 Blue Shield CDHP Single 573.00 573.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,213.00 1,213.00 0.00 0.00 Family 1,501.00 1,423.36 77.64 35.83 Delta Dental PPO Single 56.00 42.88 13.12 6.06 Two-Party 104.60 81.82 22.78 10.51 Family 137.90 116.36 21.54 9.94 Delta Care HMO Single 30.11 23.00 7.11 3.28 Two-Party 51.19 39.11 12.08 5.58 Family 78.29 59.81 18.48 8.53 VSP Vision Single 23.33 17.84 5.49 2.53 Two-Party 23.33 17.84 5.49 2.53 Family 23.33 17.84 5.49 2.53 Medical Opt-Out (As stated in X.4): $551.00 per month ($254.31 bi-weekly) Employee and City contributions subject to change as a result of contract negotiations 2019 Health Premiums and Contributions Effective 11/1/2019 MEO Plan Tier Monthly Premium Employer Monthly Contribution Employee Monthly Contribution Employee Bi-Weekly Contribution Kaiser Single 551.00 551.00 0.00 0.00 672 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 10 Two-Party 1,188.00 1,103.53 84.47 38.99 Family 1,555.00 1,267.56 287.44 132.66 Blue Shield HMO Single 733.00 733.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,602.00 1,161.06 440.94 203.51 Family 2,072.00 1,342.20 729.80 336.83 Blue Shield PPO Single 780.00 780.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,649.00 1,307.80 341.20 157.48 Family 2,043.00 1,473.36 569.64 262.91 Blue Shield CDHP Single 573.00 573.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,213.00 1,213.00 0.00 0.00 Family 1,501.00 1,473.36 27.64 12.76 Delta Dental PPO Single 56.00 42.88 13.12 6.06 Two-Party 104.60 81.82 22.78 10.51 Family 137.90 116.36 21.54 9.94 Delta Care HMO Single 30.11 23.00 7.11 3.28 Two-Party 51.19 39.11 12.08 5.58 Family 78.29 59.81 18.48 8.53 VSP Vision Single 23.33 17.84 5.49 2.53 Two-Party 23.33 17.84 5.49 2.53 Family 23.33 17.84 5.49 2.53 Medical Opt-Out: $551.00 per month ($254.31 bi-weekly) Employee and City contributions subject to change as a result of contract negotiations 2020 Health Premiums and Contributions Effective 1/1/2020 MEO Plan Tier Monthly Premium Employer Monthly Contribution Employee Monthly Contribution Employee Bi-Weekly Contribution Kaiser Single 584.00 584.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,259.00 1,103.53 155.47 71.76 Family 1,648.00 1,267.56 380.44 175.59 Blue Shield HMO Single 733.00 733.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,602.00 1,161.06 440.94 203.51 Family 2,072.00 1,342.20 729.80 336.83 Blue Shield PPO Single 780.00 780.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,649.00 1,307.80 341.20 157.48 Family 2,043.00 1,473.36 569.64 262.91 Blue Shield CDHP Single 573.00 573.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,213.00 1,213.00 0.00 0.00 Family 1,501.00 1,473.36 27.64 12.76 673 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 11 Delta Dental PPO Single 53.90 42.88 11.02 5.09 Two-Party 100.60 81.82 18.78 8.67 Family 132.70 116.36 16.34 7.54 Delta Care HMO Single 30.11 23.00 7.11 3.28 Two-Party 51.19 39.11 12.08 5.58 Family 78.29 59.81 18.48 8.53 VSP Vision Single 23.33 17.84 5.49 2.53 Two-Party 23.33 17.84 5.49 2.53 Family 23.33 17.84 5.49 2.53 Medical Opt-Out: $584.00 per month ($269.54 bi-weekly) Employee and City contributions subject to change as a result of contract negotiations 3. Future Premiums and City Contributions Effective the beginning of the pay period following City Council final approval of this agreement, the City’s contribution to medical premiums (only) will be increased $100.00 per month, per medical plan, per enrollment tier, up to, but not to exceed the monthly plan premium cost. Effective (the pay period that includes) January 1, 2019, the City’s monthly contribution to medical premiums (only) will be increased $100.00 per month, per medical plan, per enrollment tier, up to, but not to exceed the monthly plan premium cost. Effective (the pay period that includes) November 1, 2019, the City’s monthly contribution to medical premiums (only) will be increased $50.00 per month, per medical plan, per enrollment tier, up to, but not to exceed the monthly plan premium cost. For the term of this agreement, and thereafter unless modified by negotiated agreement of the parties, the City’s monthly contributions to medical, dental and vision insurance shall remain as specified for the 2019 and 2020 Health Premiums and Contribution amounts, unless otherwise specified herein. As a result of these formulas, it is understood that the employee contribution shall not decrease during the term of this Agreement nor is there any expectation of compensation or benefit in the event the City’s contribution cap is not reached. Employee payroll deductions shall be made on a pre-tax basis. 4. Medical Cash-Out If an employee is covered by a group medical plan outside of a city-provided program (evidence of which must be supplied to the Human Resources Department), the employee may elect to discontinue City medical coverage and receive the amount equal to the City’s contribution to the lowest cost, Employee-only medical premium offered to this unit. 5. Section 125 Plan This plan allows employees to use pre-tax salary to pay for childcare, adult dependent care and/or medical expenses allowable under the Internal Revenue Service rules for a Section 125 plan. 674 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 12 C. Life and Accidental Death & Dismemberment Each employee is provided with $50,000 (fifty thousand) life insurance and $50,000 (fifty thousand) accidental death & dismemberment insurance paid for by the City. Each employee shall have the option, at his or her own expense, to purchase additional amounts of life insurance and accidental death & dismemberment insurance to the extent provided by the City’s current providers. Evidence of insurability is contingent upon total participation in additional amounts. D. Long Term Disability Insurance This program provides, for each incident of illness or injury, a waiting period of thirty (30) calendar days, during which the employee may use accumulated sick leave, general leave pay, or the employee may elect to be in an unpaid status. Subsequent to the thirty (30) day waiting period, the employee will be covered by an insurance plan paid for by the City, providing 66 2/3 (sixty six and two-third) percent of the first $12,500 (twelve thousand five hundred) of the employee’s basic monthly earnings. The maximum benefit period for disability due to accident or sickness shall be to age sixty five (65). Days and months refer to calendar days and months. Benefits under the plan are integrated with sick leave, Worker’s Compensation, Social Security and other non-private program benefits to which the employee may be entitled. Disability is defined as: “The inability to perform all of the duties of regular occupation during two years, and thereafter the inability to engage in any employment or occupation for which the employee is fitted by reason of education, training or experience.” Rehabilitation benefits are provided in the event the individual, due to disability, must engage in another occupation. Survivor’s benefits continue plan payment for three (3) months beyond death. A copy of the plan is on file in the Human Resources Department. The intent of long term disability is to assist employees who are off work for an extended period of time. While long term disability benefits can be coordinated with accrued leave benefits to achieve one hundred percent (100%) of regular salary, no employee may receive more than their regular salary while receiving disability benefits and paid leave. E. Miscellaneous 1. City-Paid Premiums While on Medical Disability When an employee is off work without pay for reason of medical disability, the City shall maintain the City-paid employee’s insurance premiums during the period the employee is in an unpaid status for the length of said leave, not to exceed twenty-four (24) months. 2. Insurance and Benefits Advisory Committee 675 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 13 The City and the Association participate in a City-wide joint labor and management insurance and benefits advisory committee to discuss and study issues relating to insurance and benefits available for employees. F. Retiree Medical Coverage for Retirees Not Eligible for the City Medical Retiree Subsidy Plan Employees who retire from the City after January 1, 2004 and are granted a retirement allowance by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and are not eligible for the City’s Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan may choose to participate in City-sponsored medical insurance plans until the first of the month in which they turn age sixty-five (65). The retiree shall pay the full premium for City-sponsored medical insurance for him/her self and/or qualified dependents without any City subsidy. Employees who retire from the City and receive a retirement allowance from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and are not eligible for the City’s Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan and choose not to participate in City-sponsored medical insurance upon retirement, permanently lose eligibility for this insurance. However, if a retiree who is not eligible for the City’s Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan chooses not to participate in City-sponsored medical insurance plans because the retiree has access to other group medical insurance and subsequently loses eligibility for that group medical insurance, the retiree and qualified dependents will have access to City-sponsored medical insurance plans reinstated. Eligibility for Retiree Medical Coverage terminates the first of the month in which the retiree or qualified dependent turns age sixty-five (65). G. Post-65 Supplemental Medicare Coverage Retirees who are participating in the Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan as of January 1, 2004 and all future retirees who meet the criteria to participate in City-sponsored medical insurance, with or without the Retiree Medical Subsidy Plan, may participate in City- sponsored medical insurance plans that are supplemental to Medicare. A retiree or qualified dependent must choose to participate in City-sponsored medical insurance plans that are supplemental to Medicare beginning the first of the month in which the retiree or qualified dependent turns age sixty-five (65). The retiree shall pay the full premium to participate in City-sponsored medical insurance plans that are supplemental to Medicare for him/herself or qualified dependents without any City subsidy. Retirees or qualified dependents, upon turning age sixty five (65), who choose not to participate in City-sponsored medical insurance plans that are supplemental to Medicare permanently lose their eligibility for this insurance. H. Annual Maximum Benefit for Dental PPO Plan 676 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 14 The Dental PPO plan maximum annual benefit is $2,000. ARTICLE XI - RETIREMENT BENEFITS A. Benefits 1. Self Funded Supplemental Retirement Benefit Employees hired prior to August 17, 1998 are eligible for the Self-Funded Supplemental Retirement Benefit, which provides that: a. In the event a member elects Option #1, #2, #2W, #3, #3W or #4 of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law, the City shall pay the difference between such elected options and the unmodified allowance which the member would have received for his or her life alone as provided in California Government Code sections 21455, 21456, 21457, and 21458 as said referenced Government Code sections exist as of the date of this agreement. This payment shall be made only to the member, shall be payable by the City during the life of the member, and upon that member’s death, the City’s obligation shall cease. The method of funding this benefit shall be at the sole discretion of the City. This benefit is vested for employees covered by this Agreement. b. Employees hired on or after August 17, 1998 shall not be eligible for this benefit referenced in A.1.a. herein above. 2. Medical Insurance for Retirees a. Medical Insurance Upon Retirement Upon retirement, whether service or disability, each employee shall have the following options in regards to medical insurance under City-sponsored plans: i. With no change in benefits, retirees can stay in any of the plans offered by the City, at the retiree’s own expense, for the maximum time period allowed by Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) Federal or State Law, or ii. Retirees retiring after approval of this MOU may participate in the Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit B, or the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Plan currently being offered to retirees at the retiree’s own expense if the requirements set forth in Exhibit B are met, or if the retiree meets the eligibility requirements described in Exhibit B, the retiree may receive a subsidy from the City for retiree medical insurance pursuant to the schedule set forth in Exhibit B. B. Public Employees’ Retirement System Reimbursement and Reporting 677 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 15 1. “Classic Member” Miscellaneous Unit Members a. The City shall provide all miscellaneous employees described as “classic” members by the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 – “PEPRA” with that certain retirement program commonly known and described as the “2.5% at age 55 plan” which is based on the retirement formula as set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), Section 21354 of the California Government Code Retirement Formula - .Members of the City’s miscellaneous retirement plan with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) shall receive the 2.5% at age 55 CalPERS retirement plan. b. Classic Members Miscellaneous CalPERS Member Contribution - All miscellaneous bargaining unit “classic” members shall pay to CalPERS as part of the required member retirement contribution eight percent (8%) of pensionable income. c. Classic Member Miscellaneous CalPERS Cost Sharing – Upon the effective date of this agreement, all classic members shall pay one percent (1%) additional compensation earnable as employer cost sharing in accordance with Government Code section 20516(f) - for a capped maximum employee pension contribution of nine percent (9%). The parties agree that this cost sharing agreement per Government Code section 20516(f) shall continue after the expiration of this MOU unless/until otherwise negotiated to either an agreement (in a successor MOU) or the expiration of the impasse process by the parties. This provision shall not sunset at the end of this agreement. a.d. One-Year Final Compensation - The City shall contract with CalPERS to have retirement benefits calculated based upon the “classic” member employee’s highest one year’s compensation, pursuant to the provisions of Section 20042 (highest single year). b.e. The obligations of the City and the retirement rights of employees as provided in this Article shall survive the term of this MOU 2. “New Member” Retirement Benefits - For “New” Members” within the meaning of the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 as defined in California Government Code Section 7522.04(f. i. a. CalPERS New Member Retirement Formula - “New” Members shall be governed by the two percent at age 62 (2% @ 62) retirement formula set forth in Government Code section 7522.20. ii. b. Final Compensation - Final compensation will be based on the highest annual average compensation earnable during the 36 consecutive months immediately preceding the effective date of his or her retirement, or some other 36 consecutive month period designated by the member. c. New Member Miscellaneous CalPERS Member Contribution – All “new” members as defined by PEPRA and determined by CalPERS, shall contribute one half (50%) of the normal cost as established by CalPERS each year in its 678 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 16 annual valuation for the City, as required by California Government Code Section 7522.30(c). d. New Member Miscellaneous CalPERS Cost Sharing: Upon the effective date, new members shall cost share 1.00% pensionable compensation in accordance with Government Code section 20516(f). This will ensure that these members will pay 7.25% of pensionable compensation when combined with the 6.25% pensionable compensation that these employees are required to pay as determined by CalPERS’s annual evaluation. If in future fiscal years the member contribution rate for new members shall become greater or less than 6.25% of pensionable compensation, as determined by CalPERS’s annual valuation, employees shall continue to pay one percent (1%) above as cost sharing per Government Code section 20516(f). 3. Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit Employees receive the benefit of the Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit, as identified in Government Code Section 21548 with CalPERS. 4. Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits Employees receive the benefit of the Fourth Level of the 1959 Survivor Benefit, as identified in Government Code Section 21574 with CalPERS. 5. The City has adopted the CalPERS Resolution in accordance with IRS Code section 414(h)(2) and both the employee contribution and the City pickup of the required member contribution are made on a pre-tax basis. However, ultimately, the tax status of any benefit is determined by the law. ARTICLE XII - LEAVE BENEFITS A. General Leave 1. Accrual Employees accrue General leave at the accrual rates outlined below. General leave may be used for any purpose, including vacation, sick leave, and personal leave. Years of Service Annual General Leave Allowance Bi-Weekly General Leave Allowance First through Fourth Year 176 Hours 6.77 679 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 17 2. Eligibility and Approval a. General leave must be pre-approved except for illness, injury or family sickness, which may require a physician’s statement for approval. General leave accrued time is to be computed from the employee’s anniversary of their hiring date. b. Employees are not permitted to take general leave in excess of actual time earned. Employees shall not accrue general leave in excess of six hundred forty (640) hours. An employee who earns general leave hours in excess of six hundred forty (640) hours shall be paid the cash value of those additional hours in their paycheck. i. Employees in this unit hired on or after October 1, 2016, shall not be eligible for this benefit. General Leave shall be capped at six hundred forty hours (640) for employees hired on or after 10/1/16. This provision shall not sunset at the expiration of this agreement. c. Employees may not use their general leave to advance their separation date on retirement or other separation from employment. 3. Leave Benefit Entitlements The City shall comply with all State and Federal leave benefit entitlement laws. An eligible employee on an approved leave is permitted to use earned Sick Leave, General Leave, and/or Administrative Leave for serious and non-serious family or personal health issues. For more information on employee leave options contact the Human Resources Department. 4. Conversion to Cash Twice during each fiscal year, each employee has the option to convert into a cash payment or deferred compensation up to a total of one hundred sixty (160) hours of earned general leave benefits at the base hourly rate. The employee shall give two (2) weeks advance notice to Payroll of his/her desire to exercise such option. B. City Paid Holidays Permanent full-time employees shall receive the following paid holidays per the employee’s regularly scheduled work shift: Fifth through Ninth Year 200 Hours 7.69 Tenth through Fourteenth Year 224 Hours 8.62 Fifteenth Year and Thereafter 256 Hours 9.85 680 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 18 1. New Year’s Day (January 1) 2. Martin Luther King Jr., (third Monday in January) 3. Presidents Day (third Monday in February 4. Memorial Day (last Monday in May) 5. Independence Day (July 4) 6. Labor Day (first Monday in September) 7. Veteran’s Day (November 11) 8. Thanksgiving Day (fourth Thursday in November) 9. The Friday after Thanksgiving 10. Christmas Day (December 25) Any day declared by the President of the United States to be a national holiday and adopted as an employee holiday by the City Council of Huntington Beach. City paid holidays which fall on Saturday shall be observed the preceding Friday, and those falling on Sunday shall be observed the following Monday. a. In the event that an employee is required to work on a City paid holiday, the holiday hours shall be credited to the employee’s general leave bank. Approval of this transaction shall be handled by the Department Head or designee, in the payroll period that includes the holiday worked. b. If a City paid holiday falls on an employee’s scheduled day off and with approval from the Department Head or designee, the employee may take another day off during the same payroll period as the holiday or opt to be credited with general leave the number of hours of the employee’s regularly scheduled work shift. c. A permanent half-time (1/2) or three quarter-time (3/4) employee shall have City paid holidays paid as time off with a pro-rated amount of four (4) or six (6) hours, respectively. C. Sick Leave 1. Accrual – No employee shall accrue sick leave after December 24, 1999. 2. Credit – Employees shall carry forward their sick leave balance and shall no longer accrue sick leave credit. 3. Usage – Employees may use accrued sick leave for the same purposes for which it was used prior to December 25, 1999. 4. Pay Off At Termination a. Employees on the payroll on November 20, 1978 are entitled to the following sick leave payoff plan: At involuntary termination by reason of disability, or retirement, employees (or in the case of death, their beneficiary) shall be compensated at their then current rate of pay for seventy-five percent (75%) of all unused sick leave accumulated as of July 1, 1972, 681 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 19 plus fifty percent (50%) of unused sick leave accumulated subsequent to July 1, 1972, up to a maximum of seven hundred twenty (720) hours of unused, accumulated sick leave, except as provided in paragraph 4 below. Upon termination for any other reason, employees shall be compensated at their then current rate of pay for fifty percent (50%) of all unused, accumulated sick leave, up to a maximum of seven hundred twenty (720) hours of such accumulated sick leave. b. Employees hired after November 20, 1978 shall be entitled to the following sick leave payoff plan: Upon termination, all employees shall be paid, at their then current salary rate, for twenty-five percent (25%) of unused, earned sick leave to four hundred eighty (480) hours accrued, and for thirty-five percent (35%) of all unused, earned sick leave in excess of four hundred eighty (480) hours, but not to exceed seven hundred twenty (720) hours, except as provided in paragraph 4 below. c. Except as provided in paragraph 4d. below, no employee shall be paid at termination for more than seven hundred twenty (720) hours of unused, accumulated sick leave. However, employees may utilize accumulated sick leave on the basis of “last in, first out” meaning that sick leave accumulated in excess of the maximum for payoff may be utilized first for sick leave, as defined in Personnel Rule 18-8. d. Employees who had unused, accumulated sick leave in excess of seven hundred twenty (720) hours as of July 5, 1980, shall be compensated for such excess sick leave remaining on termination under the formulas described in paragraphs 1 and 2 above. In no event shall any employee be compensated upon termination for any accumulated sick leave in excess of the “cap” established by this paragraph (i.e., seven hundred twenty (720) hours plus the amount over seven hundred twenty (720) hours existing on July 5, 1980). Employees may continue to utilize sick leave accrued after that date in excess of such “cap” on a “last in, first out” basis. e. To the extent that any “capped” amount of excess sick leave over seven hundred twenty (720) hours is utilized, the maximum compensable amount shall be correspondingly reduced. (Example: Employee had 1,000 hours accumulated. Six months after July 5, 1980, employee has accumulated another 48 hours. Employee is then sick for 120 hours. Employee’s maximum sick leave “cap” for compensation at termination is now reduced by seventy two (72) hours to nine hundred twenty eight (928) hours). f. Employees electing to participate in the City’s group health insurance program after retirement can request the premiums to be paid by the City out of any available funds due and owing them under the terms of this agreement for unused sick leave benefits upon retirement. D. Voluntary Catastrophic Leave Donation Program Under certain conditions, an employee may donate leave time to another employee in need. The program is outlined in Exhibit G. E. Bereavement Leave 682 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 20 Employees shall be entitled to bereavement leave not to exceed twenty-four (24) work hours three (3) work shifts in each instance of death in the immediate family. Immediate family is defined as father, mother, sister, brother, spouse, registered domestic partner, children, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather, stepmother, step grandfather, step grandmother, grandchildren, stepsisters, stepbrothers, mother-in-law, father-in-law, son-in-law, daughter- in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepchildren, or wards of which the employee is the legal guardian. F. Release Time Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Association and the City agree to continue discussion during the term of the MOU on Release Time for negotiation, including City’s consideration of the number of hours, based on the establishment of a mutually agreed upon written provision for the use of such leave by Association representatives and its members. Such leave shall be limited to use for the purpose of Association business not covered within the scope of legal requirements. It remains the City’s intent to enforce reasonable standards for the administration and control of current Release Time use. ARTICLE XIII - CITY RULES A. Personnel Rules All MOU provisions that supersede the City’s Personnel Rules shall automatically update the City’s Personnel Rules and be incorporated into such rules. B. Employer-Employee Relations Resolution During the term of the agreement, the City and the Association agree to update the Employee-Employer Relations Resolution to reflect current State law. 1. Modification of Section 7 – Decertification and Modification a. The City and the Association desire to maintain labor stability within the representational unit to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the employee's right to select the representative of his or her own choosing. For these purposes, the parties agree that this Agreement shall act as a bar to appropriateness of this unit and the selection of the representative of this unit, except during the month of August prior to the expiration of this Agreement. Changes in bargaining unit shall not be effective until expiration of the MOU except as may be determined by the Personnel Commission pursuant to the procedures outlined below. This provision shall modify and supersede the time limits, where inconsistent, contained in Section 7 of the current Employer-Employee Relations Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach. 683 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 21 b. The City and the Association have agreed to a procedure whereby the City, by and through the Director of Human Resources, would be entitled to propose a Unit Modification. The Association and the City agree to jointly recommend a modification of the City of Huntington Beach Employer-Employee Relations Resolution (Resolution Number 3335) upon the City having completed its obligation to meet and confer on this issue with all other bargaining units. The proposed change to the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution is as follows: 7.3 Director of Human Resources Motion of Unit Modification - The Director of Human Resources may propose, during the same period for filing a petition for decertification, that an established unit be modified in accordance with the following procedure: i. The Director of Human Resources shall give written notice of the proposed modification(s); to any affected employee organization and any affected employees. ii. The Personnel Commission shall hold a meeting concerning the proposed modification(s) at which time all affected employee organizations and employees shall be heard. iii. Thereafter, the Personnel Commission shall determine the composition of the appropriate unit or units and shall give written notice of such determination to the affected employee organizations and any affected employees. The City Manager, employee organization or employee aggrieved by an appropriate unit determination of the Personnel Commission may, within ten (10) days of notice thereof, request a review of such determination by the City Council. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a request to review a unit determination of the Personnel Commission the City Council shall review the matter. The City Council’s decision shall be final. iv. Except as provided otherwise in this MOU, the salary, benefit, and working conditions specified by this MOU shall be provided to employees in classifications listed in Exhibit A and have completed or are in the process of completing a probationary period in a permanent position in the competitive service in which the employee regularly works twenty (20) hours or more per week. C. Rules Governing Layoff, Reduction in Lieu of Layoff and Re-Employment 1. Part 1 – Layoff Procedure a. General Provisions 1) Whenever it is necessary, because of lack of work or funds to reduce the staff of a City department, employees may be laid off pursuant to these rules. 2) Whenever an employee is to be separated from the competitive service because the tasks assigned are to be eliminated or substantially changed due to management-initiated changes, including but not limited to automation or other 684 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 22 technological changes, it is the policy of the City that steps be taken by the Human Resources Department on an interdepartmental basis to assist such employee in locating, preparing to qualify for, and being placed in other positions in the competitive service. This shall not be construed as a restriction on the City government in effecting economies or in making organizational or other changes to increase efficiency. 3) A department shall reduce staff by identifying which positions within the department are to be eliminated. 4) The employee who has the least City-wide service credit in the class within the department shall have City-wide transfer rights in the class pursuant to Part 1, Section 3, Transfer or Reduction to Vacancies in Lieu of Layoffs, or within the occupational series pursuant to Part 2, Bumping Rights. 5) If a deadline within this procedure falls on a day that City Hall is closed, the deadline shall be the next day City Hall is open. b. Service Credit 1) Service credit means total time of full-time continuous service within the City at the time the layoff is initiated, including probation, paid leave, or military leave. Permanent part-time employees earn service credit on a pro-rata basis. 2) Except as required by law, leaves of absence without pay shall not earn service credit. 3) As between two or more employees who have the same amount of service credit, the employee who has the least amount of service in class shall be deemed to be the least senior employee. c. Transfer or Reduction to Vacancies in Lieu of Layoff 1) In lieu of layoff, a transfer within class shall be offered to an employee(s) with the least amount of service credit in the class designated for staff reduction within a department subject to the following: a) The employee has the necessary qualifications to perform the duties of the position. b) The employee shall be given the opportunity, in order of service credit, to accept a transfer to a vacant position in the same class within the City, provided the employee has the necessary qualifications to perform the duties of the position. c) If no position in the same class is vacant, the employee shall be given the opportunity, in order of service credit, to transfer to the position in the same class that is held by an incumbent in another department with the least amount of service credit whose position the employee has the necessary qualifications to perform. 685 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 23 2) If an employee(s) is not eligible for transfer within the employee's class, the employee shall be offered, in order of service credit, a reduction to a vacant position in the next lower class within the City in the occupational series in lieu of layoff provided the employee has the necessary qualifications to perform the duties of the position. 3) If the employee refuses to accept a transfer or reduction pursuant to a. or b., above, the employee shall be laid off. a) If the employee(s) in the class with the least amount of service credit is in the position(s) to be eliminated or displaced by transfer, the employee shall be offered bumping rights, pursuant to Part 2, Bumping Rights. b) Any employee who takes a reduction to a position in a. lower class within the occupational series in lieu of layoff shall be placed on the reinstatement/reemployment list(s) pursuant to Part 3. Re-employment. 2. Order of Layoff a. Prior to implementing a layoff, vacant positions that are authorized to be filled shall be identified by City-wide occupational series. If the employee refuses to accept a position pursuant to Section 3. above, the employee shall be laid off. b. No promotional probationary employee or permanent employee within a class in the department shall be laid off until all temporary, nonpermanent part-time and non- promotional probationary employees in the class are laid off. Permanent employees whose positions have been eliminated may exercise citywide bumping rights to a lower class in the occupational series pursuant to Part 2. c. When a position in a class and/or occupational series is eliminated, any employee in the class who is on authorized leave of absence or is holding a temporary acting position in another class shall be included for determining order of service credit and be subject to these layoff procedures as if the employee was in his or her permanent position. 3. Notification of Employees a. The Human Resources Department shall give written notice of layoff to the employee by personal service or by sending it by certified mail to the last known mailing address at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the effective date of the layoff. Normally notices will be served on employees personally at work. b. Layoff notices may be initially issued to all employees who may be subject to layoff as a result of employees exercising voluntary reduction/bumping rights. c. The notice of layoff shall include the reason for the layoff, the effective date of the layoff, the employee's hire date, and the employee's service credit ranking. The notice shall also include the employee's right to bump the person in a lower class 686 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 24 with the least service credit within the occupational series provided the employee possesses the necessary qualifications to successfully perform the duties in the lower class and the employee has more service credit than the incumbent in the lower class. d. The written layoff notice given to an employee shall include notice that he or she has seven (7) calendar days from the date of personal service, or date of delivery of mail if certified, to notify the Director of Human Resources in writing if the employee intends to exercise the employee's bumping rights, if any, pursuant to Part 2, Bumping Rights. e. Whenever practicable, any employee with the least amount of service credit in a lower class within an occupational series which is identified for work force reduction shall also be given written notice that such employee may be bumped pursuant to Part 2. This notice shall include the items referred to in C., above. f. If an employee disagrees with the City's computation of service credit or listed date of hire, the employee shall notify the Director of Human Resources as soon as possible, but in no case later than five (5) calendar days after the personal service or certified mail delivery. Disputes regarding date of hire or service credit shall be jointly reviewed by the Director of Human Resources and the employee and/or the employee's representative as soon as possible, but in no case later than five (5) calendar days from the date the employee notifies the Director of Human Resources of the dispute. Within five (5) calendar days after the dispute is reviewed, the employee shall be notified in writing of the decision. 4. Part 2 – Bumping Rights a. Voluntary Reduction or Bumping in Lieu of Layoff 687 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 25 1) A promotional probationary employee or permanent employee who receives a layoff notice may request a reduction to a position in a lower class within the occupational series provided the employee possesses the necessary qualifications to perform the duties of the position. 2) Employees electing reduction under “a” above, shall be reduced to a position authorized to be filled in a lower class within the employee's occupational series. The employee may reduce to a lower class in his/her occupational series by: 1) filling a vacancy in that class, or 2) if no vacancy exists, displacing the employee in the class with the least service credit whose position the employee has the necessary qualifications to perform. A displaced employee shall have bumping rights. 3) An employee who receives a layoff notice must exercise bumping rights within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the notice as specified in Part 1 - Layoff Procedure. Failure to respond within the time limit shall result in a reputable presumption that the employee does not intend to exercise any right of reduction or bumping to a lower class. The employee must carry the burden of proof to show that the employee's failure to respond within the time limits was reasonable. If the employee establishes that failure to respond within the time limit was reasonable, to the Director of Human Resources satisfaction, the employee shall be permitted to exercise bumping rights, but shall not be reinstated to a paid position until the employee to be bumped has vacated the position. If the employee disagrees with the Director of Human Resources decision, the employee may appeal pursuant to the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 below. b. Reinstatement/Re-Employment Lists Any employee who takes a reduction to a position in a lower class within the occupational series in lieu of layoff shall be placed on tile reinstatement/re- employment list pursuant to Part 3, Re-Employment. c. Qualifications Appeal Any employee who is denied a reduction to a position in a lower class within the occupational series on the basis that the employee does not possess the necessary qualifications to successfully perform the duties of the lower position may appeal the decision. The appeal shall be filed with the Director of Human Resources within five (5) calendar days of the employee's receipt of written notice of the decision and reason(s) for denial. The employee's appeal shall be in writing and shall include supporting facts or documents supporting the appeal. d. Qualifications Appeal Hearing 688 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 26 1) Upon receipt of an appeal, the Director of Human Resources shall contact a mediator from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service to schedule a hearing within two (2) weeks after receipt of the appeal. If the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service is not available within that time frame, the parties shall mutually select a person who is available within the time frame. If the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service and the person mutually selected are not available within the time frame, the parties shall select the earliest date either is available to conduct the hearing. The parties shall split the cost, if any, of the hearing officer. In addition, the parties shall meet within three (3) workdays to attempt to resolve the dispute. If the dispute remains unresolved, the parties shall endeavor in good faith to submit to the hearing officer a statement of all agreed upon facts relevant to the hearing. 2) Appeal hearings shall be limited to two (2) hours, except as otherwise agreed by the parties or directed by the hearing officer. 3) The hearing officer shall attempt to resolve the dispute by mutual agreement if possible. If no agreement is reached, the hearing officer shall render a decision at the conclusion of the hearing, which shall be final and binding 5. Part 3 – Re-Employment a. Re-Employment 1) Employees who are laid off or reduced in class to avoid layoff shall have their names placed upon a re-employment list, for each class in the occupational series, in seniority order at or below the level of the class from which laid off or reduced. 2) Names of persons placed on the re-employment lists shall remain on the list for two (2) years from the date of layoff or reduction. 3) Vacancies shall be filled from the re-employment list for a class, starting at tile top of the list, providing that the person meets the necessary qualifications for tile position. 4) Names of persons are to be removed from the reemployment list for a class if on two (2) occasions they decline an offer of employment or on two (2) occasions fail to respond to offers of employment in a particular class within five (5) calendar days of receipt of written notice of an offer. Any employee who is dismissed from the City service for cause shall have his or her name removed from all re- employment lists. 5) Re-employment lists shall be available to HBMEO and affected employees upon reasonable request, 6) Qualification appeals involving re-employment rights shall be resolved in the same manner as that identified in Part 2. Section 4. 689 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 27 b. Status on Re-Employment 1) Persons re-employed from layoff within a two (2) year period from the date of layoff shall receive the following considerations and benefits: a) Service credit held upon layoff shall be restored, but no credit shall be added for the period of layoff. b) Prior service credit shall be counted toward General Leave accruals. c) Employees may cash in sick leave upon layoff or at any time after layoff in the manner and amount set forth in existing Memoranda of Understanding for that employee's unit. General Leave shall be paid to an employee when the re-employment list(s) expire(s), if not previously paid. d) Upon reinstatement the employee may have his or her General Leave re- credited by repayment to the City the cashed amount. e) The employee shall be returned to the salary step of the classification held at the time of the layoff and credited with the time previously served at that step prior to being laid off. f) The probationary status of the employee shall resume if incomplete. 2) Employees who have been reduced in class to avoid layoff and are returned within two (2) years to their former class shall be placed at the salary step of the class they held at the time of reduction and have their merit increase eligibility date recalculated. ARTICLE XIV – DURING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT A. Classification and Compensation Study During the term of the agreement, the parties agree to commence a city-wide classification and compensation study. The City shall meet and confer regarding parameters and procedures of the study. B. Holiday Closure City Hall will be closed to the public on December 24, 2020 and December 31, 2020. During the term of the agreement, the parties agree to meet and discuss holiday closure procedures. ARTICLE XIV - MISCELLANEOUS A. Physical Examination 690 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 28 Employees shall be provided, once every two (2) years, with a City-paid physical examination. Said exam shall be comprehensive in nature and shall include: 1. A complete medical history, physical exam, laboratory testing and review of results by a physician. (See Exhibit D, Physical Exam Description.) 2. A stress EKG will be provided for employees forty (40) years of age or older. No more than one-half (1/2) of the eligible employees shall receive examinations in any one fiscal year. B. Vehicle Policy 1. Approval is required by the City Manager or his/her designee for any City vehicle to be taken home by an employee. 2. Approval is required by the City Manager for any individual occupying a classification eligible for the auto allowance to receive the compensation. 3. The auto allowance for qualifying employees is two hundred seven dollars and sixty-nine cents ($207.69) bi-weekly. 4. No unit employee shall have their automobile allowance eliminated until the City’s Fleet Management Policy is re-negotiated. 5. Eligibility for automobile allowance shall be determined in accordance with the City’s Fleet Management Program dated August 1999 and as specified pursuant to Administrative Regulation 407 6. Employees assigned to drive a city vehicle and/or employees receiving an Auto Allowance will participate in the DMV Pull Notice Program. 7. Employees in the following classifications are eligible to receive Auto Allowance:  Assistant to the City Manager  Assistant Fire Marshal  Beach Operations Supervisor  Building Manager  Business Systems Manager  City Engineer  Community Services Manager  Construction Manager  Deputy City Treasurer*  Deputy Director of Economic Development  Detention Administrator  Facilities, Development & Concessions Manager  Facilities Maintenance Supervisor  Finance Manager, Treasury 691 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 29  Fleet Operations Supervisor  General Services Manager  Info Tech Manager - Systems  Inspection Manager  Inspection Supervisor  Landscape Maintenance Supervisor  Maintenance Operations Manager  Parking/Camping Facility Supervisor  Police Administrative Division Services Manager  Police Communications Manager  Police Records Administrator  Principal Electrical Inspector  Principal Plumbing Mechanical Inspector  Street Maintenance Supervisor  Transportation Manager  Tree Maintenance Supervisor  Utilities Manager  Wastewater Supervisor  Water Distribution Supervisor  Water Production Supervisor  Water Quality Supervisor *Grandfathered incumbent only. C. Deferred Compensation 1. Loan Program In accordance with federal law, employees may borrow from their deferred compensation funds for critical needs such as medical costs, college tuition, or purchase of a home. 2. Deferred Compensation Contribution at Time of Separation In accordance with Internal Revenue Service rules, the value of any unused earned leave benefits may be transferred to deferred compensation at separation (including retirement), but only during the time that the employee is actively employed with the City. The latest opportunity for such transfer must be the pay period prior to the employee’s last day of employment. D. Collection of Payroll Overpayments In the event that a payroll overpayment is discovered and verified, and considering all reasonable factors including the length of time that the overpayment was made and if and when the employee could have reasonably known about such overpayment, the City shall take action to collect from the employee the amount of overpayment(s). Such collection shall be processed by payroll deduction over a reasonable period of time considering the total amount of overpayment. 692 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 30 In the event the employee separates from employment during the collection period, the final amount shall be deducted from the last payroll check of the employee. If applicable, the balance due from the employee shall be communicated upon employment separation if the last payroll check does not sufficiently cover the amount due the City. It shall be the responsibility of the employee and the City to periodically monitor the accuracy of compensation payments or reimbursements due to the possibility of a clerical oversight or error. The City reserves the right to also collect compensation overpayments caused by or the result of misinterpretation of a pay provision by non-authorized personnel. The interpretation of all pay provisions shall be administered by the City Manager or designee and as adopted by the City Council. Unauthorized compensation payments shall not constitute a past practice. E. Required Fingerprinting of Employees The City requires all employees who are hired, transferred, or promoted to positions with oversight responsibilities for senior citizens to be fingerprinted for California Department of Justice (DOJ) clearance that require fingerprinting by federal, state or local law(s). Fingerprinting shall be done in accordance with said law(s). The City may also require employees be fingerprinted if they are transferred, or promoted to positions with oversight responsibilities for senior citizens or oversight responsibilities for confidential, and/or sensitive documents or equipment. F. Acting Assignment Acting assignments are not intended to exceed six (6) months unless extraordinary circumstances warrant an extension as recommended and approved by the Director of Human Resources. Under no circumstances shall an acting assignment exceed one (1) year nor shall it be considered a reclassification or a promotion. Acting pay must be a minimum of 5.5% and the Department Head has the discretion to set compensation at any step on the pay range of the acting class, not to exceed the top step of the range. G. Return to Work Policy The City and Association agree to reopen this agreement to establish a Return to Work Policy for employees who experience industrial and non-industrial injury and/or illness. H. Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing The City maintains the right to conduct a controlled substance and/or alcohol test during working hours of any employee that it reasonably suspects is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance in the workplace. I. Management and Executive Management Relations Committee 693 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 31 During the term of this agreement, the City and MEO agree to meet quarterly to discuss ways to improve management and executive management relations. J. Public Employee Disaster Service Worker In accordance with Government Code Section 3100, all Huntington Beach City employees, including all members of this bargaining unit, are required to perform assigned disaster service worker duties in the event of an emergency or a disaster. 694 ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 32 ARTICLE XV - CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL It is the understanding of the City and the Association that this Memorandum of Understanding is of no force or effect unless and until adopted by resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of Understanding this _____ day of________, 201820. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH A Municipal Corporation HUNTINGTON BEACH MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION By: By: Fred A. WilsonOliver Chi City Manager Scott Smith Debra Jubinsky MEO President By: By: Lori-Ann Farrell HarrisonTravis Hopkins Assistant City Manager Jane Cameron MEO Vice President By: By: Michele WarrenTiffany Bose Director of Human Resources Manager Debra JubinskyJulie Paik Negotiations Team By: By: JoAnn DiazSandy Henderson Principal Senior Human Resources Analyst Mary WilsonJames Wagner Negotiations Team By: Approved as to Form: Aaron Peardon Scott Smith OCEA Representative MEO Past President By: By: Michael E. Gates City Attorney Aaron Peardon OCEA Representative 695 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT A – SALARY SCHEDULE ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 33 MEO Salary Schedule 3.5% Effective 9-24-1611-01-19 Job No Job Description Pay Grade A B C D E 0025 Admin Analyst MEO025 36.38 38.38 40.50 42.73 45.07 0084 Admin Analyst Principal MEO084 45.32 47.81 50.44 53.21 56.14 0089 Admin Analyst Sr MEO089 41.86 44.16 46.58 49.14 51.85 0078 Assistant City Attorney MEO078 64.28 67.81 71.53 75.46 79.61 0132 Assistant City Clerk MEO132 39.03 41.17 43.43 45.82 48.34 0595 Assistant Fire Marshal MEO595 46.70 49.27 51.97 54.84 57.84 0057 Assistant to the City Manager MEO057 48.84 51.52 54.36 57.34 60.50 0123 Associate Civil Engineer MEO123 42.27 44.59 47.04 49.63 52.37 0071 Associate Planner MEO071 39.61 41.78 44.08 46.51 49.07 0569 Beach Maint Operations Mgr MEO569 50.83 53.62 56.57 59.68 62.96 0044 Beach Operations Supervisor MEO044 41.65 43.93 46.35 48.90 51.59 0064 Budget Analyst Senior MEO064 40.21 42.42 44.76 47.22 49.82 0598 Building Manager MEO598 58.44 61.66 65.05 68.62 72.40 0024 City Engineer MEO024 66.54 70.21 74.07 78.14 82.44 0125 Code Enforcement Supervisor MEO125 41.43 43.71 46.11 48.65 51.33 0471 Community Relations Officer MEO471 45.32 47.81 50.44 53.21 56.14 0353 Community Services Manager MEO353 50.83 53.62 56.57 59.68 62.96 0097 Construction Manager MEO097 50.83 53.62 56.57 59.68 62.96 0085 Contract Administrator MEO085 43.33 45.72 48.23 50.89 53.68 0081 Deputy City Attorney I MEO081 42.27 44.59 47.04 49.63 52.37 0080 Deputy City Attorney II MEO080 50.83 53.62 56.57 59.68 62.96 0079 Deputy City Attorney III MEO079 58.44 61.66 65.05 68.62 72.40 0068 Deputy City Engineer MEO068 56.71 59.83 63.13 66.60 70.26 0571 Deputy Dir of Econ Development MEO571 57.58 60.74 64.09 67.62 71.33 696 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT A – SALARY SCHEDULE ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 34 Job No Job Description Pay Grade A B C D E 0486 Detention Administrator MEO486 41.86 44.16 46.58 49.14 51.85 0039 Econ Development Proj Mgr MEO039 46.22 48.77 51.45 54.27 57.26 0580 Energy Project Manager MEO580 46.22 48.77 51.45 54.27 57.26 0474 Facilities, Devel & Conc Mgr MEO474 48.36 51.01 53.82 56.77 59.89 0050 Facilities Maint Supervisor MEO050 41.65 43.93 46.35 48.90 51.59 0879 Finance Manager - Accounting MEO879 52.37 55.24 58.29 61.50 64.87 0889 Finance Manager - Budget MEO889 52.37 55.24 58.29 61.50 64.87 0899 Finance Manager - Fiscal Services MEO899 52.37 55.24 58.29 61.50 64.87 0869 Finance Manager - Treasury MEO869 52.37 55.24 58.29 61.50 64.87 0131 Fire Medical Coordinator MEO131 41.21 43.48 45.88 48.40 51.07 0130 Fire Protection Analyst MEO130 41.21 43.48 45.88 48.40 51.07 0590 Fleet Operations Supervisor MEO590 41.65 43.93 46.35 48.90 51.59 0581 General Services Manager MEO581 56.16 59.25 62.51 65.94 69.56 0498 GIS Manager MEO498 53.69 56.65 59.75 63.05 66.51 0043 Housing Manager MEO043 53.15 56.08 59.16 62.41 65.84 0006 Human Resources Manager MEO006 55.32 58.36 61.57 64.96 68.53 0489 Info Technology Mgr-Infrastructure MEO489 53.69 56.65 59.75 63.05 66.51 0200 Info Technology Mgr-Operations MEO200 53.69 56.65 59.75 63.05 66.51 0500 Info Technology Mgr-Systems MEO500 57.58 60.74 64.09 67.62 71.33 0075 Inspection Manager MEO075 51.57 54.42 57.41 60.57 63.90 0073 Inspection Supervisor MEO073 43.99 46.41 48.96 51.65 54.49 0251 Investigator MEO251 35.83 37.81 39.89 42.09 44.40 0158 Landscape Architect MEO158 41.21 43.48 45.88 48.40 51.07 0049 Landscape Maint Supervisor MEO049 41.65 43.93 46.35 48.90 51.59 0572 Liability Claims Coordinator MEO572 37.67 39.74 41.93 44.25 46.68 0030 Maintenance Operations Mgr MEO030 56.16 59.25 62.51 65.94 69.56 0032 Marine Safety Division Chief MEO032 53.42 56.36 59.46 62.72 66.18 697 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT A – SALARY SCHEDULE ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 35 Job No Job Description Pay Grade A B C D E 0490 Network Systems Administrator MEO490 48.10 50.75 53.54 56.49 59.60 0443 Payroll Systems Analyst MEO443 43.99 46.41 48.96 51.65 54.49 0098 Permit & Plan Check Manager MEO098 58.44 61.66 65.05 68.62 72.40 0209 Permit & Plan Check Supervisor MEO209 41.43 43.71 46.11 48.65 51.33 0453 Personnel Analyst MEO453 36.20 38.19 40.29 42.50 44.85 0060 Personnel Analyst Principal MEO060 45.32 47.81 50.44 53.21 56.14 0464 Personnel Analyst Senior MEO464 41.21 43.48 45.88 48.40 51.07 0099 Plan Check Engineer MEO099 49.33 52.04 54.90 57.93 61.11 0444 Planning Manager MEO444 53.69 56.65 59.75 63.05 66.51 0625 Police Admin Division Srvcs Mgr MEO625 58.44 61.66 65.05 68.62 72.40 0594 Police Admin Services Manager MEO594 46.70 49.27 51.97 54.84 57.84 0022 Police Communications Manager MEO022 41.86 44.16 46.58 49.14 51.85 0094 Police Records Administrator MEO094 41.86 44.16 46.58 49.14 51.85 0028 Principal Accountant MEO028 42.69 45.04 47.51 50.13 52.88 0096 Principal Civil Engineer MEO096 55.89 58.96 62.20 65.62 69.23 0072 Principal Electrical Inspector MEO072 40.01 42.22 44.53 46.99 49.57 0076 Principal Inspector Plb/Mech MEO076 40.01 42.22 44.53 46.99 49.57 0482 Principal Librarian MEO482 39.81 42.00 44.31 46.75 49.32 0074 Principal Planner MEO074 51.07 53.88 56.84 59.98 63.27 0579 Project Manager MEO579 46.22 48.77 51.45 54.27 57.26 0037 Project Manager Assistant MEO037 39.61 41.78 44.08 46.51 49.07 0496 Public Safety Systems Manager MEO496 54.50 57.50 60.66 63.99 67.51 0497 Public Safety Systems Supv MEO497 52.63 55.53 58.58 61.79 65.20 0839 Real Estate & Project Manager MEO839 46.22 48.77 51.45 54.27 57.26 0054 Risk Manager MEO054 53.15 56.08 59.16 62.41 65.84 0069 Senior Civil Engineer MEO069 47.18 49.77 52.50 55.39 58.43 0484 Senior Deputy City Attorney MEO484 61.44 64.82 68.38 72.13 76.11 698 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT A – SALARY SCHEDULE ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 36 Job No Job Description Pay Grade A B C D E 868 Senior Finance Analyst MEO868 43.95 46.37 48.91 51.60 54.44 499 Senior Info Technology Analyst MEO499 47.87 50.51 53.28 56.21 59.30 0077 Senior Librarian MEO077 34.27 36.16 38.15 40.24 42.45 0036 Senior Planner MEO036 46.22 48.77 51.45 54.27 57.26 0575 Senior Sprvsr Cultural Affairs MEO575 39.03 41.17 43.43 45.82 48.34 0578 Senior Sprvsr Human Services MEO578 39.03 41.17 43.43 45.82 48.34 0519 Senior Risk Management Analyst MEO519 41.21 43.48 45.88 48.40 51.07 0034 Senior Traffic Engineer MEO034 47.18 49.77 52.50 55.39 58.43 0333 Senior Trial Counsel MEO333 66.54 70.21 74.07 78.14 82.44 0457 Special Events Coordinator MEO457 32.94 34.75 36.66 38.68 40.80 0488 Street Maint Supervisor MEO488 41.65 43.93 46.35 48.90 51.59 0133 Supervisor, Prkng & Cmping Fac MEO133 39.03 41.17 43.43 45.82 48.34 0033 Transportation Manager MEO033 58.15 61.34 64.72 68.28 72.04 0051 Tree Maintenance Supervisor MEO051 41.65 43.93 46.35 48.90 51.59 0483 Utilities Manager MEO483 57.28 60.44 63.76 67.27 70.97 0487 Wastewater Supervisor MEO487 41.65 43.93 46.35 48.90 51.59 0052 Water Distribution Supervisor MEO052 41.65 43.93 46.35 48.90 51.59 0053 Water Production Supervisor MEO053 41.65 43.93 46.35 48.90 51.59 0056 Water Quality Supervisor MEO056 41.65 43.93 46.35 48.90 51.59 Job No Job Description Pay Grade A B C D E 0025 Admin Analyst MEO025 37.65 39.72 41.92 44.23 46.65 0084 Admin Analyst Principal MEO084 46.91 49.48 52.21 55.07 58.10 0089 Admin Analyst Sr MEO089 43.33 45.71 48.21 50.86 53.66 0078 Assistant City Attorney MEO078 66.53 70.18 74.03 78.10 82.40 0132 Assistant City Clerk MEO132 40.40 42.61 44.95 47.42 50.03 699 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT A – SALARY SCHEDULE ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 37 0595 Assistant Fire Marshal MEO595 48.33 50.99 53.79 56.76 59.86 0057 Assistant to the City Manager MEO057 50.55 53.32 56.26 59.35 62.62 0123 Associate Civil Engineer MEO123 43.75 46.15 48.69 51.37 54.20 0071 Associate Planner MEO071 41.00 43.24 45.62 48.14 50.79 0569 Beach Maint Operations Mgr MEO569 52.61 55.50 58.55 61.77 65.16 0044 Beach Operations Supervisor MEO044 43.11 45.47 47.97 50.61 53.40 0064 Budget Analyst Senior MEO064 41.62 43.90 46.33 48.87 51.56 0598 Building Manager MEO598 60.49 63.82 67.33 71.02 74.93 0024 City Engineer MEO024 68.87 72.67 76.66 80.87 85.33 0125 Code Enforcement Supervisor MEO125 42.88 45.24 47.72 50.35 53.13 0471 Community Relations Officer MEO471 46.91 49.48 52.21 55.07 58.10 0353 Community Services Manager MEO353 52.61 55.50 58.55 61.77 65.16 0097 Construction Manager MEO097 52.61 55.50 58.55 61.77 65.16 0085 Contract Administrator MEO085 44.85 47.32 49.92 52.67 55.56 0081 Deputy City Attorney I MEO081 43.75 46.15 48.69 51.37 54.20 0080 Deputy City Attorney II MEO080 52.61 55.50 58.55 61.77 65.16 0079 Deputy City Attorney III MEO079 60.49 63.82 67.33 71.02 74.93 0068 Deputy City Engineer MEO068 58.69 61.92 65.34 68.93 72.72 0571 Deputy Dir of Econ Development MEO571 59.60 62.87 66.33 69.99 73.83 0486 Detention Administrator MEO486 43.33 45.71 48.21 50.86 53.66 0039 Econ Development Proj Mgr MEO039 47.84 50.48 53.25 56.17 59.26 0580 Energy Project Manager MEO580 47.84 50.48 53.25 56.17 59.26 0923 Environmental Services Manager MEO923 47.84 50.48 53.25 56.17 59.26 0474 Facilities, Devel & Conc Mgr MEO474 50.05 52.80 55.70 58.76 61.99 0050 Facilities Maint Supervisor MEO050 43.11 45.47 47.97 50.61 53.40 0879 Finance Manager - Accounting MEO879 54.20 57.17 60.33 63.65 67.14 0889 Finance Manager - Budget MEO889 54.20 57.17 60.33 63.65 67.14 0899 Finance Manager - Fiscal Services MEO899 54.20 57.17 60.33 63.65 67.14 0869 Finance Manager - Treasury MEO869 54.20 57.17 60.33 63.65 67.14 0131 Fire Medical Coordinator MEO131 42.65 45.00 47.49 50.09 52.86 0130 Fire Protection Analyst MEO130 42.65 45.00 47.49 50.09 52.86 700 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT A – SALARY SCHEDULE ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 38 0590 Fleet Operations Supervisor MEO590 43.11 45.47 47.97 50.61 53.40 0581 General Services Manager MEO581 58.13 61.32 64.70 68.25 71.99 0498 GIS Manager MEO498 55.57 58.63 61.84 65.26 68.84 0043 Housing Manager MEO043 55.01 58.04 61.23 64.59 68.14 0006 Human Resources Manager MEO006 57.26 60.40 63.72 67.23 70.93 0489 Info Technology Mgr- Infrastructure MEO489 55.57 58.63 61.84 65.26 68.84 0200 Info Technology Mgr-Operations MEO200 55.57 58.63 61.84 65.26 68.84 0500 Info Technology Mgr-Systems MEO500 59.60 62.87 66.33 69.99 73.83 0075 Inspection Manager MEO075 53.37 56.32 59.42 62.69 66.14 0073 Inspection Supervisor MEO073 45.53 48.03 50.67 53.46 56.40 0251 Investigator MEO251 37.08 39.13 41.29 43.56 45.95 0158 Landscape Architect MEO158 42.65 45.00 47.49 50.09 52.86 0049 Landscape Maint Supervisor MEO049 43.11 45.47 47.97 50.61 53.40 0572 Liability Claims Coordinator MEO572 38.99 41.13 43.40 45.80 48.31 0030 Maintenance Operations Mgr MEO030 58.13 61.32 64.70 68.25 71.99 0490 Network Systems Administrator MEO490 49.78 52.53 55.41 58.47 61.69 903 Parks Development Facilities Project Coordinator MEO903 41.00 43.24 45.62 48.14 50.79 0443 Payroll Systems Analyst MEO443 45.53 48.03 50.67 53.46 56.40 0098 Permit & Plan Check Manager MEO098 60.49 63.82 67.33 71.02 74.93 0209 Permit & Plan Check Supervisor MEO209 42.88 45.24 47.72 50.35 53.13 0453 Personnel Analyst MEO453 37.47 39.53 41.70 43.99 46.42 0060 Personnel Analyst Principal MEO060 46.91 49.48 52.21 55.07 58.10 0464 Personnel Analyst Senior MEO464 42.65 45.00 47.49 50.09 52.86 0099 Plan Check Engineer MEO099 51.06 53.86 56.82 59.96 63.25 0444 Planning Manager MEO444 55.57 58.63 61.84 65.26 68.84 0625 Police Admin Division Srvcs Mgr MEO625 60.49 63.82 67.33 71.02 74.93 0594 Police Admin Services Manager MEO594 48.33 50.99 53.79 56.76 59.86 0022 Police Communications Manager MEO022 43.33 45.71 48.21 50.86 53.66 0094 Police Records Administrator MEO094 43.33 45.71 48.21 50.86 53.66 0028 Principal Accountant MEO028 44.18 46.62 49.17 51.88 54.73 701 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT A – SALARY SCHEDULE ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 39 0096 Principal Civil Engineer MEO096 57.85 61.02 64.38 67.92 71.65 0072 Principal Electrical Inspector MEO072 41.41 43.70 46.09 48.63 51.30 896 Principal Finance Analyst MEO0896 47.84 50.48 53.25 56.17 59.26 0076 Principal Inspector Plb/Mech MEO076 41.41 43.70 46.09 48.63 51.30 0482 Principal Librarian MEO482 41.20 43.47 45.86 48.39 51.05 0074 Principal Planner MEO074 52.86 55.77 58.83 62.08 65.48 0579 Project Manager MEO579 47.84 50.48 53.25 56.17 59.26 0037 Project Manager Assistant MEO037 41.00 43.24 45.62 48.14 50.79 0496 Public Safety Systems Manager MEO496 56.41 59.51 62.78 66.23 69.87 0497 Public Safety Systems Supv MEO497 54.47 57.47 60.63 63.95 67.48 0839 Real Estate & Project Manager MEO839 47.84 50.48 53.25 56.17 59.26 0619 Risk Management Analyst MEO619 37.47 39.53 41.70 43.99 46.42 0054 Risk Manager MEO054 55.01 58.04 61.23 64.59 68.14 0069 Senior Civil Engineer MEO069 48.83 51.51 54.34 57.33 60.48 0484 Senior Deputy City Attorney MEO484 63.59 67.09 70.77 74.65 78.77 868 Senior Finance Analyst MEO868 45.49 47.99 50.62 53.41 56.35 499 Senior Info Technology Analyst MEO499 49.55 52.28 55.14 58.18 61.38 0077 Senior Librarian MEO077 35.47 37.43 39.49 41.65 43.94 0036 Senior Planner MEO036 47.84 50.48 53.25 56.17 59.26 0575 Senior Sprvsr Cultural Affairs MEO575 40.40 42.61 44.95 47.42 50.03 0578 Senior Sprvsr Human Services MEO578 40.40 42.61 44.95 47.42 50.03 0519 Senior Risk Management Analyst MEO519 42.65 45.00 47.49 50.09 52.86 0034 Senior Traffic Engineer MEO034 48.83 51.51 54.34 57.33 60.48 0333 Senior Trial Counsel MEO333 68.87 72.67 76.66 80.87 85.33 0457 Special Events Coordinator MEO457 34.09 35.97 37.94 40.03 42.23 0488 Street Maint Supervisor MEO488 43.11 45.47 47.97 50.61 53.40 0133 Supervisor, Prkng & Cmping Fac MEO133 40.40 42.61 44.95 47.42 50.03 0033 Transportation Manager MEO033 60.19 63.49 66.99 70.67 74.56 0051 Tree Maintenance Supervisor MEO051 43.11 45.47 47.97 50.61 53.40 0483 Utilities Manager MEO483 59.28 62.56 65.99 69.62 73.45 0487 Wastewater Supervisor MEO487 43.11 45.47 47.97 50.61 53.40 702 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT A – SALARY SCHEDULE ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 40 0052 Water Distribution Supervisor MEO052 43.11 45.47 47.97 50.61 53.40 0053 Water Production Supervisor MEO053 43.11 45.47 47.97 50.61 53.40 0056 Water Quality Supervisor MEO056 43.11 45.47 47.97 50.61 53.40 703 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT B – RETIREE SUBSIDY MEDICAL PLAN ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 41 RETIREE SUBSIDY MEDICAL PLAN Employees hired on or after October 1, 2014, shall not be eligible for this benefit. An employee who has retired from the City shall be entitled to participate in the City-sponsored medical insurance plans and the City shall contribute toward monthly premiums for coverage in an amount as specified in accordance with this Plan, provided: A. At the time of retirement the employee has a minimum of ten (10) years of continuous full-time City service or is granted an industrial disability retirement; and B. At the time of retirement, the employee is employed by the City; and C. Following official separation from the City, the employee is granted a retirement allowance by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. The City’s obligation to pay the monthly premium as indicated shall be modified downward or cease during the lifetime of the retiree upon the occurrence of any one of the following: 1. On the first of the month in which a retiree or dependent reaches age 65 or on the date the retiree or dependent can first apply and become eligible, automatically or voluntarily, for medical coverage under Medicare (whether or not such application is made) the City’s obligation to pay monthly premiums may be adjusted downward or eliminated. Benefit coverage at age 65 under the City’s medical plans shall be governed by applicable plan document. 2. In the event of the death of any employee, whether retired or not, the amount of the retiree medical insurance subsidy benefit which the deceased employee was receiving at the time of his/her death would be eligible to receive if he/she were retired at the time of death, shall be paid on behalf of the spouse or family for a period not to exceed twelve (12) months. SCHEDULE OF BENEFITS A. Minimum Eligibility for Benefits - With the exception of an industrial disability retirement, eligibility for benefits begin after an employee has completed ten (10) years of continuous full time service with the City of Huntington Beach. Said service must be continuous unless prior service is reinstated at the time of his/her rehire in accordance with the City’s Personnel Rules. B. Disability Retirees - Industrial disability retirees with less than ten (10) years of service shall receive a maximum monthly payment toward the premium for health insurance of $121 (one hundred twenty-one dollars). Payments shall be in accordance with the stipulations and conditions, which exist for all retirees. Payment shall not exceed dollar amount, which is equal to the full cost of premium for employee only. 704 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT B – RETIREE SUBSIDY MEDICAL PLAN ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 42 C. Maximum Monthly Subsidy Payments - Payment amounts may be reduced each month as dependent eligibility ceases due to death, divorce or loss of dependent child status. However, the amount shall not be reduced if such reduction would cause insufficient funds needed to pay the full premium for the employee and the remaining dependents. In the event no reduction occurs and the remaining benefit premium is not sufficient to pay the premium amount for the employee and the eligible dependents, said needed excess premium amount shall be paid by the employee. All retirees, including those retired as a result of disability whose number of continuous, full time years of City service prior to retirement City exceeds ten (10), shall be entitled to maximum monthly payment of premiums by the for each year of completed City service as follows: Maximum Monthly Payment for Retirements After: Years of Service Subsidy 10 $ 121 11 136 12 151 13 166 14 181 15 196 16 211 17 226 18 241 19 256 20 271 21 286 22 300 23 315 24 330 25 344 RETIREE SUBSIDY MEDICAL PLAN / MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Eligibility: 1. The effective start-up date of the Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan for the various employee groups shall be the first of the month following retirement date. 2. A retiree may change plans, add dependents, etc., during annual open enrollment. The Human Resources Department shall notify covered retirees of this opportunity each year. 705 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT B – RETIREE SUBSIDY MEDICAL PLAN ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 43 3. Years of service computed for the Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan are actual years of completed service with the City of Huntington Beach. B. Benefits: 1. Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan includes the available group medical plans offered to active unit members at the time of retirement. 2. City Plans are the primary payer for active employees age 65 and over, with Medicare the secondary payer. Retirees age 65 and over have no City Plan options and are eligible only for Medicare. 3. Premium payments are to be received at least one month in advance of the coverage period. C. Subsidies: 1. The subsidy payments will pay for: a. Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan. b. HMO. c. Part A of Medicare for those retirees not eligible for paid Part A. 2. Subsidy payments will not pay for: a. Part B Medicare. b. Any other employee benefit plan. c. Any other commercially available benefit plan. d. Medicare supplements. D. Medicare: 1. All persons are eligible for Medicare coverage at age sixty five (65). Those with sufficient credit quarters of Social Security will receive Part A of Medicare at no cost. Those without sufficient credited quarters are still eligible for Medicare at age sixty five (65, but will have to pay for Part A of Medicare if the individual elects to take Medicare. In all cases, Part B of Medicare is paid for by the participant. 2. When a retiree and his/her spouse are both sixty five (65 or over, and neither is eligible for paid Part A of Medicare, the subsidy shall pay for Part A for each of them or the maximum subsidy, whichever is less. 706 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT B – RETIREE SUBSIDY MEDICAL PLAN ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 44 3. When a retiree at age sixty five (65 is eligible for paid Part A of Medicare and his/her spouse is not eligible for paid Part A, the spouse shall not receive subsidy. When a retiree at age sixty five (65 is not eligible for paid Part A of Medicare and his/her spouse who is also age sixty five (65is eligible for paid Part A of Medicare, the subsidy shall be for the retiree’s Part A only. E. Cancellation: 1. For retirees/dependents eligible for paid Part A of Medicare, the following cancellation provisions apply: a. Coverage for a retiree under the Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan will be eliminated on the first day of the month in which the retiree reaches age sixty five (65. If such retiree was covering dependents under the Plan, dependents will be eligible for state and or federal COBRA continuation benefits effective as of the retiree’s sixty-fifth (65th) birthday. b. Dependent coverage will be eliminated upon whichever of the following occasions comes first: i. After thirty six (36) months of COBRA continuation coverage, or ii. When the covered dependent reaches age sixty five (65) in the event such dependent reaches age sixty five (65) prior to the retiree reaching age sixty five (65). c. At age sixty five (65) retirees are eligible to make application for Medicare. Upon being considered “eligible to make application,” whether or not application has been made for Medicare, the Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan will be eliminated. 2. See provisions under “Benefits,” ”Subsidies,” and “Medicare” for those retirees/dependents not eligible for paid Part A of Medicare. 3. Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan and COBRA participants shall be notified of non- payment of premium by means of a certified letter from Employee Benefits in accordance with provisions of the Memorandums of Understanding. 4. A retiree who fails to pay premiums due for coverage and is in arrears for sixty (60) days shall be terminated from the Plan and shall not have reinstatement rights. 707 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT C – VEHICLE USE ASSIGNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 45 VEHICLE USE ASSIGNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION See Administrative Regulations 708 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT D – PHYSICAL EXAMINATION DESCRIPTION ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 46 PHYSICAL EXAMINATION DESCRIPTION I. Complete Health History II. Complete Physical Examination by Physician III. Computer Printout: A. Physiological Tests: 1. Temperature 2. Height 3. Weight 4. Vision 5. Audiometry (Hearing Screening) 6. Blood Pressure 7. Pulse 8. Chest X-Ray 9. EKG 10. History 11. Tonometry (Glaucoma) for patients 35 and over. 12. Spirometry (Breathing) B. Laboratory Tests: 1. Blood Chemistry Screening Tests: SGPT Triglycerides SGOT Glucose Fasting LDH BUN Alk. Phosphatase Creatinine Total Bilirubin Uric Acid Total Protein Calcium Albumin-Serum Inorganic Phosphate Globulin Sodium Cholesterol Postassium 2. Complete Blood Count 3. Urinalysis 4. Stool Test for Blood 5. RPR 6. Pap Smear on Females 7. HDL IV. Examination Findings: A. Consultation with Physician B. Written Report of Findings 709 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT E – 9/80 WORK SCHEDULE ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 47 9/80 WORK SCHEDULE This work schedule is known as the “9/80.” In the event that there is a conflict with the current rules, practices and/or procedures regarding work schedules and leave plans, then the rules listed below shall govern. 9/80 WORK SCHEDULE DEFINED The 9/80 work schedule shall be defined as working nine (9) days for eighty (80) hours in a two- week pay period by working eight (8) days at nine (9) hours per day and working one (1) day for eight (8) hours (Friday), with a one-hour lunch during each work shift, totaling forty (40) hours in each work week. The 9/80 work schedule shall not reduce service to the public, departmental effectiveness, productivity and/or efficiency as determined by the City Manager or designee. A. Forty (40) Hour Work Week The actual work week is from Friday at mid-shift (p.m.) to Friday at mid-shift (a.m.). No employee working the 9/80 work schedule will be able to flex their Friday start time nor the time they take their lunch break, which will be from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Fridays. All employee work shifts will start at 8:00 a.m. on their Friday worked. The start of the work week is 12:00 noon Friday. B. Two-Week Pay Period The pay period for employees starts Friday mid-shift (p.m.) and continues for fourteen (14) days until Friday mid-shift (a.m.). During this period, each week is made up of four (4) nine (9) hour work days (thirty-six (36) hours) and one (1) four (4) hour Friday and those hours equal forty (40) work hours in each work week (e.g. the Friday is split into four (4) hours for the a.m. shift, which is charged to work week one and four (4) hours for the p.m. shift, which is charged to work week two). C. A/B Schedules To continue to provide service to the public every Friday, employees are to be divided between two schedules, known as the “A” schedule and the “B” schedule, based upon the departmental needs. For identification purposes, the “A” schedule shall be known as the schedule with a day off on the Friday in the middle of the pay period, or, “off on payday”, the “B” schedule shall have the first Friday (p.m.) and the last Friday (a.m.) off, or “working on payday”. An example is listed below: AM PM AM PM AM PM F F S S M T W Th F F S S M T W Th F F A Schedule 4 4 - - 9 9 9 9 - - - - 9 9 9 9 4 4 B Schedule - - - - 9 9 9 9 4 4 - - 9 9 9 9 - - 710 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT E – 9/80 WORK SCHEDULE ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 48 A/B Schedule Changes Employees cannot change schedules without prior approval of their supervisor, Department Head, and the Director of Human Resources or designee. D. Emergencies All employees on the 9/80 work schedule are subject to be called to work any time to meet any and all emergencies or unusual conditions which, in the opinion of the City Manager, Department Head or designee may require such service from any of said employees. LEAVE BENEFITS When an employee is off on a scheduled workday under the 9/80 work schedule, then nine (9) hours of eligible leave per workday shall be charged against the employee’s leave balance or eight (8) hours shall be charged if the day off is a Friday. All leaves shall continue under the current accrual, eligibility, request and approval requirements. 1. General Leave – As stated in Memorandum of Understanding 2. Sick Leave – As stated in Memorandum of Understanding 3. Administrative Leave – As stated in Memorandum of Understanding 4. Bereavement Leave – As stated in Memorandum of Understanding 5. Holidays - As stated in Memorandum of Understanding 6. Jury Duty – The provisions of the Personnel Rules shall continue to apply; however, if an employee is called to serve on jury duty during a normal Friday off, Saturday, or Sunday, or on a City holiday, then the jury duty shall be considered the same as having occurred during the employees day off work; therefore, the employee will receive no added compensation. 711 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT F – 4/10 WORK SCHEDULE ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 49 4/10 WORK SCHEDULE In the event that there is a conflict with the current rules, practices and/or procedures regarding work schedules and leave plans, then the rules listed below shall govern. 4/10 WORK SCHEDULE DEFINED The 4/10 work schedule shall be defined as working eight (8) days for eighty (80) hours in a two week pay period by working eight (8) days (Monday through Thursday, Fridays off) at ten (10) hours per day, plus a one-hour lunch during each work shift, totaling forty (40) hours in each work week. The 4/10 work schedule shall not reduce service to the public, departmental effectiveness, productivity and/or efficiency as determined by the City Manager or designee. All employees on the 4/10 work schedule are subject to be called to work any time to meet any and all emergencies or unusual conditions which, in the opinion of the City Manager, Department Head or designee may require such service from any of said employees. LEAVE BENEFITS When an employee is off on a scheduled workday under the 4/10 work schedule, then ten (10) hours of eligible leave per workday shall be charged against the employee’s leave balance. All leaves shall continue under the current accrual, eligibility, request, and approval requirements. 1. General Leave – As stated in Memorandum of Understanding 2. Sick Leave – As stated in Memorandum of Understanding 3. Administrative Leave – As stated in Memorandum of Understanding 4. Bereavement Leave – As stated in Memorandum of Understanding 5. Holidays - As stated in Memorandum of Understanding 6. Jury Duty – The provisions of the Personnel Rules shall continue to apply; however, if an employee is called to serve on jury duty during a normal Friday off, Saturday, or Sunday, or on a City holiday, then the jury duty shall be considered the same as having occurred during the employees day off work; therefore, the employee will receive no added compensation. 712 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT G – VOLUNTARY CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION PROGRAM ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 50 Voluntary Catastrophic Leave Donation Program Leave Request Form Requestor, Please Complete According to the provisions of the Voluntary Catastrophic Leave Donation Program, I hereby request donated Vacation, Administrative or General Leave Compensatory Time. MY SIGNATURE CERTIFIES THAT: • A Leave of absence in relation to a catastrophic illness or injury has been approved by my Department; and • I am not receiving disability benefits or Workers' Compensation payments. Name: (Please Print or Type: Last, First, MI) Work Phone: Department: Job Title: Employee ID#: Requestor Signature: Date: Department Director Signature: Date: Human Resources Department Use Only End donation date will bridge to: Long Term Disability Medical Retirement beginning Length of FMLA leave ending Return to work End donation date: Human Resources Director Signature: Date signed: 713 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT G – VOLUNTARY CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION PROGRAM ________________________________________________________________________________________ MEO MOU November 1, 20179 through October 31, 201920 51 Voluntary Catastrophic Leave Donation Program Leave Donation Form Donor, please complete Donor Name: (Please Print or Type: Last, First, MI) Work Phone: Donor Job Title: Type of Accrued Leave: Vacation Compensatory Time General Leave _ Administrative Leave Number of Hours I wish to Donate: Hours of Vacation Hours of Compensatory Time Hours of General Leave _____ Hours of Administrative Leave I understand that this voluntary donation of leave credits, once processed, is irrevocable; but if not needed, the donation will be returned to me. I also understand that this donation will remain confidential. I wish to donate my accrued Vacation, Compensatory Time, Administrative or General Leave hours to the Catastrophic Leave Donation Program for: Eligible recipient employee's name (Last, First, MI): Donor Signature: Date: Please submit to Payroll in the Finance Department. 714 City of Huntington Beach File #:20-1547 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager PREPARED BY:Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager Subject: Introduction of the Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Between the Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters and the City of Huntington Beach for October 1, 2019 , through September 30, 2020 Statement of Issue: The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT) expired on September 30, 2019. Subsequently, the City and HBMT engaged in good-faith negotiations, ultimately reaching tentative agreement on terms in February 2020 on a 1-year contract covering the period October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020. Financial Impact: Pursuant to the terms reached in the MOU with HBMT, the total projected cost of the labor pact as estimated by the Finance Department is $944,512. This constitutes a 0.6% increase in the City’s overall FY 2019/20 personnel budget of $162.04 million. Recommended Action: Introduction of the Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Between the Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters and the City of Huntington Beach for the period October 1, 2019 , through September 30, 2020. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the introduction of the proposed successor MOU for HBMT employees , and direct staff to: (1) continue to meet and confer with the Association, or (2) utilize the impasse procedures contained within the City’s Employer-Employee Relations Resolution. Analysis: The Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT) represents nearly 375 employees in the City. Starting in late 2019, representatives for the City and HBMT engaged in active negotiations on a new labor agreement, ultimately reaching tentative agreement on contract terms for a one-year period in City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™715 File #:20-1547 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 labor agreement, ultimately reaching tentative agreement on contract terms for a one-year period in February 2020. Key changes in the proposed MOU include the following: Term of Agreement October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020. Wage Increase Employees shall receive a 3.5% pay increase. CalPERS Cost Sharing Employees shall contribute an additional 1% contribution towards CalPERS costs. Medical Benefits The City’s monthly contribution to medical plan rates will increase $50 per plan per tier. There were several other modifications to several other contract provisions, including deletion of obsolete language, regulatory compliance language changes, and general clean-up language. A summary of these and all other negotiated provisions are included as Exhibit “A”. Environmental Status: Not applicable. Strategic Plan Goal: Non-Applicable - Administrative Item Attachment(s): 1. Summary of Memorandum of Understanding Modifications 2. Fiscal Impact Report 3. Proposed Memorandum of Understanding - Exhibit “A” City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™716 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT) Summary of MOU Modifications Article I - Term of Agreement October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020 Article VI - Wage Increase Employees shall receive a 3.5% pay increase Article IX - Hours of Work/Overtime Modify Flex Schedule and Alternative Work Schedule start times to 6:30 AM Article X – Health Benefits The City’s monthly contribution to medical plan rates will increase $50 per month per medical plan per enrollment tier (not to exceed the monthly plan premium). Article XI – Retirement/CalPERS Cost Sharing Employees shall contribute an additional 1% contribution towards CalPERS costs. Article XV – Class/Comp Study During the term of the agreement, the parties agree to participate in a classification and compensation study. Exhibit B – Uniform Policy The City shall furnish uniforms on an annual basis 717 City of Huntington Beach Teamsters City Response #2 3/11/2020 DRAFT Year 1 MOU Item #Description Rate / $ Estimated Impact Total Cost of Proposal Notes: 1 Term: 1 year (October 1, 2019 - September 30, 2020) 2a Base Salary Pay Increase of 3.5 percent effective the start of the contract term.Various 1,101,652 1,101,652 Effective October 1, 2019 2b CalPERS Pick Up by Employees of one percent (1%) effective the start of the contract term. Various (268,769) (268,769) Effective October 1, 2019 3 Civic Center employees may flex regular scheduled start times between the hours of 6:30am to 9:00am in half-hour increments with Supervisor and Department Head approval.No fiscal impact. 4 The City’s contribution towards employees’ health insurance at each plan level (i.e., E/ee, E/ee+1, E/ee+2 or more) shall be increased $50 per benefit tier, effective the immediate pay period following contract approval. Various 105,332 105,332 5 The City shall furnish funding for the agreed uniform allowances on an annual basis, including funding for any initial alterations necessary.6,297 6,297 7 Class/Comp Study - - Part of Citywide Class/Comp Study Total Cost of Proposal 944,512 944,512 These estimates are subject to change.For Discussion Purposes Only718 Memorandum of Understanding between Huntington Beach Municipal EmployeesTeamsters’ Association and City of Huntington Beach October 1, 20179 – September 30, 201920 719 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TABLE OF CONTENTS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 ii PREAMBLE .................................................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE I – TERM OF MOU ......................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE II – REPRESENTATIONAL UNIT/CLASS ...................................................... 2 ARTICLE III – MANAGEMENT RIGHTS ........................................................................ 2 ARTICLE IV – EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................ 2 ARTICLE V – SEVERABILITY ....................................................................................... 2 ARTICLE VI – SALARY SCHEDULE ............................................................................. 3 A. CLASSIFICATION AND SALARY RATES ........................................................................ 3 1. Wage Increase ARTICLE VII – SPECIAL PAY ....................................................................................... 3 A. EDUCATION ............................................................................................................ 3 1. Tuition Reimbursement ........................................................................................................... 3 B. ASSIGNMENT PAY ................................................................................................... 3 1. Leadworker Differential ........................................................................................................... 3 2. Shift Differential ...................................................................................................................... 3 a. Afternoon Shift ................................................................................................................... 3 b. Night Shift .......................................................................................................................... 3 c. Shifts Defined .................................................................................................................... 4 C. SPECIAL CERTIFICATION/SKILL PAY .......................................................................... 4 1. Bilingual Skill .......................................................................................................................... 4 2. Building Plan Checker ............................................................................................................. 4 a. Plans Examiner International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Certification ............. 4 b. Engineering In Training (EIT)/Associate of Arts (AA) Degree in Engineering ....................... 4 3. Process Owner Assignment Pay ............................................................................................. 4 4. Hazardous Materials Duty Assignment Pay ............................................................................. 5 ARTICLE VIII – UNIFORMS, CLOTHING, TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT ......................... 5 A. UNIFORMS AND SAFETY SHOES................................................................................ 5 1. Safety Shoes – Cost ............................................................................................................... 5 2. Safety Glasses ....................................................................................................................... 5 B. TOOL ALLOWANCE .................................................................................................. 5 C. VEHICLE USE .......................................................................................................... 6 ARTICLE IX – HOURS OF WORK/OVERTIME.............................................................. 6 A. WORK SCHEDULE ................................................................................................... 6 1. Pay Definitions ........................................................................................................................ 6 2. Defined Workweek under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) .................................................... 6 3. Flex Schedule and Alternative Work Schedule - Civic Center Employees ................................ 6 a. 5/40 Work Schedule ........................................................................................................... 7 b. 9/80 Work Schedule ........................................................................................................... 7 c. 4/10 Work Schedule ........................................................................................................... 7 d. Existing Alternative Work Schedules .................................................................................. 7 B. OVERTIME/COMPENSATORY TIME ............................................................................ 8 720 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TABLE OF CONTENTS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 iii 1. FLSA Workweek and Employee Pay Period ............................................................................ 8 2. Overtime ................................................................................................................................. 8 3. Work Shift that Exceeds Thirteen (13) Hours ........................................................................... 8 C. EMPLOYEE FATIGUE ................................................................................................ 8 D. CALLBACK .............................................................................................................. 9 E. MANDATORY STANDBY ............................................................................................ 9 F. ACTING ASSIGNMENT .............................................................................................. 9 G COURT STANDBY TIME AND COURT APPEARANCE TIME ............................................. 9 ARTICLE X – HEALTH AND OTHER INSURANCE BENEFITS .................................. 10 A. HEALTH ................................................................................................................ 10 B. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND COST ............................................................................. 10 1. City and Employee Paid Medical Insurance – Employees and Dependents ........................... 10 2. Health and Other Insurance Premiums.................................................................................. 10 3. Part Time Employee Contributions ....................................................................................... 12 C. COBRA ........................................................................................................... 1412 D. LIFE AND ACCIDENTAL DEATH AND DISMEMBERMENT INSURANCE ............................. 12 E. LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE (LTD) .......................................................... 1412 F. MEDICAL CASH-OUT ......................................................................................... 1413 G. SECTION 125 PLAN ........................................................................................... 1513 H. MISCELLANEOUS ............................................................................................... 1513 5. Health Plan Over-Payments .................................................................................................. 14 I. RETIREE MEDICAL COVERAGE FOR RETIREES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE CITY RETIREE MEDICAL SUBSIDY PLAN ........................................................................................ 14 J. POST-65 SUPPLEMENTAL MEDICARE COVERAGE .................................................... 14 ARTICLE XI – RETIREMENT ......................................................................................... 4 A. BENEFITS ......................................................................................................... 1615 1. Self-Funded Supplemental Retirement Benefit .................................................................. 1615 2. Deferred Compensation .................................................................................................... 1715 3. Medical Insurance for Retirees .............................................................................................. 16 B. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CAL PERS) ................... 1817 1. Retirement Formula and ReportingClassic Members Miscellaneous Unit Members ............... 17 2. New Member Miscellaneous Unit Members C. PRE-RETIREMENT OPTIONAL SETTLEMENT 2 DEATH BENEFIT .................................... 17 D. FOURTH LEVEL OF 1959 SURVIVOR BENEFITS......................................................... 17 ARTICLE XII – LEAVE BENEFITS ........................................................................... 2018 A. LEAVE WITH PAY .............................................................................................. 2018 1. General Leave .................................................................................................................. 2018 721 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TABLE OF CONTENTS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 iv a. Accrual ............................................................................................................................ 18 b. Eligibility and Approval ..................................................................................................... 18 c. Conversion to Cash.......................................................................................................... 18 d. One (1) Week Minimum Vacation Requirement ................................................................ 18 2. City Paid Holidays ............................................................................................................. 2119 b. City Observed Holiday...................................................................................................... 19 c. Holiday Paid Time Off for Part-Time Employees ............................................................... 19 d. Holiday Pay for Work on a City Observed Holiday ............................................................ 19 e. Holiday Pay for Work on an Actual Holiday (Not the City Observed Date) ......................... 19 g. CalPERS Reporting of Holiday Pay .................................................................................. 19 3. Sick Leave ........................................................................................................................ 2220 a. Accrual ............................................................................................................................ 20 b. Credit ............................................................................................................................... 20 c. Usage .............................................................................................................................. 20 d. Payoff at Termination ....................................................................................................... 20 e. Extended Absences ......................................................................................................... 20 4. Bereavement Leave .......................................................................................................... 2220 5. Association Business ........................................................................................................ 2320 6. Jury Duty .......................................................................................................................... 2321 7. Leave Benefits Entitlement ................................................................................................... 21 8. Personal Days ...................................................................................................................... 21 ARTICLE XIII – CITY RULES ................................................................................... 2422 ARTICLE XIV –MISCELLANEOUS .......................................................................... 2422 A. GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION .................................................................................. 2422 B. PROMOTIONAL PROCEDURES ............................................................................. 2422 1. Tie Scores ............................................................................................................................ 22 2. Salary Upon Promotion ......................................................................................................... 22 C. LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE .................................................... 2523 D. COPIES OF MOU .............................................................................................. 2523 E. POSITION CLASSIFICATION ISSUES ..................................................................... 2523 1. Class Specifications .............................................................................................................. 23 2. Reclassification Impact ......................................................................................................... 23 F. CLASS A AND B DRIVER LICENSE FEES ............................................................... 2523 G. DEFERRED COMPENSATION LOAN PROGRAM ...................................................... 2624 H. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS/WRITTEN REPRIMAND APPEALS ............................. 2624 I. MEA LETTER OF INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 2624 J. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT) RANDOM ALCOHOL AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TESTING ............................................................................................ 24 K. UPDATE EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER RELATIONS RESOLUTION ........................................ 24 L. REQUIRED FINGERPRINTING OF EMPLOYEES ........................................................... 24 M. BEACH PARKING ................................................................................................... 24 N. REASONABLE SUSPICION ALCOHOL AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TESTING ............. 24 722 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TABLE OF CONTENTS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 v ARTICLE XV - DURING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT ARTICLE XVI – CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL .......................................................... 2725 LIST OF MOU EXHIBITS .......................................................................................... 2826 EXHIBIT A – CLASS/SALARY SCHEDULE ................................................................ 27 EXHIBIT B – UNIFORM POLICY.................................................................................. 34 EXHIBIT C – VEHICLE USE POLICY .......................................................................... 40 EXHIBIT D – PROVISIONS OF THE RETIREE MEDICAL SUBSIDY PLAN ............... 43 EXHIBIT E – 9/80 WORK SCHEDULE ......................................................................... 47 EXHIBIT F – 4/10 WORK SCHEDULE ......................................................................... 49 EXHIBIT G – AGENCY SHOP AGREEMENT .............................................................. 51 EXHIBIT H - CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION PROGRAM……………………… 54 EXHIBIT I - HEALTH AND OTHER INSURANCE BENEFITS/TEAMSTERS MISCELLANEOUS SECURITY TRUST FUND……………………………………………58 723 MEA MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 1 Memorandum of Understanding between The City of Huntington Beach (hereinafter called City) and The Huntington Beach Municipal Employees’ AssociationTeamsters (hereinafter called Association or MEAHBMT) PREAMBLE WHEREAS, pursuant to California law, the City, acting by and through its designated representatives, duly appointed by the governing body of said City, and the representatives of the Association, a duly recognized employee Association, have met and conferred in good faith and have fully communicated and exchanged information concerning wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment for the period October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920; and WHEREAS, the representatives of the City and the Association desire to reduce their agreements to writing, NOW THEREFORE, this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made to become effective October 1, 20179 and it is agreed as follows: ARTICLE I – TERM OF MOU A. This Memorandum of Understanding shall be in effect for a term commencing on October 1, 20179 the effective date through September 30, 201920. B. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to improvements or changes in the salaries and monetary benefits for employees represented by the Association for the duration of this Agreement. ARTICLE II – REPRESENTATIONAL UNIT/CLASS It is recognized that the Association is the employee organizat ion which has the right to meet and confer in good faith with the City on behalf of permanent employees of the City within those class titles set out in Exhibit A attached here to and incorporated herein. The term "permanent employee” herein shall be referred to as “employee” and is used only to determine entitlement to certain benefits provided by this MOU and is defined as follows; an emplo yee that has completed or is in the process of completing a probationary period in a permanent position in the competitive service in which the employee regularly works twenty (20) hours or more per week. Additionally, the representation unit shall include all non-safety, non-management classifications which are created after execution of this Agreement and are not included in another representation unit or determined in accordance with the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution to be more appropriately designated as Non-Associated (NA) classifications. 724 MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION MEA MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 2 The City Manager reserves the right to designate up to seven (7) Association employees as confidential on an annual basis, or as needed. The confidential employee designations shall be determined by the City Manager for those employees having access to or preparing confidential materials and/or information and/or recommendations on behalf of the City in its dealings with employee associations. The City shall provide the Association with the names of the employees who are designated as confidential. ARTICLE III – MANAGEMENT RIGHTS The parties agree the City has the right to make unilateral management decisions that are outside the scope of bargaining, as defined by state and federal law and Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) decisions. Except as expressly abridged or modified herein, the City retains all rights, powers and authority with respect to the management and direction of the performance of City services and the work forces performing such services, provided that nothing herein shall change the City’s obligation to meet and confer as to the effects of any such management decision upon wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment or be construed as granting the City the right to make unilateral changes in wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment. Such rights include, but are not limited to, consideration of the merits, necessity, level or organization of City services, including establishing of work stations, nature of work to be performed, contracting for any work or operation, reasonable employee performance standards, including reasonable work and safety rules and regulations in order to maintain the efficiency and economy desirable for the performance of City services. ARTICLE IV – EXISTING CONDITIONS Except as expressly provided herein, the adoption of this Memorandum of Understanding shall not change existing benefits, and terms and conditions of employment which have been established in prior Memoranda of Understanding, and/or provided for in the Personnel Rules of the City of Huntington Beach. ARTICLE V – SEVERABILITY If any Article, Sub-Article, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by the d ecision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement or its application to other persons. The City and the Association hereby agree that in the event any state or federal legislative, executive or administrative provision purports to nullify or otherwise adversely affect the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment contained in this Agreement or similarly purports to restrict the ability of the parties to negotiate a successor agreement, the City and the Association shall, without prejudice to either party’s judicial remedies, endeavor to agree to alternative contractual provisions which are not adversely affected by said legislative, executive or administrati ve provision. 725 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 3 ARTICLE VI – SALARY SCHEDULE A. Classification and Salary Rates All employees are required to utilize direct deposit of payroll checks. The City shall issue each employee direct deposit advice (payroll receipt) each pay period that details a ll income, withholdings, and deductions. 1. Upon effective date of this agreement, all bargaining unit members shall receive a 3.5% wage increase. ARTICLE VII – SPECIAL PAY A. Education 1. Tuition Reimbursement Upon approval of the Department Head and the Human Resources Director, employees may be compensated for courses from accredited vocational and educational institutions. Tuition reimbursement shall be limited to job related courses or job related educational degree objectives and requires prior appro val by the Department Head and Human Resources Director. Education costs shall be reimbursed to employees on a first come, first served basis for a full refund for tuition, books, parking (if a required fee) and any other required fees upon presentation of receipts. On a first come, first served basis, the maximum annual benefit per fiscal year for each employee is $5,250 (five thousand two hund red-fifty dollars), until the maximum allocation for the entire bargaining unit of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000) in each fiscal year period has been allocated. Reimbursements shall be made when the employee presents proof to the Human Resources Director that he/she has successfully completed the course with a grade of “C” or better; or a “Pass” if taken for credit. B. Assignment Pay 1. Leadworker Differential Any employee classified as “Leadworker” shall receive no less than 8% above the highest classification, which is assigned to the Leadworker to lead. 2. Shift Differential a. Afternoon Shift Employees required to work on a regular assigned shift that occurs between the hours of 4:00 PM and midnight, shall be paid a special pay equal to five percent (5%) of the employee’s base hourly rate of pay (as defined in Article IX) for all work performed during said shift. b. Night Shift Employees required to work on a regularly assigned shift that occurs between midnight and 8:00 AM shall be paid a special pay equal to ten percent (10%) of the employee’s base hourly rate (as defined in Article IX). 726 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 4 c. Shifts Defined Employees will be considered as assigned to the afternoon shift (4:00 PM to midnight) or the night shift (midnight to 8:00 AM) when five (5) or more hours of their regularly assigned shifts occur in the afternoon or night shift as defined herein. C. Special Certification/Skill Pay 1. Bilingual Skill Employees who are required by their Department Head to use Spanish, Vietnamese, or American Sign Language skills as part of their job assignment, shall be paid an additional five-percent (5%) of their base hourly rate (as defined in Article IX) in addition to their regular bi-weekly pay. The special pay shall be effective the first full pay period following certification as verified to the Department Head in writing by the Human Resources Director or designee. Employees may accept assignments utilizing bilingual skills in other languages on a short -term assignment with approval by the City Manager. Such employees shall receive the additional five percent (5%) of their base hourly rate of pay (as defined in Article IX) for every bi-weekly pay period that the assignment is in effect. In order to be eligible for said compensation, employee’s language proficiency will be tested and certified by the Human Resources Director or designee. The parties agree that to th e extent permitted by law, Bilingual Skill Pay is special compensation and shall be reported to CalPERS as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(4) Bilingual Premium. 2. Building Plan Checker a. Plans Examiner International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Certification Effective December 1, 2007, the ICBO certification pay ended. All employees receiving ICBO certification pay prior to this date shall continue to receive this pay while they remain in their present classification. Any change in classification will result in the ICBO pay ending for that employee. b. Engineering In Training (EIT) /Associate of Arts (AA) Degree in Engineering Effective December 1, 2007, the EIT/AA pay ended. All employees receiving EIT/AA pay prior to this date shall continue to receive this pay while they remain in their present classification. Any change in classification will result in the EIT/AA pay ending for that employee. 3. Process Owner Assignment Pay Effective December 1, 2007, Process Owner Assignment Pay ended. All employees receiving Process Owner Assignment Pay prior to December 1, 2007 shall continue to receive this pay while they remain assigned to their position. 727 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 5 4. Hazardous Materials Duty Assignment Pay Employees assigned HazMat Duty by their department head or his or her designee shall receive five percent (5%) of their base salary for the specific hours performing the HazMat Duty assignment. The parties agree that to the extent permitted by law, Hazardous Materials Duty Assignment Pay is special compensation and shall be reported as such to CalPERS pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(4) Hazard Premium. ARTICLE VIII – UNIFORMS, CLOTHING, TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT A. Uniforms and Safety Shoes The City's Uniform and Safety Shoe Policy shall be set forth in Exhibit B, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, provided however, that employees represented by MEA working in the Police Department shall be is sued property in accordance with the equipment issue form for the particular position to which they are assigned. 1. Safety Shoes – Cost The City shall furnish safety shoes in accordance with the procedures and guidelines as set forth in Exhibit B, provided however, that the maximum amount to be reimbursed for a pair of safety shoes will not exceed two hundred and twenty -five dollars ($225.00) per pair every six (6) months or sooner, if necessary. 2. Safety Glasses Prescription safety glasses shall be provided upon the approval of the Supervisor. The cost of prescription safety glasses shall not exceed two hundred ninety -nine dollars ($299.00) in each two (2) year period, or sooner if medically prescribed. B. Tool Allowance Those employees, who are required to furnish their own personal tools for use on the jo b, shall be provided with a tool allowance to offset a portion of the cost for said tools that are lost, stolen or broken when in use on the job. Such allowance shall be eight hundred dollars ($800.00) per year, payable in January of each year, separate fr om payroll checks to those employees on active duty. In the event an emplo yee is hired or separates, his/her tool allowance for that calendar year shall be prorated on the basis of the total number of months in which he/she was employed on the first working day of the year. It is understood that the employee has the responsibility to exercise care and diligence in preventing the loss, theft and breakage of his/her personal tools. The following classifications are eligible to receive tool allowance: • Equipment/Auto Maintenance Crewleader • Equipment/Auto Maintenance Leadworker • Helicopter Maintenance Technician • Mechanic I • Mechanic II 728 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 6 • Mechanic III • Senior Helicopter Maintenance Technician C. Vehicle Use The City Vehicle Use Policy is attached in Exhibit C. Approval is required by the City Manager or designee for any City vehicle to be taken home by an employee. 1. Unit employees subject to the vehicle use policy in Exhibit C shall be required to participate in the DMV Pull Notice program. ARTICLE IX – HO URS OF WORK/OVERTIME A. Work Schedule It is the intent of the City to provide an opportunity for employees to select a flexible (flex) schedule and/or alternative work schedule that is consistent with the City’s objective that such schedules shall not reduce service to the public, departmental effectiveness, productivity and/or efficiency as determined by the City Manager or designee. 1. Pay Definitions For the purpose of this Agreement, the following definitions shall apply: a. Base Hourly Rate of Pay is defined as the hourly rate of pay that is identified in Exhibit A, Salary Schedules. b. Regular Rate of Pay is defined as the base hourly rate plus (including) special pays as identified in Article VII. c. Overtime Rate of Pay is defined as the base hourly rate of pay times one and one half (1 ½) plus (including) special pays as identified in Article VII. d. Hours of Work includes: General Leave, Holidays, Sick Leave and Compensatory Time for the purpose of calculating overtime. 2. Defined Workweek under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) It is understood that the City has established a workweek for each covered employee which meets the requirements of the FLSA and which will not result in overtime compensation as part of a normal work schedule. Each non -exempt employee shall be assigned a designated FLSA workweek for the correct calculation of overtime. This designated workweek shall not change unless extraordinary circumstances require a change in the employee’s regular work schedule due to operational need. A change in the designated FLSA workweek shall be recommended by the Department Head and approved by the Human Resources Director. 3. Flex Schedule and Alternative Work Schedule - Civic Center Employees With Supervisor and Department Head approval employees may fl ex regular scheduled start times between the hours of 7:006:30 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. in half-hour increments (i.e. 6:30 AM, 7:00 A.M., 7:30 A.M., 8:00 A.M., 8:30 A.M., and 9:00 A.M.). Flex schedules shall not reduce service to the public, departmental effecti veness, productivity and/or efficiency as determined by the City Manager or designee. Once 729 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 7 a flex schedule is established, an employee shall not change that schedule until the end of the pay period, with the approval of the Department Head. Employees will have the option of working a 5/40 or 9/80 work schedule with Supervisor and Department Head approval. Employees assigned to the Police Department shall retain the option of working the 4/10 work schedule with Supervisor and Department Head approval. In order to maintain service to the public, departmental effectiveness, productivity and/or efficiency, a Department Head may assign an employee a different work schedule that is in compliance with the requirements of FLSA with City Manager approval. a. 5/40 Work Schedule The 5/40 work schedule shall be defined as working five (5) eight (8) hour days Monday through Friday each week plus a one (1) hour unpaid lunch during each work shift, totaling a forty (40) hour workweek. The assigned 5/40 work schedule must be in compliance with the requirements of FLSA. b. 9/80 Work Schedule i. Civic Center Employees The 9/80 work schedule, as outlined in Exhibit E, shall be defined for all employees assigned to the Civic Center as working nine (9) days for eighty (80) hours in a two (2) week pay period by working eight (8) days at nine (9) hours per day and working one (1) day (Friday) for eight (8) hours, plus a one (1) hour unpaid lunch during each work shift, totaling forty (40) hours in each FLSA workweek. The 9/80 work schedule shall not reduce service to the public, departmental effectiveness, productivity and/o r efficiency as determined by the City Manager or designee. ii. Non Civic Center Employees The 9/80 work schedule, as outlined in Exhibit E, shall be defined for all employees not assigned to the Civic Center as working nine (9) days for eighty (80) hours in a two (2) week pay period by working eight (8) days at nine (9) hours per day and working one (1) day (Friday) for eight (8) hours, plus a one (1) hour unpaid scheduled lunch during each work shift, totaling forty (40) hours in each FLSA workweek. The 9/8 0 work schedule shall not reduce service to the public, departmental effectiveness, productivity and/or efficiency as determined by the City Manager or designee. c. 4/10 Work Schedule The 4/10 work schedule, as outlined in Exhibit F, shall be defined as working four (4) ten (10) hour days each week plus a one (1) hour unpaid lunch during each work shift, totaling forty (40) hours in each FLSA workweek. The assigned 4/10 work schedule must be in compliance with the requirements of FLSA. The 4/10 work schedule shall not reduce service to the public, departmental effectiveness, productivity and/or efficiency as determined by the City Manager or designee. d. Existing Alternative Work Schedules Non Civic Center employees who had an alternative work schedule (9/80 or 4/10) prior to February 1, 2003 may retain that alternative work schedule. Employees assigned to Beach Operations may be required to work a 4/10 work schedul e. 730 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 8 Civic Center employees who had an alternative work schedule (9/80) prior to February 1, 2003 may revert to that alternative work schedule (9/80) in the event his/her Supervisor and/or Department Head determine that the 9/80 schedule set forth in this Article is inappropriate for the employee’s classification. B. Overtime/Compensatory Time 1. FLSA Workweek and Employee Pay Period Each employee is assigned a designated workweek as a seven (7) day workweek that begins and ends based upon a defined work schedule. Each employee’s pay period is a fourteen (14) day cycle that consists of two (2) consecutive workweeks. It is the policy of the City that overtime is to be used only as needed or under emergency conditions, as approved by the City Manager or designee. 2. Overtime FLSA “non-exempt” employees shall be compensated at the Overtime Rate (in the form of pay or compensatory time) for hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek. 3. Work Shift that Exceeds Thirteen (13) Hours An employee who performs authorized work immediately preceding or upon completion of a regular work shift (extension of a workday) that exceeds thirteen (13) hours in a shift shall be compensated as follows: a. One and one-half (1 ½) times the employee’s regular rate of pay f or all hours worked in excess of their regular workday, up to and including thirteen (13) hours in any workday, and b. Two (2) times the employee’s regular rate for all hours worked in excess of thirteen (13) hours in a workday. 4. The employee’s Supervisor shall determine if employee receives overtime pay or compensatory time. Consideration shall be given to effectuating the request of the employee; however, the maximum accrual for compensatory time shall be one hundred forty (140) hours. 5. Two (2) times per fiscal year an employee may cash out hours of banked compensatory time, for maximum annual cash out amount of one hundred ten (110) hours. The employee shall give payroll two (2) weeks advance notice of their decision to exercise such option. C. Employee Fatigue An employee who is called back to work following the end of their regularly scheduled work shift and proceeds to work more than five (5) consecutive overtime hours shall then be entitled to an eight (8) hour rest period without compensation, upo n completion of the assignment. Regularly scheduled lunch periods are not co nsidered part of this rest period. If the eight (8) hour rest period extends into the employee’s next regularly scheduled work shift, the employee shall suffer no loss of pay or accrued leave as a result thereof. As far as is practicable, employees who h ave earned a rest period shall be relieved at the start of their regular work shift in order to take such rest period. 731 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 9 This application of this provision shall include scheduled w ork assignments and extended work assignments. D. Callback Employees called back to work shall be compensated a minimum of two (2) hours of overtime pay at the regular rate of pay. A Supervisor shall notify an employee, in advance, of the need to work overtime. Where overtime is worked as an extension of the workd ay, it shall not be considered call back. While overtime may be required to be worked, it is the City's policy to discourage the working of overtime, and to provide reasonable notification to an employee should overtime be required. An employee called bac k to work less than two (2) hours before their shift begins shall not be paid Call Back pay but will be paid in accordance with Article IX.C. Overtime/Compensatory Time. E. Mandatory Standby An employee who is placed on standby status by their Supervisor shall be compensated at an hourly rate equal to 0.180 of their base hourly rate of pay for the entire period of such assignment. F. Acting Assignment If an employee is formally assigned to wo rk in a higher classification on a temporary basis for greater than three (3) consecutive weeks, the employee shall be compensated for all hours worked in the higher classification at a rate which is at least five and one-half percent (5 1/2%) above their pay step, but such pay increase shall not exceed eleven percen t (11%) and not to exceed the top step of the pay range for all hours worked in the higher classification. In the event a non -exempt employee is assigned to act in a classification that is exempt from overtime, the employee shall retain all special pays o f their non-exempt classification and shall receive compensation for hours worked over forty (40) hours in the designated FLSA workweek on a hour for hour basis, at the regular rate of pay. Suc h pay shall be paid or credited to the employee’s compensatory time off balance at the discretion of the Department Head or designee. Acting assignments are not intended to exceed six (6) months unless extraordinary circumstances warrant an extension as recommended and approved by the Human Resources Director. Under no circumstances shall an acting assignment exceed (1) one year nor shall it be considered a reclassification or a promotion Employees on acting assignment obtain no property rights in the acting assignment and may be returned to their regular position at any time. Upon promotion to an FLSA exempt classification, all compensatory time off shall be cashed out prior to promotion at the employee’s current regular rate of pay in the non - exempt classification. G. Court Standby Time and Court Appearance Time An employee who is required to perform court standby duty in the performance of their official capacity with the City, shall be eligible for Court Standby Time or Court Appearance Time. An employee who is required to be on standby for a court appearance during other than their regularly scheduled work hours shall receive a minimum of three (3) hours time at their regular rate of pay for each morning and afternoon court session. 732 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 10 In the event an employee is required to appear in court during other than their regularly scheduled work hours, the employee shall receive a minimum of three (3) hours at the overtime rate; provided however, that if such time overlaps with the employee’s regula rly scheduled work hours, this provision shall be limited to those hours occurring prior to or after the employee’s regularly scheduled work time. A legally served subpoena or the direction of the Department Head shall be required to support the payment of Court Standby or Appearance Time. ARTICLE X – HEALTH AND OTHER INSURANCE BENEFITS A. Health The City shall make available group medical, dental and vision benefits to all employees. A copy of the medical, dental and vision plan brochures may be obtained from the Human Resources Office. B. Eligibility, Criteria and Cost 1. City and Employee Paid Medical Insurance – Employees and Dependents The City and employee shall each pay for health insurance premiums for qualified employees and dependent(s) effective the first of the month following the employee’s date of hire. The employee deduction for premium contributions shall be aligned with the effective date of coverage and the ending date of coverage upon the employee’s separation. The payroll deduction amount shall begin no later than the first full pay period following the effective date of coverage and pro-rated for coverage through the end of the month in which employment was separated. 2. Health and Other Insurance Premiums a. If an employee’s health insurance premiums (medical, dental and or vision) exceed the City’s contribution, the employee shall be responsible for paying the difference between the cost of the premiums and the City’s contribution. 733 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 11 b. 2018/19/20 Premiums and Contributions Effective 11/17/2018 & 1/1/2019 MEA (with Teamsters Medical + Rx) Plan Tier Monthly Premium Employer Monthly Contribution Employee Monthly Contribution Employee Bi-Weekly Contribution Teamsters Kaiser* Single 679.00 679.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,276.00 1,257.00 19.00 8.77 Family 1,835.00 1,507.00 328.00 151.38 Anthem Blue Cross HMO* Single 679.00 679.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,276.00 1,257.00 19.00 8.77 Family 1,835.00 1,507.00 328.00 151.38 75%/25% Reimb Plan (PPO)* Single 679.00 679.00 0.00 0.00 Two-Party 1,276.00 1,257.00 19.00 8.77 Family 1,835.00 1,507.00 328.00 151.38 Delta Dental PPO Single 56.00 53.44 2.56 1.18 Two-Party 104.60 100.34 4.26 1.97 Family 137.90 135.09 2.81 1.30 Delta Care HMO Single 30.11 23.48 6.63 3.06 Two-Party 51.19 39.95 11.24 5.19 Family 78.29 61.07 17.22 7.95 VSP Vision Single 23.33 21.88 1.45 0.67 Two-Party 23.33 21.88 1.45 0.67 Family 23.33 21.88 1.45 0.67 Medical Cash Out - (As stated in Article X.F.): $679.00 per month ($313.38 bi-weekly) *Medical Increase effective 10/1/18 - Dental & Vision rates effective 1/1/19 City of Huntington Beach 2019 Health Premiums and Contributions Effective 10/1/2019* & 1/1/2019 MEA (with Teamsters Medical + Rx) 734 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 12 Plan Tier Monthly Premium Employer Monthly Contribution Employee Monthly Contribution Employee Bi-Weekly Contribution Teamsters Kaiser* Single 713.00 713.00 0.00 0.00 Two- Party 1,340.00 1,340.00 0.00 0.00 Family 1,927.00 1,607.00 320.00 147.69 Anthem Blue Cross HMO* Single 713.00 713.00 0.00 0.00 Two- Party 1,340.00 1,340.00 0.00 0.00 Family 1,927.00 1,607.00 320.00 147.69 75%/25% Reimb Plan (PPO)* Single 713.00 713.00 0.00 0.00 Two- Party 1,340.00 1,340.00 0.00 0.00 Family 1,927.00 1,607.00 320.00 147.69 Delta Dental PPO Single 56.00 53.44 2.56 1.18 Two- Party 104.60 100.34 4.26 1.97 Family 137.90 135.09 2.81 1.30 Delta Care HMO Single 30.11 23.48 6.63 3.06 Two- Party 51.19 39.95 11.24 5.19 Family 78.29 61.07 17.22 7.95 VSP Vision Single 23.33 21.88 1.45 0.67 Two- Party 23.33 21.88 1.45 0.67 Family 23.33 21.88 1.45 0.67 Medical Opt Out: $713.00 per month ($329.08 bi-weekly) *Medical rates effective 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020 Dental and Vision rates effective 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019 City of Huntington Beach 2020 Health Premiums and Contributions Effective 10/1/2019* & 1/1/2020 MEA (with Teamsters Medical + Rx) Plan Tier Monthly Premium Employer Monthly Contribution Employee Monthly Contribution Employee Bi-Weekly Contribution Teamsters Kaiser* Single 713.00 713.00 0.00 0.00 Two- Party 1,340.00 1,340.00 0.00 0.00 735 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 13 Family 1,927.00 1,607.00 320.00 147.69 Anthem Blue Cross HMO* Single 713.00 713.00 0.00 0.00 Two- Party 1,340.00 1,340.00 0.00 0.00 Family 1,927.00 1,607.00 320.00 147.69 75%/25% Reimb Plan (PPO)* Single 713.00 713.00 0.00 0.00 Two- Party 1,340.00 1,340.00 0.00 0.00 Family 1,927.00 1,607.00 320.00 147.69 Delta Dental PPO Single 53.90 53.44 0.46 0.21 Two- Party 100.60 100.34 0.26 0.12 Family 132.70 132.70 0.00 0.00 Delta Care HMO Single 30.11 23.48 6.63 3.06 Two- Party 51.19 39.95 11.24 5.19 Family 78.29 61.07 17.22 7.95 VSP Vision Single 23.33 21.88 1.45 0.67 Two- Party 23.33 21.88 1.45 0.67 Family 23.33 21.88 1.45 0.67 Medical Opt Out: $713.00 per month ($329.08 bi-weekly) *Medical rates effective 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020 Dental and Vision rates effective 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020 c. Future Premiums and City Contributions Upon the eEffective date the beginning of the pay period following City Council final approval of this agreement, the City’s monthly contribution to Medical premiums (only) shall increase by a maximum of $10050 per plan, per tier (not to exceed the monthly plan premium) as follows: Single $679.00 Two Party $1,257.00 Family $1,507.00 Effective October 1, 2019, the City’s monthly contribution to Medical premiums (only) shall increase by a maximum of $50.00 per pla n, per tier (not to exceed the monthly plan premium) as follows: Single $729.00 779.00 Two Party $1,307.00 1,357.00 Family $1,557.00 1,607.00 736 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 14 The City’s contribution to Delta Dental PPO, Delta Care HMO and Vision Service plans will not increase. The employee shall pay any increased amount above the City’s contribution caps. 3. Part Time Employee Contributions Part-time employees hired after July 1, 2006, shall receive a pro -rated amount of the City’s contribution rate as established for full-time employees based on the employee’s work schedule, either fifty percent (50%) for h alf-time (1/2) or seventy-five percent (75%) for three-quarter time (3/4). 4. Employee payroll deductions shall be made on a pre -tax basis. 5. The dental insurance maximum cove rage is two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per year. C. COBRA Employees who terminate their employment with the City and their dependent(s) shall have any and all the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) benefits as well as Cal-COBRA (AB1401) to which the law entitles them. D. Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance Each employee shall be provided with fifty-thousand dollars ($50,000.00) of life insurance and fifty-thousand dollars ($50,000.00) of accidental death and dismemberment insurance coverage paid for by the City. Each employee sha ll have the option, at his/her own expense, to purchase additional amounts of life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment insurance to the extent provided by the City’s curr ent providers. E. Long Term Disability Insurance (LTD) The City shall provide for each employee at the City's expense a long term disability insurance plan. The parties agree to exclude the first year of job related illness or injury from coverage on condition that the plan provides for a coordination with Sick Leave, General Leave and holidays which is satisfactory to the Association. A copy of the LTD insurance plan may be obtained from the Human Resources Office. The intent of long term disability insu rance is to assist employees who are off work for an extended period of time. While long term disability benefits can be coordinated with accrued leave benefits to achieve one hundred percent (100%) of regular rate of pay, no employee may receive more than their regular rate of pay while receiving disability benefit s and paid leave. F. Medical Cash-Out Group health insurance for this unit is provided by the Teamsters Miscellaneous Security Trust Fund. If an employee obtains approval from the Teamsters Miscel laneous Security Trust Fund to suspend medical and prescription benefits, he/she may receive a medical cash-out. The amount of cash-out is equal to the City’s contribution to the lowest cost employee-only medical premium offered to this unit. Evidence of approved suspension must be submitted to the Human Resources Department. Medical cash-out would commence the beginning of the first pay period following the effective date of the approved suspension granted by the Teamsters Miscellaneous Security Trust Fund. 737 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 15 Upon the effective date of this agreement, Medical Cash-Out is subject to increase up to a maximum of $50, not to exceed the lowest cost single plan tier monthly premium, up to a maximum of $729779 – if the lowest cost single tier plan monthly premium is less than $729779 then the cash- out will equal the lowest cost single plan tier monthly premium. G. Section 125 Plan This plan allows employees to use pre -tax salary deductions to pay for regular childcare, adult dependent care and/or unreimbursed medical expenses. H. Miscellaneous 1. Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to restrict the City's right to change insurance carriers or self-fund should circumstance warrant. City shall, however, notify the Association of any proposed change and allow the Association an opportunity to review any proposed change and make recommendations to the City. 2. Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to obligate the City to improve the benef its outlined in this Article. 3. When the City grants an employee leave without pay for reason of medical disability, the City shall continue to contribute its share of the employee’s insurance premiums, pursuant to Article X.B.2. for the time the employee is in a non-pay status for the length of said leave not to exceed twenty-four (24) months. The City shall provide timely written notification of employee rights under this Article and the LTD Plan and will assist the employee in processing LTD claims so tha t undue delay in receiving LTD payments is avoided. 4. The City and the Association participate in a City -wide joint labor and management Insurance and Benefits Advisory Committee to discuss and study issues relating to insurance benefits available for emplo yees. 5. Health Plan Over-Payments Employees shall be responsible for accurately reporting changes in the status of dependent(s), which affect their eligibility for health plan coverage ninety (90) days after the date of such status change. The City shall use its best efforts to advise all employees of their obligation to report changes in the status of dependent(s), which affect their eligibility. If an employee fails to report a status change that affects eligibility within ninety (90) days, the City sha ll have the right to recover any premiums paid by the City, on behalf of ineligible dependents. Recovery of such overpayments shall be made as follows: a. The employee's bi-weekly salary warrant shall be reduced by one -half (1/2) of the amount of the bi-weekly overpayment. Such reduction shall continue until the entire amount of the overpayment is recovered. b. The City shall be entitled to recover a maximum of twelve (12) months premium overpayments. Neither the employee nor the dependent shall be liable to t he City other than as provided herein. I. Retiree Medical Coverage for Retirees Not Eligible for the City Retiree Medical Subsidy Plan 738 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 16 Employees who retire from the City after January 1, 2004 and are granted a retirement allowance by the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and are not eligible for the City’s Retiree Medical Subsidy Plan, may choose to participate in City sponsored medical insurance plans until the first of the month in which they turn age sixty - five (65). The retiree shall pay the full premium for City sponsored medical insurance for themselves and/or qualified dependents without any City subsidy. Employees who retire from the City and receive a retirement allowance from the CalPERS and are not eligible for the City’s Retiree Medical Subsidy Plan and choose not to participate in City sponsored medical insurance, upon retirement permanently lose eligibility for this insurance. However, if a retiree who is not eligible for the City’s Retiree Medical Subsidy Plan chooses not to participate in a City sponsored medical insurance plan because the retiree has access to other group medical insurance, and subsequently loses eligibility for that group medical insurance, the retiree and their qualified dependents will have access t o City sponsored medical insurance plans reinstated. Eligibility for retiree medical coverage terminates the first of the month in which the retiree or qualified dependent turns age sixty-five (65). J. Post-65 Supplemental Medicare Coverage Retirees who are participating in the Retiree Medical Subsidy Plan as of January 1, 2004 and all future retirees who meet the criteria to participate in City sponsored medical insurance, with or without the Retiree Medical Subsidy Plan, may participate in a City sponsored medical insurance plan that is supplemental to Medicare. A retiree or qualified dependent must choose to participate in a City sponsored medical insurance plan that is supplemental to Medicare beginning the first of the month in which the retiree or qualified dependent turns age sixty-five (65). The retiree shall pay the full premium to participate in a City sponsored medical insurance plan that is supplemental to Medicare for themselves or qualified dependents without any City subsidy. Retirees or qualified dependents upon turning age sixty-five (65), who choose not to participate in a City sponsored medical insurance plan that is supplemental to Medicare, permanently lose eligibility for this insurance. ARTICLE XI – RETIREMENT A. Benefits 1. Self-Funded Supplemental Retirement Benefit Employees hired prior to December 27, 1997 are eligible for the Self -Funded Supplemental Retirement Benefit, which provides that: a. In the event a PERS member elects Option #1, #2, #2W, #3, #3W or #4 of the Public Employees' Retirement law, the City shall pay the difference between the employee's elected option and the unmodified allowance which 739 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 17 the retiree would have received for his/her life alone as provided in California Government Code sections 21455, 21456, 21457, and 21548 as said referenced Government Code sections exist as of the date of this agreement. This payment shall be made only to the retiree and shall be payable by the City during the life of the member, and upon that retiree's death, the City's obligation shall cease. The method of funding this benefit shall be at the sole discretion of the City. This benefit is vested for employees covered by this Agreement. b. Employees hired on or after December 27, 1997 shall not be eligible for this benefit referenced in A.1.a. herein above. 2. Deferred Compensation Any employee who contributes one dollar ($1.00) or more per pay period to his/her deferred compensation account shall receive an employer contribution in the amoun t of nine dollars and twenty-three cents ($9.23) per pay period to the employee's deferred compensation account. 3. Medical Insurance for Retirees a. Upon retirement, whether service or disability, each employee shall have the following options in regards to medical insurance under City sponsored plans: i. With no change in benefits, retirees can stay in any of the plans offered by the City, at the retiree’s own expense, for the maximum time period allowed by federal law (COBRA), state law (Cal-COBRA) or ii. Retirees may participate in the Retiree Medical Subsidy Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit D, as amended, based upon the eligibility requirements described in Exhibit D. iii. The value of any unused earned leave benefits may be transferred to deferred compensation at retirement, but only during the time that the employee is actively employed with the City. The latest opportunity for such transfer must be the pay period prior to the employee’s last day of employment. b. Employees hired on or after October 1, 2014 shall not be eligible for this benefit referenced in A.3.a.ii. herein above. 740 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 18 B. California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) 1. “Classic Member” Miscellaneous Unit Members a. Retirement Formula - .Members of the City’s miscellaneous retirement plan with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) shall receive the 2.5% at age 55 CalPERS retirement plan. b. Member Contribution - All miscellaneous bargaining unit “classic” members shall pay to CalPERS as part of the required member retirement contribution eight percent (8%) of pensionable income. c. Classic Member Miscellaneous CalPERS Cost Sharing – Upon the effective date of this agreement, all classic members shall pay one percent (1%) additional compensation earnable as employer cost sharing in accordance with Government Code section 20516(f) - for a capped maximum employee pension contribution of nine percent (9%). The parties agree that this cost sharing agreement per Government Code section 20516(f) shall continue after the expiration of this MOU unless/until otherwise nego tiated to either an agreement (in a successor MOU) or the expiration of the impasse process by the parties. This provision shall not sunset at the end of this agreement. d. One-Year Final Compensation - The City shall contract with CalPERS to have retirement benefits calculated based upon the “classic” member employee’s highest one year’s compensation, pursuant to the provisions of Section 20042 (highest single year). a.e. The obligations of the City and the retirement rights of employees as provided in this Article shall survive the term of this MOU. 2. “New Member” Miscellaneous Unit Members - For “New” Members” within the meaning of the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) of 2013. a. CalPERS New Member Retirement Formula - “New” Members shall be governed by the two percent at age 62 (2% @ 62) retirement formula set forth in Government Code section 7522.20. b. Final Compensation - Final compensation will be based on the highest annual average compensation earnable during the 36 consecutive months immediately preceding the effective date of his or her retirement, or some other 36 consecutive month period designated by the member. c. New Member Miscellaneous CalPERS Member Contribution – All “new” members as defined by PEPRA and determined by CalPERS, shal l contribute one half (50%) of the normal cost as established by CalPERS each year in its annual valuation for the City, as required by California Government Code Section 7522.30(c). d. New Member Miscellaneous CalPERS Cost Sharing: Upon the effective date, new members shall cost share 1.00% pensionable compensation in accordance with Government Code section 20516(f). This will ensure th at 741 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 19 these members will pay 7.25% of pensionable compensation when combined with the 6.25% pensionable compensation that these employees are required to pay as determined by CalPERS’s annual evaluation. If in future fiscal years the member contribution rate for new members shall become greater or less than 6.25% of pensionable compensation, as determined by CalPERS’s annual valuation, employees shall continue to pay one percent (1%) above as cost sharing per Government Code section 20516(f). 1. Retirement Formulas and Reporting a. The City shall provide all miscellaneous employees described as “classic members by the Public Employee s’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 – “PEPRA” with that certain retirement program commonly known and described as the “2.5% at age 55 plan” which is based on the retirement formula as set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), Section 21354 of the California Government Code. b. All “Classic” bargaining unit members shall pay their CalPERS member retirement contribution of eight percent (8%) of pensionable income. This provision shall not sunset at the end of this agreement. c. The City shall contract with PERS to have retirement benefits calculated based upon the “classic” member employee’s highest one year’s compensation, pursuant to the provisions of Section 20042 (highest single year). d. The obligations of the City and the retirement rights of employees as provided in this Article shall survive the term of this MOU e. For “New” Members within the meaning of the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013. i. New Members shall be governed by the two percent at age 62 (2% @ 62) retirement formula set forth in Government Code section 7522.20. ii. Final compensation will be based on the highest annual average compensation earnable during the 36 consecutive months immediately preceding the effective date of his or her retirement, or some other 36 consecutive month period designated by the member. iii. All bargaining unit “new” members as defined by PEPRA and determined by CalPERS, shall contribute one half (50%) of the total normal cost as established by CalPERS. C. Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit Employees shall be covered by the Pre -Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit as identified in Government Code Section 21548. D. Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits Employees shall be covered by the Fourth Level of the 1959 Survivor Benefit as identified in Government Code Section 21574. 742 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 20 E. The City has adopted the CalPERS Resolution in accordan ce with IRS Code section 414(h)(2) and both the employee contribution and the City pickup of the required member contribution are made on a pre-tax basis. However, ultimately, the tax status of any benefit is determined by the law. ARTICLE XII – LEAVE BENEFITS A. Leave With Pay 1. General Leave a. Accrual Employees accrue leave at the accrual rates outlined below. General Leave may be used for any purpose, including vacation, Sick Leave, and personal leave. Years of Service Full-Time Three-Quarter Time One-Half Time First through Fourth Year 176 Hours 132 Hours 88 Hours Fifth through Ninth Year 200 Hours 150 Hours 100 Hours Tenth through Fourteenth Year 224 Hours 168 Hours 112 Hours Fifteenth Year and Thereafter 256 Hours 192 Hours 128 Hours b. Eligibility and Approval General Leave must be pre -approved except for illness, injury or family sickness, which may require a physician’s statement for approval. General Leave accrued time is to be computed from hire date anniversary. Employees shall not be permitted to take general leave in excess of actual time earned. Employees shall not accrue General Leave in excess of six hundred forty (640) hours. An employee who earns General Leave hours in excess of six hundred forty (640) hours shall be paid the cash value of those additional hours in their paycheck. Employees may not use their General Leave to advance their separation date on retirement or other separation from emp loyment. c. Conversion to Cash Two (2) times during each fiscal year, each employee shall have the option to convert into a cash payment or deferred compensation up to a total of one hundred-twenty (120) hours of accrued General Leave per fiscal year. The value of each hour of conversion is at the employee’s current base hourly rate of pay, as reflected in Exhibit A. The employee shall give payroll two (2) weeks advance notice of their decision to exercise such option. 743 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 21 d. One (1) Week Minimum Vacation Requirement Employees in the following positions, or their reclassified equivalent, in the Finance Department, shall take a minimum of one (1) week (i.e., five (5) consecutive workdays) paid vacation each calendar year: Accounting Technician I; Accounting Technician II; Senior Accounting Technician; Accounting Technician Supervisor; Field Service Representative, Senior Accountant (responsible for bank reconciliation) 2. City Paid Holidays a. Full-time employees shall be compensated for the employee’s regularly scheduled work shift for the following holidays: 1. New Year’s Day 2. Martin Luther King Day (third Monday in January) 3. President’s Day (third Monday in February) 4. Memorial Day (last Monday in May) 5. Independence Day (July 4) 6. Labor Day (first Monday in September) 7. Veteran’s Day (November 11) 8. Thanksgiving Day (fourth Thursday in November) 9. The Friday after Thanksgiving 10. Christmas Day (December 25) Any day declared by the President of the United States to be a national holiday or by the Governor of the State of California to be a state holiday and adopted as an employee holiday by the City Council of Huntington Beach. b. City Observed Holiday - Holidays which fall on Sunday shall be observed the following Monday, and those falling on Saturday sha ll be observed the preceding Friday. c. Holiday Paid Time Off for Part-Time Employees Half-time (1/2) or three quarter-time (3/4) employees shall have the holiday paid as time off with a pro-rated amount of hours, respectively for the holidays listed above in Article XII.2.A. . d. Holiday Pay For Work on a City Observed Holiday In the event an employee is assigned to work on the City observed holiday, in addition to being paid for the holiday at the employee’s regular rate of pay, whether it is or is not the employee’s regularly scheduled workday, the employee shall be paid for working the holiday at the regular rate of pay unless FLSA overtime provisions apply, meaning the employee will be paid over time. e. Holiday Pay for Work on an Actual Holiday (Not the City Observed Date) An employee who works on the actual holiday as listed in Article XII.2.A. 1 -10, in addition to being paid for the holiday at the employee’s regular rate of pay, the employee shall be compensated at the overtime rate. 744 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 22 f. An employee who is assigned or required to work on both the City observed holiday date and on the actual date that the holiday falls, shall only be paid for one City holiday (as applicable per section E. or F. above). g. CalPERS Reporting of Holiday Pay Employees who are required to work on a holiday observed by the City, either on the date observed by the City or on the date that the actual holiday falls as a part of their regular work schedule, shall have their holiday pay reported to CalPERS. Classifications eligible for this CalPERS reporting are: Beach Equipment Operator, Beach Maintenance Crewleader, Beach Maintenance Worker, Crime Scene Investigator, Parking/Camping Crewleader, Parking/Camping Leadworker, Parking Meter Repair Technician, Parking Meter Repair Wor ker, Parking Control Officer, Police Records Supervisor, Police Records Technician, Police Records Specialists assigned to the Records Bureau, Police Service Specialists assigned to the Records Bureau and Police Systems Coordinator. h. If an employee is scheduled to work a holiday and will lose that holiday time due to their General Leave bank having rea ched the maximum cap of six hundred forty (640) hours, at the employee’s request, the employee may cash out the part of their holiday time they will lose. 3. Sick Leave a. Accrual No employee shall accrue Sick Leave. b. Credit Employees hired prior to March 30, 2002 shall be credited with their Sick Leave accrued as of March 29, 2002. c. Usage Employees may use accrued Sick Leave for the same purposes for which it was used prior to March 30, 2002. d. Payoff at Termination Upon termination, all employees shall be paid, at their current salary rate, for twenty-five percent (25%) of unused, earned Sick Leave from four hundred and eighty (480) hours through seven hundred and twenty (720) hours, and for fifty percent (50%) of all unused, earned Sick Leave in excess of sev en hundred and twenty (720) hours. e. Extended Absences Sick Leave shall not be used to extend absences due to work related (industrial) injuries or illnesses. 4. Bereavement Leave Employees shall be entitled to bereavement leave not to exceed three (3) work shifts in each instance of death in the immediate family. Immediate family is defined as father, mother, sister, brother, spouse, registered domestic part ner, children, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather, stepmother, stepgrandfather, step - grandmother, grandchildren, stepsisters, stepbrothers, mother-in-law, father-in-law, 745 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 23 son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepchildren, or wards of which the employee is the legal guardian. 5. Association Business An allowance of eight hundred (80 0) hours per year shall be established for the purpose of allowing duly authorized representatives of the Association to conduct lawful Association activities. The parties agree to meet and confer during the term of the Agreement to establish guidelines fo r use of Association Business time. 6. Jury Duty Employees who are regularly scheduled to work on swing or graveyard shifts , as defined in Article VII.B.2., shall be placed on a day shift if they are required to appear for jury duty or selection for a period of more than one day. 7. Leave Benefits Entitlement The City shall comply with all state and federal leave benefit entitlement laws. A n eligible employee on an approved leave shall be allowed to use earned Sick Leave, General Leave, and/or Compensatory Time for serious and non-serious family or personal health issues. For more information on employee leave options, contact the Human Resources Division. 8. Personal Days Each full-time unit employee will be entitled to utilize a maximum of thirty (30)hours as “personal days.” a. Supervisor approval is required to utilize Personal Days. b. Personal Days have no cash value. c. All Personal Days time (30 hours) must be used by not later than September 30, 2019. The use of Personal Days will not be extended by any sub sequent extension of this agreement beyond September 30, 201 9. d. No portion of unused Personal Days may be carried over beyond September 30, 2019. e. Part-time employees shall be granted thirty (30) hours as Personal Days on a proportional hours computation to full-time equivalent employee status. i. Half-time employees shall be granted a total of fifteen (15) hours. ii. Three-quarter employees shall be granted a total of twenty two and one half (22.5) hours. The entire MOU provision regarding the additional one -time allotment of 30 hours of Personal Days will expire with the expiration of this agreement and will not continue beyond the original expiration date of the agreement (even if the MOU is subsequently extended or amended), nor will it be automatically include d as part of any successor MOU. The language as written herein sunsets . 746 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 24 ARTICLE XIII – CITY RULES Personnel Rules All MOU provisions that supersede the City’s Personnel Rules shall automatically update the City’s Personnel Rules and be incorporated into such rules. ARTICLE XIV –MISCELLANEOUS A. Grievance Arbitration Any grievance as defined and described in Rules 19 and 20 of the City Personnel Rules (Resolution No. 3960), shall be settled in accordance with the procedures set forth in said Rules except that the parties to the grievance may, by mutual agreement, submit the grievance to a neutral arbitrator whose decision shall be final and binding on the partie s. The arbitrator shall be selected by the parties from listings of and pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association. This procedure, if adopted by the parties, shall be in lieu of Step 5 of Rule 19, or Step 4 of Rule 20, and the fees char ged by the arbitrator or hearing officer and court reporter shall be paid equally, fifty -fifty (50-50) by the City and the Association. B. Promotional Procedures 1. Tie Scores When promotions are to be made, and two or more employees are found to be equal as a result of promotional examinations conducted by the City, the employee with the greatest length of service with the City shall receive the promotion. 2. Salary Upon Promotion Upon promotion, an employee shall be compensated at the same step in the salary range for his/her new classification, subject to the following provisions: a. Except for the provisions of sub-paragraphs b and c below, no employee shall receive greater than eleven percent (11%) increase upon promotion. b. If “A” Step of the classification upon promotion is greater than eleven percent (11%) increase, the employee sha ll be compensated at “A” step upon promotion. c. If the employee would be eligible for a step increase within eleven (11) months of the date of promotion in h is/her classification before promotion, then the Human Resources Director may authorize an increase greater than eleven percent (11%) upon promotion. 747 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 25 C. Labor-Management Relations Committee The City and MEA participate in a Labor-Management Relations Committee as follows: 1. The Association and the City recognize that the participation of employees in the formulation and implementation of personnel policy and practices affects their well - being and the efficient administration of the Government. The parties fu rther recognize that the entrance into a formal agreement with each other is but one act of joint participation, and that the success of a labor-management relationship is further assured if a forum is available and used to communicate with each other. The parties therefore agree to the structure of Labor-Management Relations Committees (LMRC) for the purpose of exchanging information and the discussion of matters of concern or interest to each of them, in the broad area of working conditions, wages and hours. 2. The City of Huntington Beach shall have an LMRC. The formation of this LMRC shall not serve as the basis for reopening the meet and confer process to modify this MOU. 3. The LMRC shall meet monthly. The City shall be represented by the City Manager (or designee), the Human Resources Director (or designee), and Department Heads. Four (4) representatives at these meetings shall represent the Association. 4. The City agrees that any meeting conducted under this Article shall be conducted in facilities furnished by the City, and Association representatives shall be released from their duties at work to attend the LMRC. 5. The parties shall exchange agenda items five (5) workdays before each scheduled LMRC meeting described in this section. Matters not on the agenda may be discussed by mutual consent. If either party timely forwards an agenda, the meet ing will be held. D. Copies of MOU The City agrees to print this Memorandum of Understanding for each employee requesting a copy. E. Position Classification Issues 1. Class Specifications The City shall send the Association a copy of each new job description a pproved for classifications within the representation unit. 2. Reclassification Impact It is not the intention of the City to demote or layoff an employee through reclassification. Prior to imposing a Y -rating, or layoff resulting from classification reviews, the City agrees to meet and confer with Association repre sentatives. F. Class A and B Driver License Fees The City shall reimburse employees for costs associated with obtaining and renewing Class A and Class B driver licenses where required by the City for the position. 748 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 26 G. Deferred Compensation Loan Program Employees may utilize this program, under which employees may borrow up to fifty percent (50%) of their deferred compensation funds for critical needs such as medical costs, college tuition, or purchase of a home. H. Performance Evaluations/Written Reprimand Appe als Employees may appeal the results of a performance evaluation or written reprimand. Such appeals shall be initiated through the appropriate chain of command (which may include the LMRC) and any decision made by the Department Head shall be considered final. I. MEA Letter of Introduction A one-page letter of introduction from MEA, and of MEA’s choosing, regarding the benefits and purpose of joining the MEA, will be included in all MEA eligible n ew employee orientation packets. J. Department of Transportation (DOT) Random Alcohol and Controlled Substance Testing During the term of the Agreement, the City and the Association agree to meet and confer to update the policy in accordance with law. K. Update Employee-Employer Relations Resolution (EERR) During the term of the Agreement, the City and the Association agree to meet and confer to update the Employee-Employer Relations Resolution to reflect current state law. L. Required Fingerprinting of Employees The City requires that all employees who are hired, transferred, or promoted to positions that require fingerprinting by federal, state or local law(s) be fingerprinted according to said law(s). The City may also require employees be fingerprinted if t hey are hired, transferred or promoted into positions with oversight responsibilities for senior citizens or oversight responsibilities for confidential, and or sensitive documents or equipment. M. Beach Parking Employees may purchase a City beach parking pass at the Senior discount rate. N. Reasonable Suspicion Alcohol and Controlled Substance Testing The City maintains the right to conduct a test during working hours of any employee that it reasonably suspects is under the influence of alcohol or a controlle d substance in the workplace. The policy to implement such testing shall be established by the City and the Association during the term of the Agreement. ARTICLE XV – DURING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT A. Classification and Compensation Study - During the term of the agreement, the parties agree to commence a city-wide classification and compensation study. The City shall meet and confer regarding parameters and procedures of the study. B. Holiday Closure - City Hall will be closed to the public on Decem ber 24, 2020 and December 31, 2020. During the term of the agreement, the parties agree to meet and discuss holiday closure procedures. 749 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 27 ARTICLE XVI – CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL It is the intent of the City and Association that this Memorandum of Understandi ng represents an “Agreement” between the undersigned within the meaning of Section 8 -2 of the Huntington Beach Employer-Employee Relations Resolution; however, this Memorandum of Understanding is of no force or effect whatsoever unless adopted by Resolutio n of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of Understanding this __-day of ________, 2020. City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Municipal Employees’ Association By: By: Oliver Chi City Manager Terry Tintle HBMT Chief Steward By: By: Travis Hopkins Assistant City Manager Cristian Leiva In-House Counsel Teamsters 911 Sr. Business Rep By: By: Tiffany Bose Human Resources Manager Sarah Whitecotton HBMT Shop Steward By: By: Sandy Henderson Senior Personnel Analyst Brian Weinberg HBMT Shop Steward APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael Gates City Attorney 750 MEA MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 28 MEAHBMT LIST OF MOU EXHIBITS EXHIBITS SUBJECT A Class/Salary Schedule B Uniform Policy B-1 Uniform Listing by Category/Class C Vehicle Use Policy D Provisions of the Retiree Medical Subsidy Plan E 9/80 Work Schedule F 4/10 Work Schedule G Agency Shop Agreement H Catastrophic Leave Donation Program I Teamsters Miscellaneous Security Trust 751 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT A –PAY SCHEDULE MEA MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 29 3.5% EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 24, 2016OCTOBER 1, 2019 HOURLY WAGE PAY RATES Job type Description Pay Grade A B C D E 0111 Accountant MEA111 32.45 34.23 36.11 38.09 40.19 0286 Accounting Technician I MEA286 22.54 23.78 25.09 26.47 27.92 0287 Accounting Technician II MEA287 24.78 26.14 27.58 29.10 30.70 0294 Accounting Technician Supv MEA294 28.64 30.21 31.88 33.62 35.47 0428 Administrative Aide MEA428 31.81 33.56 35.40 37.35 39.40 0278 Administrative Assistant MEA278 28.08 29.62 31.25 32.97 34.78 0289 Administrative Secretary MEA289 23.92 25.24 26.63 28.10 29.64 0297 Art Programs Curator MEA297 28.36 29.91 31.55 33.29 35.12 0698 Assistant Civil Engineer MEA698 32.45 34.23 36.11 38.09 40.19 0108 Assistant Planner MEA108 33.27 35.09 37.02 39.06 41.21 0267 Assistant Social Worker MEA267 23.11 24.38 25.72 27.14 28.63 0358 Beach Equip Operator MEA358 26.33 27.77 29.30 30.90 32.60 0149 Beach Maint Crewleader MEA149 34.10 35.98 37.95 40.04 42.24 0452 Beach Maint Service Worker MEA452 24.17 25.50 26.90 28.38 29.94 0210 Building Inspector I MEA210 30.71 32.39 34.17 36.05 38.04 0211 Building Inspector II MEA211 33.94 35.80 37.77 39.84 42.03 0208 Building Inspector III MEA208 37.49 39.55 41.72 44.02 46.44 0176 Building Plan Checker I MEA176 36.94 38.97 41.11 43.37 45.76 0520 Building Plan Checker II MEA520 42.89 45.25 47.74 50.37 53.14 0366 Business License Supervisor MEA366 33.43 35.26 37.21 39.26 41.42 0112 Buyer MEA112 31.96 33.72 35.58 37.53 39.59 0106 Civil Engineering Assistant MEA106 37.86 39.94 42.14 44.46 46.91 0162 Civilian Check Investigator MEA162 25.40 26.79 28.27 29.82 31.46 0186 Code Enforcement Officer I MEA186 25.53 26.93 28.41 29.98 31.63 0182 Code Enforcement Officer II MEA182 31.50 33.22 35.05 36.98 39.01 0511 Code Enforcement Technician MEA511 21.24 22.41 23.64 24.93 26.31 0263 Community Relations Specialist MEA263 26.83 28.31 29.87 31.51 33.25 752 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT A –PAY SCHEDULE Job type Description Pay Grade A B C D E MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 30 0597 Community Services Officer MEA597 27.51 29.03 30.62 32.31 34.09 0269 Community Srvcs Rec Specialist MEA269 24.17 25.50 26.90 28.38 29.94 0258 Community Srvcs Rec Supv MEA258 33.43 35.26 37.21 39.26 41.42 0172 Construction Inspector I MEA172 30.71 32.39 34.17 36.05 38.04 0463 Construction Inspector II MEA463 33.94 35.80 37.77 39.84 42.03 0312 Court Liaison Specialist MEA312 23.92 25.24 26.63 28.10 29.64 0166 Crime Analyst MEA166 31.81 33.56 35.40 37.35 39.40 0165 Crime Analyst Senior MEA165 37.11 39.15 41.31 43.59 45.98 0255 Crime Scene Investigator MEA255 29.95 31.61 33.34 35.18 37.11 0119 Criminalist MEA119 33.43 35.26 37.21 39.26 41.42 0192 Cross Connection Control Spec MEA192 31.50 33.22 35.05 36.98 39.01 0400 Custodian MEA400 21.76 22.96 24.22 25.55 26.95 0134 Deputy City Clerk MEA134 26.19 27.62 29.14 30.74 32.44 0138 Development Specialist MEA138 33.43 35.26 37.21 39.26 41.42 0339 Electrician MEA339 31.01 32.72 34.52 36.42 38.43 0232 Emergency Medical Srvcs Coord MEA232 47.40 50.00 52.75 55.65 58.72 0198 Emergency Services Coordinator MEA198 40.82 43.07 45.43 47.93 50.56 0175 Engineering Aide MEA175 26.83 28.31 29.87 31.51 33.25 0180 Engineering Technician MEA180 32.93 34.75 36.66 38.68 40.80 0445 Environmental Specialist MEA445 37.86 39.94 42.14 44.46 46.91 0382 Equip Services Crewleader MEA382 35.15 37.08 39.12 41.27 43.53 0142 Equip/Auto Maint Crewleader MEA142 35.15 37.08 39.12 41.27 43.53 0472 Equip/Auto Maint Leadworker MEA472 31.96 33.72 35.58 37.53 39.59 0383 Equipment Support Assistant MEA383 24.90 26.27 27.72 29.24 30.85 0061 Executive Assistant MEA061 32.29 34.06 35.92 37.90 39.98 0143 Facilities Maint Crewleader MEA143 34.97 36.89 38.92 41.06 43.32 0407 Facilities Maint Leadworker MEA407 27.24 28.74 30.32 31.98 33.74 0391 Facilities Maintenance Tech MEA391 25.15 26.53 27.99 29.53 31.15 0398 Field Service Representative MEA398 25.93 27.35 28.85 30.44 32.11 0588 Fire Prevention Inspector MEA588 38.44 40.55 42.79 45.14 47.62 753 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT A –PAY SCHEDULE Job type Description Pay Grade A B C D E MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 31 0260 Fire Safety Program Specialist MEA260 32.45 34.23 36.11 38.09 40.19 0173 Fire Training Maintenance Tech MEA173 29.81 31.45 33.18 35.01 36.93 0470 Forensic Systems Specialist MEA470 35.84 37.81 39.90 42.09 44.40 0576 GIS Analyst I MEA576 36.57 38.58 40.70 42.94 45.30 0178 GIS Analyst II MEA178 39.60 41.78 44.08 46.51 49.07 0190 Haz Mat Program Specialist MEA190 36.20 38.19 40.29 42.51 44.85 0337 Helicopter Maintenance Tech MEA337 29.35 30.97 32.67 34.48 36.38 0115 Info Technology Analyst I MEA115 36.57 38.58 40.70 42.94 45.30 0505 Info Technology Analyst II MEA505 39.60 41.78 44.08 46.51 49.07 0117 Info Technology Analyst III MEA117 42.27 44.59 47.04 49.63 52.36 0118 Info Technology Analyst IV MEA118 46.46 49.02 51.71 54.55 57.55 0495 Info Technology Technician I MEA495 22.78 24.03 25.34 26.74 28.21 0494 Info Technology Technician II MEA494 25.65 27.06 28.55 30.13 31.79 0493 Info Technology Technician III MEA493 28.77 30.35 32.03 33.79 35.64 0492 Info Technology Technician IV MEA492 31.81 33.56 35.40 37.35 39.40 0491 Info Technology Technician Sr. MEA491 34.10 35.98 37.95 40.04 42.24 0155 Irrigation Crewleader MEA155 34.10 35.98 37.95 40.04 42.24 0357 Irrigation Specialist MEA357 25.53 26.93 28.41 29.98 31.63 0359 Landscape Equip Operator MEA359 26.33 27.77 29.30 30.90 32.60 0145 Landscape Maint Crewleader MEA145 34.10 35.98 37.95 40.04 42.24 0402 Landscape Maint Leadworker MEA402 28.50 30.06 31.71 33.46 35.30 0163 Latent Fingerprint Examiner MEA163 32.11 33.88 35.75 37.71 39.79 0300 Legal Assistant MEA300 26.83 28.31 29.87 31.51 33.25 0114 Librarian MEA114 29.07 30.67 32.35 34.13 36.01 0432 Library Facilities Coordinator MEA432 26.19 27.62 29.14 30.74 32.44 0451 Library Services Clerk MEA451 20.30 21.42 22.59 23.83 25.14 0257 Library Specialist MEA257 24.17 25.50 26.90 28.38 29.94 0302 Literacy Program Specialist MEA302 29.07 30.67 32.35 34.13 36.01 0392 Maint Service Worker MEA392 24.17 25.50 26.90 28.38 29.94 0394 Maintenance Worker MEA394 21.24 22.41 23.64 24.93 26.31 754 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT A –PAY SCHEDULE Job type Description Pay Grade A B C D E MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 32 0448 Marine Equipment Mechanic MEA448 31.66 33.40 35.23 37.16 39.20 0384 Mechanic I MEA384 25.02 26.39 27.85 29.38 31.00 0348 Mechanic II MEA348 27.79 29.33 30.94 32.64 34.43 0347 Mechanic III MEA347 29.51 31.13 32.85 34.65 36.56 0380 Media Services Specialist MEA380 24.17 25.50 26.90 28.38 29.94 0306 Office Assistant I MEA306 17.22 18.17 19.17 20.23 21.34 0304 Office Assistant II MEA304 20.71 21.86 23.06 24.32 25.66 0290 Office Specialist MEA290 21.86 23.06 24.33 25.67 27.08 0378 Painter Leadworker MEA378 31.16 32.88 34.69 36.60 38.62 0153 Park Maintenance Crewleader MEA153 34.97 36.89 38.92 41.06 43.32 0177 Parking Meter Repair Tech MEA177 27.79 29.33 30.94 32.64 34.43 0395 Parking Meter Repair Worker MEA395 25.65 27.06 28.55 30.13 31.79 0570 Parking/Camping Assistant MEA570 21.24 22.41 23.64 24.93 26.31 0459 Parking/Camping Crewleader MEA459 34.10 35.98 37.95 40.04 42.24 0401 Parking/Camping Leadworker MEA401 28.50 30.06 31.71 33.46 35.30 0455 Parking/Traffic Control Coord MEA455 26.83 28.31 29.87 31.51 33.25 0262 Parking/Traffic Control Officr MEA262 21.24 22.41 23.64 24.93 26.31 0577 Parking/Traffic Control Supv MEA577 28.64 30.21 31.88 33.62 35.47 0458 Payroll Specialist MEA458 37.29 39.34 41.51 43.80 46.21 0447 Payroll Technician MEA447 25.15 26.53 27.99 29.53 31.15 0295 Permit Technician MEA295 23.11 24.38 25.72 27.14 28.63 0279 Personnel Assistant MEA279 24.43 25.77 27.18 28.67 30.25 0367 Pest Control Specialist MEA367 25.53 26.93 28.41 29.98 31.63 0136 Planning Aide MEA136 26.83 28.31 29.87 31.51 33.25 0342 Plumber MEA342 30.25 31.91 33.67 35.52 37.48 0197 Police Photo/Imaging Specialist MEA197 29.81 31.45 33.18 35.01 36.93 0307 Police Records Specialist MEA307 21.86 23.06 24.33 25.67 27.08 0283 Police Records Supervisor MEA283 25.53 26.93 28.41 29.98 31.63 0282 Police Records Technician MEA282 19.81 20.90 22.04 23.25 24.52 0308 Police Services Specialist MEA308 24.17 25.50 26.90 28.38 29.94 755 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT A –PAY SCHEDULE Job type Description Pay Grade A B C D E MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 33 0215 Police Systems Coordinator MEA215 28.21 29.76 31.40 33.13 34.95 0584 Program Coord - Human Srvcs MEA584 29.81 31.45 33.18 35.01 36.93 0259 Property and Evidence Officer MEA259 26.58 28.03 29.58 31.21 32.92 0261 Property and Evidence Supervisor MEA261 30.71 32.40 34.17 36.06 38.04 0583 Rideshare Coordinator MEA583 33.09 34.92 36.84 38.87 41.01 0256 Risk Management Specialist MEA256 24.17 25.50 26.90 28.38 29.94 0515 SCADA Coordinator MEA515 34.10 35.98 37.95 40.04 42.24 0346 SCADA Technician MEA346 30.25 31.91 33.67 35.52 37.48 0110 Senior Accountant MEA110 37.29 39.34 41.51 43.80 46.21 0288 Senior Accounting Technician MEA288 27.24 28.74 30.32 31.98 33.74 0434 Senior Code Enforcement Officer MEA434 34.80 36.71 38.73 40.86 43.10 0171 Senior Construction Inspector MEA171 37.49 39.55 41.72 44.02 46.44 0135 Senior Deputy City Clerk MEA135 33.43 35.26 37.21 39.26 41.42 0586 Senior Engineering Technician MEA586 38.24 40.35 42.57 44.91 47.39 0343 Senior Facilities Maint Tech MEA343 29.51 31.13 32.85 34.65 36.56 0334 Senior Helicopter Maint Tech MEA334 40.62 42.85 45.21 47.69 50.31 0450 Senior Library Specialist MEA450 26.45 27.90 29.44 31.05 32.76 0363 Senior Marine Equip Mechanic MEA363 35.15 37.08 39.12 41.27 43.53 0446 Senior Payroll Technician MEA446 27.65 29.18 30.78 32.48 34.26 0437 Senior Permit Technician MEA437 29.51 31.13 32.85 34.65 36.56 0265 Senior Services Assistant MEA265 16.14 17.02 17.96 18.95 20.00 0481 Senior Services Transp Coord MEA481 25.80 27.21 28.71 30.29 31.95 0709 Senior Telecommunications Technician MEA709 34.10 35.98 37.95 40.04 42.24 0349 Senior Wastewtr Pump Mechanic MEA349 26.33 27.77 29.30 30.90 32.60 0396 Senior Water Meter Reader MEA396 25.40 26.79 28.27 29.82 31.46 0148 Signs & Markings Crewleader MEA148 34.97 36.89 38.92 41.06 43.32 0338 Signs Leadworker MEA338 29.07 30.67 32.35 34.13 36.01 0354 Signs/Markings Equip Operator MEA354 26.33 27.77 29.30 30.90 32.60 0266 Social Worker MEA266 28.36 29.91 31.55 33.29 35.12 0386 Stock Clerk MEA386 21.24 22.41 23.64 24.93 26.31 756 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT A –PAY SCHEDULE Job type Description Pay Grade A B C D E MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 34 0361 Street Equip Operator MEA361 26.33 27.77 29.30 30.90 32.60 0150 Street Maint Crewleader MEA150 34.10 35.98 37.95 40.04 42.24 0406 Street Maint Leadworker MEA406 29.95 31.61 33.34 35.18 37.11 0183 Survey Party Chief MEA183 38.44 40.55 42.79 45.14 47.62 0174 Survey Technician I MEA174 26.83 28.31 29.87 31.51 33.25 0185 Survey Technician II MEA185 29.07 30.67 32.35 34.13 36.01 0195 Telecommunications Specialist MEA195 38.63 40.76 43.00 45.37 47.86 0181 Traffic Engineering Technician MEA181 34.97 36.89 38.92 41.06 43.32 0389 Traffic Maint Service Worker MEA389 24.17 25.50 26.90 28.38 29.94 0410 Traffic Markings Leadworker MEA410 28.50 30.06 31.71 33.46 35.30 0336 Traffic Signal Electrician MEA336 31.50 33.22 35.05 36.98 39.01 0140 Traffic Signal/Light Crewleadr MEA140 34.97 36.89 38.92 41.06 43.32 0365 Tree Equipment Operator MEA365 26.33 27.77 29.30 30.90 32.60 0144 Trees Maintenance Crewleader MEA144 34.10 35.98 37.95 40.04 42.24 0460 Trees Maintenance Leadworker MEA460 28.50 30.06 31.71 33.46 35.30 0268 Volunteer Services Coordinator MEA268 25.80 27.21 28.71 30.29 31.95 0385 Warehousekeeper MEA385 26.83 28.31 29.87 31.51 33.25 0362 Wastewater Equip Operator MEA362 26.33 27.77 29.30 30.90 32.60 0454 Wastewater Maint Service Workr MEA454 24.17 25.50 26.90 28.38 29.94 0146 Wastewater Ops Crewleader MEA146 34.10 35.98 37.95 40.04 42.24 0404 Wastewater Ops Leadworker MEA404 28.50 30.06 31.71 33.46 35.30 0387 Wastewater Pump Mechanic MEA387 25.65 27.06 28.55 30.13 31.79 0582 Water Conservation Coordinator MEA582 33.09 34.92 36.84 38.87 41.01 0151 Water Dist Maint Crewleader MEA151 34.10 35.98 37.95 40.04 42.24 0379 Water Dist Maint Leadworker MEA379 30.86 32.56 34.35 36.24 38.23 0147 Water Dist Meters Crewleader MEA147 34.10 35.98 37.95 40.04 42.24 0377 Water Dist Meters Leadworker MEA377 28.50 30.06 31.71 33.46 35.30 0364 Water Equip Operator MEA364 28.50 30.06 31.71 33.46 35.30 0397 Water Meter Reader MEA397 23.46 24.74 26.10 27.54 29.05 0356 Water Meter Repair Technician MEA356 26.19 27.62 29.14 30.74 32.44 757 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT A –PAY SCHEDULE Job type Description Pay Grade A B C D E MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 35 0152 Water Operations Crewleader MEA152 34.10 35.98 37.95 40.04 42.24 0371 Water Operations Leadworker MEA371 31.81 33.56 35.40 37.35 39.40 0156 Water Quality Coordinator MEA156 34.10 35.98 37.95 40.04 42.24 0191 Water Quality Technician MEA191 29.95 31.61 33.34 35.18 37.11 0461 Water Service Worker MEA461 24.90 26.27 27.72 29.24 30.85 0368 Water Systems Technician I MEA368 24.90 26.27 27.72 29.24 30.85 0369 Water Systems Technician II MEA369 26.58 28.03 29.58 31.21 32.92 0370 Water Systems Technician III MEA370 29.35 30.97 32.67 34.48 36.38 0449 Water Utility Locator MEA449 29.95 31.61 33.34 35.18 37.11 Job type Description PayGrade A B C D E 0111 Accountant MEA111 33.59 35.43 37.37 39.42 41.60 0286 Accounting Technician I MEA286 23.33 24.61 25.97 27.40 28.90 0287 Accounting Technician II MEA287 25.65 27.05 28.55 30.12 31.77 0294 Accounting Technician Supv MEA294 29.64 31.27 33.00 34.80 36.71 0428 Administrative Aide MEA428 32.92 34.73 36.64 38.66 40.78 0278 Administrative Assistant MEA278 29.06 30.66 32.34 34.12 36.00 0289 Administrative Secretary MEA289 24.76 26.12 27.56 29.08 30.68 0297 Art Programs Curator MEA297 29.35 30.96 32.65 34.46 36.35 0698 Assistant Civil Engineer MEA698 33.59 35.43 37.37 39.42 41.60 0108 Assistant Planner MEA108 34.43 36.32 38.32 40.43 42.65 0267 Assistant Social Worker MEA267 23.92 25.23 26.62 28.09 29.63 0358 Beach Equip Operator MEA358 27.25 28.74 30.33 31.98 33.74 0149 Beach Maint Crewleader MEA149 35.29 37.24 39.28 41.44 43.72 0452 Beach Maint Service Worker MEA452 25.02 26.39 27.84 29.37 30.99 0210 Building Inspector I MEA210 31.78 33.52 35.37 37.31 39.37 0211 Building Inspector II MEA211 35.13 37.05 39.09 41.23 43.50 0208 Building Inspector III MEA208 38.80 40.93 43.18 45.56 48.07 0176 Building Plan Checker I MEA176 38.23 40.33 42.55 44.89 47.36 758 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT A –PAY SCHEDULE Job type Description Pay Grade A B C D E MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 36 0520 Building Plan Checker II MEA520 44.39 46.83 49.41 52.13 55.00 0366 Business License Supervisor MEA366 34.60 36.49 38.51 40.63 42.87 0112 Buyer MEA112 33.08 34.90 36.83 38.84 40.98 0106 Civil Engineering Assistant MEA106 39.19 41.34 43.61 46.02 48.55 0162 Civilian Check Investigator MEA162 26.29 27.73 29.26 30.86 32.56 0186 Code Enforcement Officer I MEA186 26.42 27.87 29.40 31.03 32.74 0182 Code Enforcement Officer II MEA182 32.60 34.38 36.28 38.27 40.38 0511 Code Enforcement Technician MEA511 21.98 23.19 24.47 25.80 27.23 0263 Community Relations Specialist MEA263 27.77 29.30 30.92 32.61 34.41 0597 Community Services Officer MEA597 28.47 30.05 31.69 33.44 35.28 0269 Community Srvcs Rec Specialist MEA269 25.02 26.39 27.84 29.37 30.99 0258 Community Srvcs Rec Supv MEA258 34.60 36.49 38.51 40.63 42.87 0172 Construction Inspector I MEA172 31.78 33.52 35.37 37.31 39.37 0463 Construction Inspector II MEA463 35.13 37.05 39.09 41.23 43.50 0312 Court Liaison Specialist MEA312 24.76 26.12 27.56 29.08 30.68 0166 Crime Analyst MEA166 32.92 34.73 36.64 38.66 40.78 0165 Crime Analyst Senior MEA165 38.41 40.52 42.76 45.12 47.59 0255 Crime Scene Investigator MEA255 31.00 32.72 34.51 36.41 38.41 0119 Criminalist MEA119 34.60 36.49 38.51 40.63 42.87 0192 Cross Connection Control Spec MEA192 32.60 34.38 36.28 38.27 40.38 0400 Custodian MEA400 22.52 23.76 25.07 26.44 27.89 0134 Deputy City Clerk MEA134 27.11 28.59 30.16 31.82 33.58 0138 Development Specialist MEA138 34.60 36.49 38.51 40.63 42.87 0339 Electrician MEA339 32.10 33.87 35.73 37.69 39.78 0232 Emergency Medical Srvcs Coord MEA232 49.06 51.75 54.60 57.60 60.78 0198 Emergency Services Coordinator MEA198 42.25 44.58 47.02 49.61 52.33 0175 Engineering Aide MEA175 27.77 29.30 30.92 32.61 34.41 0180 Engineering Technician MEA180 34.08 35.97 37.94 40.03 42.23 0445 Environmental Specialist MEA445 39.19 41.34 43.61 46.02 48.55 0382 Equip Services Crewleader MEA382 36.38 38.38 40.49 42.71 45.05 759 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT A –PAY SCHEDULE Job type Description Pay Grade A B C D E MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 37 0142 Equip/Auto Maint Crewleader MEA142 36.38 38.38 40.49 42.71 45.05 0472 Equip/Auto Maint Leadworker MEA472 33.08 34.90 36.83 38.84 40.98 0383 Equipment Support Assistant MEA383 25.77 27.19 28.69 30.26 31.93 0061 Executive Assistant MEA061 33.42 35.25 37.18 39.23 41.38 0143 Facilities Maint Crewleader MEA143 36.19 38.18 40.28 42.50 44.84 0407 Facilities Maint Leadworker MEA407 28.19 29.75 31.38 33.10 34.92 0391 Facilities Maintenance Tech MEA391 26.03 27.46 28.97 30.56 32.24 0398 Field Service Representative MEA398 26.84 28.31 29.86 31.51 33.23 0588 Fire Prevention Inspector MEA588 39.79 41.97 44.29 46.72 49.29 0260 Fire Safety Program Specialist MEA260 33.59 35.43 37.37 39.42 41.60 0173 Fire Training Maintenance Tech MEA173 30.85 32.55 34.34 36.24 38.22 0470 Forensic Systems Specialist MEA470 37.09 39.13 41.30 43.56 45.95 0576 GIS Analyst I MEA576 37.85 39.93 42.12 44.44 46.89 0178 GIS Analyst II MEA178 40.99 43.24 45.62 48.14 50.79 0190 Haz Mat Program Specialist MEA190 37.47 39.53 41.70 44.00 46.42 0337 Helicopter Maintenance Tech MEA337 30.38 32.05 33.81 35.69 37.65 0115 Info Technology Analyst I MEA115 37.85 39.93 42.12 44.44 46.89 0505 Info Technology Analyst II MEA505 40.99 43.24 45.62 48.14 50.79 0117 Info Technology Analyst III MEA117 43.75 46.15 48.69 51.37 54.19 0118 Info Technology Analyst IV MEA118 48.09 50.74 53.52 56.46 59.56 0495 Info Technology Technician I MEA495 23.58 24.87 26.23 27.68 29.20 0494 Info Technology Technician II MEA494 26.55 28.01 29.55 31.18 32.90 0493 InfoTechnology Technician III MEA493 29.78 31.41 33.15 34.97 36.89 0492 Info Technology Technician IV MEA492 32.92 34.73 36.64 38.66 40.78 0491 Info Technology Technician Sr. MEA491 35.29 37.24 39.28 41.44 43.72 0155 Irrigation Crewleader MEA155 35.29 37.24 39.28 41.44 43.72 0357 Irrigation Specialist MEA357 26.42 27.87 29.40 31.03 32.74 0359 Landscape Equip Operator MEA359 27.25 28.74 30.33 31.98 33.74 0145 Landscape Maint Crewleader MEA145 35.29 37.24 39.28 41.44 43.72 0402 Landscape Maint Leadworker MEA402 29.50 31.11 32.82 34.63 36.54 760 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT A –PAY SCHEDULE Job type Description Pay Grade A B C D E MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 38 0163 Latent Fingerprint Examiner MEA163 33.23 35.07 37.00 39.03 41.18 0300 Legal Assistant MEA300 27.77 29.30 30.92 32.61 34.41 0114 Librarian MEA114 30.09 31.74 33.48 35.32 37.27 0432 Library Facilities Coordinator MEA432 27.11 28.59 30.16 31.82 33.58 0451 Library Services Clerk MEA451 21.01 22.17 23.38 24.66 26.02 0257 Library Specialist MEA257 25.02 26.39 27.84 29.37 30.99 0302 Literacy Program Specialist MEA302 30.09 31.74 33.48 35.32 37.27 0392 Maint Service Worker MEA392 25.02 26.39 27.84 29.37 30.99 0394 Maintenance Worker MEA394 21.98 23.19 24.47 25.80 27.23 0448 Marine Equipment Mechanic MEA448 32.77 34.57 36.46 38.46 40.57 0384 Mechanic I MEA384 25.90 27.31 28.82 30.41 32.09 0348 Mechanic II MEA348 28.76 30.36 32.02 33.78 35.64 0347 Mechanic III MEA347 30.54 32.22 34.00 35.86 37.84 0380 Media Services Specialist MEA380 25.02 26.39 27.84 29.37 30.99 0306 Office Assistant I MEA306 17.82 18.81 19.84 20.94 22.09 0304 Office Assistant II MEA304 21.43 22.63 23.87 25.17 26.56 0290 Office Specialist MEA290 22.63 23.87 25.18 26.57 28.03 0378 Painter Leadworker MEA378 32.25 34.03 35.90 37.88 39.97 0153 Park Maintenance Crewleader MEA153 36.19 38.18 40.28 42.50 44.84 0177 Parking Meter Repair Tech MEA177 28.76 30.36 32.02 33.78 35.64 0395 Parking Meter Repair Worker MEA395 26.55 28.01 29.55 31.18 32.90 0570 Parking/Camping Assistant MEA570 21.98 23.19 24.47 25.80 27.23 0459 Parking/Camping Crewleader MEA459 35.29 37.24 39.28 41.44 43.72 0401 Parking/Camping Leadworker MEA401 29.50 31.11 32.82 34.63 36.54 0455 Parking/Traffic Control Coord MEA455 27.77 29.30 30.92 32.61 34.41 0262 Parking/Traffic Control Officr MEA262 21.98 23.19 24.47 25.80 27.23 0577 Parking/Traffic Control Supv MEA577 29.64 31.27 33.00 34.80 36.71 0458 Payroll Specialist MEA458 38.60 40.72 42.96 45.33 47.83 0447 Payroll Technician MEA447 26.03 27.46 28.97 30.56 32.24 0295 Permit Technician MEA295 23.92 25.23 26.62 28.09 29.63 761 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT A –PAY SCHEDULE Job type Description Pay Grade A B C D E MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 39 0279 Personnel Assistant MEA279 25.29 26.67 28.13 29.67 31.31 0367 Pest Control Specialist MEA367 26.42 27.87 29.40 31.03 32.74 0136 Planning Aide MEA136 27.77 29.30 30.92 32.61 34.41 0342 Plumber MEA342 31.31 33.03 34.85 36.76 38.79 0197 Police Photo/Imaging Specialist MEA197 30.85 32.55 34.34 36.24 38.22 0307 Police Records Specialist MEA307 22.63 23.87 25.18 26.57 28.03 0283 Police Records Supervisor MEA283 26.42 27.87 29.40 31.03 32.74 0282 Police Records Technician MEA282 20.50 21.63 22.81 24.06 25.38 0308 Police Services Specialist MEA308 25.02 26.39 27.84 29.37 30.99 0215 Police Systems Coordinator MEA215 29.20 30.80 32.50 34.29 36.17 0584 Program Coord - Human Srvcs MEA584 30.85 32.55 34.34 36.24 38.22 0259 Property and Evidence Officer MEA259 27.51 29.01 30.62 32.30 34.07 0261 Property and Evidence Supervisor MEA261 31.78 33.53 35.37 37.32 39.37 0583 Rideshare Coordinator MEA583 34.25 36.14 38.13 40.23 42.45 0256 Risk Management Specialist MEA256 25.02 26.39 27.84 29.37 30.99 0515 SCADA Coordinator MEA515 35.29 37.24 39.28 41.44 43.72 0346 SCADA Technician MEA346 31.31 33.03 34.85 36.76 38.79 0110 Senior Accountant MEA110 38.60 40.72 42.96 45.33 47.83 0288 Senior Accounting Technician MEA288 28.19 29.75 31.38 33.10 34.92 0434 Senior Code Enforcement Officer MEA434 36.02 37.99 40.09 42.29 44.61 0171 Senior Construction Inspector MEA171 38.80 40.93 43.18 45.56 48.07 0135 Senior Deputy City Clerk MEA135 34.60 36.49 38.51 40.63 42.87 0586 Senior Engineering Technician MEA586 39.58 41.76 44.06 46.48 49.05 0343 Senior Facilities Maint Tech MEA343 30.54 32.22 34.00 35.86 37.84 0334 Senior Helicopter Maint Tech MEA334 42.04 44.35 46.79 49.36 52.07 0301 *Senior Legal Assistant MEA301 35.86 37.84 39.92 42.11 44.43 0450 Senior Library Specialist MEA450 27.38 28.88 30.47 32.14 33.91 0363 Senior Marine Equip Mechanic MEA363 36.38 38.38 40.49 42.71 45.05 0446 Senior Payroll Technician MEA446 28.62 30.20 31.86 33.62 35.46 0437 Senior Permit Technician MEA437 30.54 32.22 34.00 35.86 37.84 762 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT A –PAY SCHEDULE Job type Description Pay Grade A B C D E MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 40 0265 Senior Services Assistant MEA265 16.70 17.62 18.59 19.61 20.70 0481 Senior Services Transp Coord MEA481 26.70 28.16 29.71 31.35 33.07 0709 Senior Telecommunications Technician MEA709 35.29 37.24 39.28 41.44 43.72 0349 Senior Wastewtr Pump Mechanic MEA349 27.25 28.74 30.33 31.98 33.74 0396 Senior Water Meter Reader MEA396 26.29 27.73 29.26 30.86 32.56 0148 Signs & Markings Crewleader MEA148 36.19 38.18 40.28 42.50 44.84 0338 Signs Leadworker MEA338 30.09 31.74 33.48 35.32 37.27 0354 Signs/Markings Equip Operator MEA354 27.25 28.74 30.33 31.98 33.74 0266 Social Worker MEA266 29.35 30.96 32.65 34.46 36.35 0386 Stock Clerk MEA386 21.98 23.19 24.47 25.80 27.23 0361 Street Equip Operator MEA361 27.25 28.74 30.33 31.98 33.74 0150 Street Maint Crewleader MEA150 35.29 37.24 39.28 41.44 43.72 0406 Street Maint Leadworker MEA406 31.00 32.72 34.51 36.41 38.41 0183 Survey Party Chief MEA183 39.79 41.97 44.29 46.72 49.29 0174 Survey Technician I MEA174 27.77 29.30 30.92 32.61 34.41 0185 Survey Technician II MEA185 30.09 31.74 33.48 35.32 37.27 0195 Telecommunications Specialist MEA195 39.98 42.19 44.51 46.96 49.54 0181 Traffic Engineering Technician MEA181 36.19 38.18 40.28 42.50 44.84 0389 Traffic Maint Service Worker MEA389 25.02 26.39 27.84 29.37 30.99 0410 Traffic Markings Leadworker MEA410 29.50 31.11 32.82 34.63 36.54 0336 Traffic Signal Electrician MEA336 32.60 34.38 36.28 38.27 40.38 0140 Traffic Signal/Light Crewleadr MEA140 36.19 38.18 40.28 42.50 44.84 0365 Tree Equipment Operator MEA365 27.25 28.74 30.33 31.98 33.74 0144 Trees Maintenance Crewleader MEA144 35.29 37.24 39.28 41.44 43.72 0460 Trees Maintenance Leadworker MEA460 29.50 31.11 32.82 34.63 36.54 0268 Volunteer Services Coordinator MEA268 26.70 28.16 29.71 31.35 33.07 0385 Warehousekeeper MEA385 27.77 29.30 30.92 32.61 34.41 0362 Wastewater Equip Operator MEA362 27.25 28.74 30.33 31.98 33.74 0454 Wastewater Maint Service Workr MEA454 25.02 26.39 27.84 29.37 30.99 0146 Wastewater Ops Crewleader MEA146 35.29 37.24 39.28 41.44 43.72 763 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT A –PAY SCHEDULE Job type Description Pay Grade A B C D E MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 41 0404 Wastewater Ops Leadworker MEA404 29.50 31.11 32.82 34.63 36.54 0387 Wastewater Pump Mechanic MEA387 26.55 28.01 29.55 31.18 32.90 0582 Water Conservation Coordinator MEA582 34.25 36.14 38.13 40.23 42.45 0151 Water Dist Maint Crewleader MEA151 35.29 37.24 39.28 41.44 43.72 0379 Water Dist Maint Leadworker MEA379 31.94 33.70 35.55 37.51 39.57 0147 Water Dist Meters Crewleader MEA147 35.29 37.24 39.28 41.44 43.72 0377 Water Dist Meters Leadworker MEA377 29.50 31.11 32.82 34.63 36.54 0364 Water Equip Operator MEA364 29.50 31.11 32.82 34.63 36.54 0397 Water Meter Reader MEA397 24.28 25.61 27.01 28.50 30.07 0356 Water Meter Repair Technician MEA356 27.11 28.59 30.16 31.82 33.58 0152 Water Operations Crewleader MEA152 35.29 37.24 39.28 41.44 43.72 0371 Water Operations Leadworker MEA371 32.92 34.73 36.64 38.66 40.78 0156 Water Quality Coordinator MEA156 35.29 37.24 39.28 41.44 43.72 0191 Water Quality Technician MEA191 31.00 32.72 34.51 36.41 38.41 0461 Water Service Worker MEA461 25.77 27.19 28.69 30.26 31.93 0368 Water Systems Technician I MEA368 25.77 27.19 28.69 30.26 31.93 0369 Water Systems Technician II MEA369 27.51 29.01 30.62 32.30 34.07 0370 Water Systems Technician III MEA370 30.38 32.05 33.81 35.69 37.65 0449 Water Utility Locator MEA449 31.00 32.72 34.51 36.41 38.41 764 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION TEAMSTERS EXHIBIT B – UNIFORM POLICY MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 42 UNIFORM POLICY A. General The City shall furnish uniforms on an annual basis to those employees designated by the various Department Heads as required to wear a standard uniform for appearance, uniformity and public recognition purposes, in the procedures and guidelines set forth hereinafter. B. Affected Employees All employees listed in Exhibit B -1 shall wear a standard City adopted uniform. Each Department Head shall determine which employees must wear a uniform. The Uniform Listing by Category/Class shall be indicated in the document attached hereto and by t his reference incorporated herein as Exhibit B-1. C. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) All personal protective equipment as related to employee job duties and responsibilities shall be provided based upon Supervisor designated need. Examples of personal protective equipment include, but may not be limited to the following: hardhats, foul weather gear, steel-toed rubber boots, steel-toed caps, wood heat resistant soles, special hazard gloves, safety glasses, face shields, ear protectors and arm and shin gu ards. R-1 safety vests shall be furnished to all employees having occasion to work within travel ways. D. Safety Shoes 1. Safety toe shoes or boots as each assignment dictates. a. Two pair per year. b. Damaged shoes shall be turned into operating Supervisor who shall authorize replacement or repair. 2. The maximum amount to be reimbursed for a pair of safety shoes will not exceed two hundred and twenty-five dollars ($225.00) per pair every six m onths or sooner, if necessary. 3. Shoes or boots shall be purchased through designated standard outlets. E. Employee Responsibilities 1. Wear a clean and complete uniform as required. 2. Uniform appearance shall include: a. Patch to be worn above left shirt or jacket pocket. b. Pants to have no cuffs. c. Worn with pride in appearance to public (i.e., shirt buttoned, shirttail tucked in, etc). 3. Wash and provide minimum repair (i.e., buttons, small tears, etc). 765 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION TEAMSTERS EXHIBIT B – UNIFORM POLICY MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 43 4. Provide any alterations necessary including sewing on of Cit y patches. 5.4. Wear the uniform only when on duty or performing work. 6.5. Notify the Supervisor of the need to replace due to disrepair or severe staining producing an undesirable appearance. 7.6. Turn in all uniform components, including patches upon termination. 8.7. Turn in all personal protective equipment upon termination. 9.8. Wear all personal protective equipment prescribed by the City Safety Officer and Supervisor of the division. F. City Responsibilities 1. Furnish funding for the agreed uniform allowances on an annual basis, including funding for any initial alterations necessary. 2. Report to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) the cost of uniforms provided as set forth in Uniform Listing by Category/Class, Exhibit B -1, for each class as special compensation in accordance with Title 2, California Code of Regulations, Section 571(a)(5). For employees that are not required to wear uniforms on a daily basis or who are not actively employed for an entire payroll calendar year, a prorated cost of uniforms may apply. 3. Provide and maintain one or more retail clothing outlets for the various allotments. City reserves the right to name vendor. 4. Maintain records of purchases. G. Department Head or Designee Responsibilities 1. Ensure employee compliance with the Uniform Policy. 2. Approve replacement of deteriorated uniform component(s) and personal protective equipment as required and to maintain a listing for each eligible employee, by name and class, of all uniform component(s) and personal protecti ve equipment purchased. 3. Confirm receipt of uniforms, patches and personal protective equipment from an employee upon termination. A Termination Checklist Form is to be completed, signed by the employee, and submitted to the Human Resources Office. 4. Report to the Human Resources Director any changes to the Uniform Listing by Category/Class (Exhibit B-1). The City reserves the right to add, delete, change or modify the Uniform Listing as required. 766 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION TEAMSTERS EXHIBIT B – UNIFORM POLICY MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 44 Exhibit B-1 Category of Uniform Category of Uniform Group 1: 5 Shirts, T-Shirts and Pants, Patches, 1 Jacket (PW/CS Field Issue), Group 2: 1 Blue Suit, 2 Pants/ Polo Shirts, 1 Sweater, 1 Pair Shoes (Fire) Group 3: 2 Blue Shirts, 3 Pants/Skirts, 1 (choice) Jacket/Sweater/Sweatshirt (PD) Group 4: 2 Polo Shirts, 2 Pants or 2 Shorts, 1 Hat (CS) Group 5: 5 Polo Shirts, 1 Jacket, 1 Windbreaker (not annually), 1 Hat (Inspection), Shoes PPE/Safety for Inspectors only (not CalPERS reportable) Group 6: 2 T-Shirts (CS) Group 8: 4 Battle Dress Uniform, 4 Polo Shirts, 1 Jacket, 1 Rain suit (PD) Group 9: 4 Blue Pants, 2 Shorts, 4 Polos or Blue Shirts,1 Jacket, 1 Rain suit (PD) Group 10: 5 Shirts, 5 Pants, Shoes PPE/Safety not PERS reportable Group 11: 3 Shirts, 3 Pants, Boots PPE/Safety not PERS reportable Group 12: 5 Polo Shirts, 3 Pants, 1 Sweatshirt or Windbreaker (IS) Uniform Listing by Category/Class* Department Job Type Class Category of Uniform Notes Comm Svcs 0358 Beach Equip Operator 1 Comm Svcs 0149 Beach Maint Crewleader 1 Comm Svcs 0452 Beach Maint Service Worker 1 Comm Svcs 0258 Community Services Recreation Supervisor 6 Daily wear not required. Used for special events and/or sports leagues. Frequency of use varies - seasonal from weekly to monthly Comm Svcs 0269 Community Services/Recreation Specialist 6 Daily wear not required. Special events and/or sports leagues use only. Frequency varies from weekly to monthly according to season. Comm Svcs 0448 Marine Equipment Mechanic 1 Comm Svcs 0177 Parking Meter Repair Tech 1 Comm Svcs 0395 Parking Meter Repair Worker 1 Comm Srvc 0570 Parking/Camping Assistant 4 Comm Svcs 0459 Parking/Camping Crewleader 4 Comm Svcs 0401 Parking/Camping Leadworker 4 Comm Svcs 0363 Senior Marine Equip Mechanic 1 767 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION TEAMSTERS EXHIBIT B – UNIFORM POLICY MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 45 Department Job Type Class Category of Uniform Notes Comm Svcs 0265 Senior Services Assistant 6 Bus Driver only Finance Public Works 0398 Field Services Representative 1 Fire 0232 Emergency Medical Svcs Coord 2 Fire 0198 Emergency Services Coordinator 2 Daily wear not required Fire 0260 Fire Safety Program Specialist 2 Fire 0173 Fire Training Maintenance Tech 11 Fire 0190 Haz Mat Program Specialist 10 Information Services 0492 Info Technology Technician IV 12 Daily wear not required Community Development 0210 Building Inspector I 5 Community Development 0211 Building Inspector II 5 Community Development 0208 Building Inspector III 5 Community Development 0186 Code Enforcement Officer I 5 Community Development 0182 Code Enforcement Officer II 5 Community Development 0511 Code Enforcement Tech 5 Community Development 0434 Senior Code Enforcement Officer 5 Police 0263 Community Relations Specialist 3 Daily wear not required Police 0471 Community Services Officer 9 Police 0255 Crime Scene Investigator 8 Police 0337 Helicopter Maintenance Tech 1 Police 0455 Parking/Traffic Control Coordinator 9 Police 0262 Parking/Traffic Control Officer 9 Police 0577 Parking/Traffic Control Supv 9 Police 0307 Police Records Specialist 3 In Records Division only Police 0283 Police Records Supervisor 3 Police 0282 Police Records Technician 3 Police 0308 Police Services Specialist 3 In Records Division only Police 0215 Police Systems Coordinator 3 Police 0259 Property and Evidence Officer 9 Police 0261 Property and Evidence Supervisor 9 Police 0334 Senior Helicopter Maint Tech 1 Public Works 0172 Construction Inspector I 5 Public Works 0463 Construction Inspector II 5 Public Works 0192 Cross Connection Control Spec 5 Public Works 0339 Electrician 1 Public Works 0445 Environmental Specialist 5 Public Works 0382 Equip Services Crewleader 1 Public Works 0142 Equip/Auto Maint Crewleader 1 Public Works 0472 Equip/Auto Maint Leadworker 1 Public Works 0383 Equipment Support Assistant 1 Public Works 0407 Facilities Maint Leadworker 1 768 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION TEAMSTERS EXHIBIT B – UNIFORM POLICY MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 46 Department Job Type Class Category of Uniform Notes Public Works 0391 Facilities Maintenance Tech 1 Public Works 0155 Irrigation Crewleader 1 Public Works 0359 Landscape Equip Operator 1 Public Works 0145 Landscape Maint Crewleader 1 Public Works 0402 Landscape Maint Leadworker 1 Public Works 0392 Maintenance Service Worker 1 Public Works 0394 Maintenance Worker 1 Public Works 0384 Mechanic I 1 Public Works 0348 Mechanic II 1 Public Works 0347 Mechanic III 1 Public Works 0378 Painter Leadworker 1 Public Works 0153 Park Maintenance Crewleader 1 Public Works 0367 Pest Control Specialist 1 Public Works 0342 Plumber 1 Public Works 0515 SCADA Coordinator 5 Public Works 0346 SCADA Technician 1 Public Works 0171 Senior Construction Inspector 5 Public Works 0343 Senior Facilities Maint Tech 1 Public Works 0350 Senior Vehicle Body Technician 1 Public Works 0349 Senior Wastewater Pump Mechanic 1 Public Works 0396 Senior Water Meter Reader 1 Public Works 0338 Signs Leadworker 1 Public Works 0148 Signs/Markings Crewleader 1 Public Works 0354 Signs/Markings Equip Operator 1 Public Works 0361 Street Equip Operator 1 Public Works 0150 Street Maint Crewleader 1 Public Works 0406 Street Maint Leadworker 1 Public Works 0183 Survey Party Chief 5 Public Works 0174 Survey Technician 5 Public Works 0185 Survey Technician II 5 Public Works 0389 Traffic Maint Service Worker 1 Public Works 0410 Traffic Markings Leadworker 1 Public Works 0336 Traffic Signals Electrician 1 Public Works 0140 Traffic Signal/Light Crewleader 1 Public Works 0365 Tree Equipment Operator 1 Public Works 0460 Trees Maint Leadworker 1 Public Works 0144 Trees Maintenance Crewleader 1 Public Works 0385 Warehousekeeper 1 Public Works 0362 Wastewater Equipment Operator 1 Public Works 0454 Wastewater Maint Service Worker 1 Public Works 0146 Wastewater Ops Crewleader 5 Public Works 0404 Wastewater Ops Leadworker 1 Public Works 0387 Wastewater Pump Mechanic 1 Public Works 0151 Water Dist Maint Crewleader 1 Public Works 0379 Water Dist Maint Leadworker 1 Public Works 0147 Water Dist Meters Crewleader 5 Public Works 0377 Water Dist Meters Leadworker 1 769 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION TEAMSTERS EXHIBIT B – UNIFORM POLICY MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 47 Department Job Type Class Category of Uniform Notes Public Works 0364 Water Equipment Operator 1 Public Works 0397 Water Meter Reader 1 Public Works 0356 Water Meter Repair Technician 1 Public Works 0152 Water Operations Crewleader 1 Public Works 0371 Water Operations Leadworker 1 Public Works 0461 Water Service Worker 1 Public Works 0368 Water Systems Technician I 1 Public Works 0369 Water Systems Technician II 1 Public Works 0370 Water Systems Technician III 1 Public Works 0449 Water Utility Locator 1 *Note: unless otherwise indicated, uniforms are required for daily wear. 770 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT C – VEHICLE USE POLICY MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 48 VEHICLE USE POLICY Section 1 - Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to establish and implement City policies and procedures relative to the assignment, utilization and control of City-owned vehicles as transportation for employees who engage in official City business, to establis h reimbursement procedures for privately-owned vehicles used for City business, and to clarify the City's responsibility for damage and/or liability for pr ivate vehicles used on official City business. Section 2 - Scope These regulations cover the use of City and private vehicles for conducting official City business and shall be applicable to all City departments and employees. Section 3 - Policy When necessary during the course of an employee's official duties, transportation or reimbursement therefore shall be provided by the City. In the event no City vehicle is available, the employee may use the personal vehicle with their approval of the Department Head. Employees authorized to drive either their own or a City-owned vehicle on official business mu st possess a valid California Driver License for the class of vehicle they will be operating. The transportation method authorized will be determined in terms of the best interests of the City. The general program set forth in this regulation will be imple mented by the City Manager Office upon approval of the City Council and administered by the Department Heads in accordance with the policies herein establi shed. It is the responsibility of each Department Head to enforce the provisions of this regulation as it relates to employees of his/her department. City-owned vehicles shall only be used for official City business. City -owned vehicles shall not be driven to and kept at the employee's home or any location other than the regular work location or Corporat ion Yard, except as provided by this regulation. Section 4 – Vehicle Use Criteria I. Assigned Vehicles: A. Assigned City vehicles may be taken home by employees whose residence is within ten (10) miles of City Hall for the uses as described below: 1. Executive use includes the City Manager, Assistant City Manager and Department Heads. 2. Emergency Response Units: a. Employees who are required to respond more than once per week on an average without delay in order to protect the public health, safety and property. b. Employees who are required to carry special emergency equipment in their vehicles, which must be utilized on a regular and frequent basis. (A radio in and of itself does not constitute special emergency equipment.) 3. Continuous use outside of regular working hours -- Employees who are called back on an unscheduled basis to perform official city business outside of regular working hours more than once per week on an average and who meet one of the following criteria: a. Mileage driven on official City business exceeds an average of five hundred (500) miles per month, or 771 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT C – VEHICLE USE POLICY MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 49 b. Who regularly and frequently supervises subordinates or conducts inspections in the field, or c. Whose duties require the employee to be away from his/her base workstation gre ater than fifty percent (50%) of his/her working time, on an average. B. City vehicles, which shall not be taken home, may be assigned based on meeting one of the following criteria: 1. Monthly mileage driven exceeds an average of five hundred (500) miles per month and the vehicle is used for the purpose of supervision or inspection in the field, or 2. Duties require the employee to be away from his/her workstation, greater th an fifty percent (50%) of his/her working time, on an average. II. Reimbursement of Use of Personal Vehicle: A. Executive Use – The City Manager, Assistant City Manager and Department Heads may, at their option, receive the automobile allowance as establi shed by Resolution. B. Mileage Reimbursement -- Employees, upon authorization of their Department Head, may use their own vehicles on official City business and shall be r eimbursed at current Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations while driving on offici al City business. 1. Employees shall submit monthly claims for reimbursement to their Department Head 2. Employees shall not be reimbursed for commuting to and from work, ex cept that employees who are required to attend scheduled meetings outside of normal wor king hours may be reimbursed for mileage required. Section 5 – Insurance Requirements All privately-owned vehicles authorized to be used on official City business shal l be insured by the individual employee in the minimum amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) public liability for any one person and one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) public liability for all persons, any one accident. They must also be insured for twenty thousand dollars ($25,000.00) property damage and fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) for any one uninsured motorist and thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) for all uninsured motorists any one accident. Employee private vehicle informa tion shall be reviewed and updated annually by the respective departments. The record maintained should contain the following current information. ⚫ Name of Employee ⚫ Operator’s License ⚫ Insurance Company ⚫ Driver’s License Expiration Date ⚫ Insurance Policy Number ⚫ Insurance Expiration Date ⚫ Amount of Coverage It shall be the Department Head's responsibility to insure that no privately owned vehicle is operated on City business without insurance coverage and a valid operator’s license as required by this regulation. 772 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT C – VEHICLE USE POLICY MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 50 Clarification on City Liability on Use of Private Vehicl e: In the event of damage to private vehicles, while on City business where a third party is negligent, the employee should collect damages (includ ing insurance deductibles) from the third party. Where the employee is negligent, the City cannot be held lia ble for damages to the automobile, but the City can be held responsible for liability to third parties. The City shall be responsible to such emplo yee for the first one hundred dollars ($100.00) of comprehensive and/or collision damages suffered by such em ployee to the extent that such employee's personal automobile insurance policy does not cover such first one hundred dollars ($100.00) damage. The employee's insurance policy is considered as the primary coverage, and the City liability begins after the li mitations of the employee's coverage is exhausted. In the event a City employee's personal vehicle is damaged due to accident/collision while being used for official City business and the employee is deprived the use thereof, the City shall furnish such employee with a vehicle during such time as is reasonably required to repair said employee's vehicle. 773 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT D – RETIREE MEDICAL SUBSIDY PLAN MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 51 PROVISIONS OF THE RETIREE MEDICAL SUBSIDY PLAN Employees hired on or after October 1, 2014 shall not be eligible for this benefit. An employee who has retired from the City shall be entitled to participate in the City sponsored medical insurance plans and the City shall contribute toward monthly premiums for coverage in an amount as specified in accordance with this Plan, provided: A. On the date of retirement the employee has a minimum of ten (10) years of continuous full time City service or is granted an industrial disability retirement; and B. At the time of retirement, the employee is employed by the City; and C. Following official separation from the Cit y, the employee is granted a retirement allowance by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. The City’s obligation to pay the monthly premium as indicated shall be modified downward or cease during the lifetime of the retiree upon the occurr ence of any one of the following: 1. On the first of the month in which a retiree or dependent reaches age sixty five (65) or on the date the retiree or dependent can first apply and become eligible, automatically or voluntarily, for medical coverage under Medicare (whether or not such application is made) the City’s obligation to pay monthly premiums may be adjusted downward or eliminated. Benefit coverage at age sixty five (65) under the City’s medical plans shall be governed by applicable plan document. 2. In the event the federal government or state government mandates an employer - funded health plan or program for retirees, or mandates that the City make contributions toward a health plan (either private or public) for retirees, the City’s contribution rate as set forth in this plan shall first be applied to the mandatory plan. If there is any excess, that excess may be applied toward the City medical plan as supplemental coverage provided the retired employee pays the balance necessary for such coverage, if any. 3. In the event of the death of any employee, whether retired or not, the amount of the retiree medical insurance subsidy benefit which the deceased employee was receiving at the time of his/her death, or would be eligible to receive if he/she were re tired at the time of death, shall be paid on behalf of the spouse or family for a period not to exceed twelve (12) months. SCHEDULE OF BENEFITS D. Minimum Eligibility for Benefits - With the exception of an industrial disability retirement, eligibility for benefits begin after an employee has completed ten (10) years of continuous service with the City of Huntington Beach. Said service must be continuous for ten (10) years unless prior service is reinstated at the time of his/her rehire in accordance with the City’s Personnel Rules. 774 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT D – RETIREE MEDICAL SUBSIDY PLAN MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 52 E. Disability Retirees - Industrial disability retirees with less than ten (10) continuous years of service shall receive a maximum monthly payment towar d the premium for health insurance of one hundred twenty one dollars ($121.00). Payments shall be in accordance with the stipulations and conditions that exist for all retirees. Payment shall not exceed the dollar amount that is equal to the full cost of premium for employee only. F. Marital Status – Married unit retirees eligible for benefits under the Retiree Medical Subsidy Plan may each receive the benefit earned pursuant to Section G – Maximum Monthly Subsidy Payments, whether enrolled individually as the plan enrollee or whether enrolled as a dependent on any City-sponsored medical plan. a. In the case where a retired unit member is married to a City employee (active or retired) outside of this bargaining unit, this provision shall remain applicable. b. This provision shall apply to State of California registered domestic partners t he same as married spouses. c. Upon City Council approval of this agreement, this provision shall become effective the first day of the month following MEA open enrollment for Medi cal plans. G. Maximum Monthly Subsidy Payments - All retirees, including those retired as a result of disability whose number of continuous years of service on the date of retirement exceeds ten (10), shall be entitled to a maximum monthly payment of premium s by the City for each year of completed City service as follows: Maximum Monthly Payment For Retirements After: Years of Service Subsidy 10 $ 121 11 136 12 151 13 166 14 181 15 196 16 211 17 226 18 241 19 256 20 271 21 286 22 300 23 315 24 330 25 344 Note: The above payment amounts may be reduced each month as dependent eligibility ceases due to death, divorce or loss of dependent child status. However, the amount shall not be reduced 775 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT D – RETIREE MEDICAL SUBSIDY PLAN MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 53 if such reduction would cause insufficient funds needed to pay the full p remium for the employee and the remaining dependents. In the event no reduction occurs and the remaining benefit premium is not sufficient to pay the premium amount for the employee and the eligible dependents, said needed excess premium amount shall be paid by the employee. H. Medicare: 1. All persons are eligible for Medicare coverage at age sixty-five (65). Those with sufficient credit quarters of Social Security will receive Part A of Medicare at no cost. Those without sufficient credited quarters are s till eligible for Medicare at age sixty five (65), but will have to pay for Part A of Medicare if the individual elects to take Medicare. In all cases, Part B of Medicare is paid for by the participant. 2. When a retiree and his/her spouse are both sixty -five (65) or over, and neither is eligible for paid Part A of Medicare, the subsidy shall pay for Part A for each of them or the maximum subsidy, whichever is less. 3. When a retiree at age sixty-five (65) is eligible for paid Part A of Medicare and his/her spouse is not eligible for paid Part A, the spouse shall not receive subsidy. When a retiree at age sixty-five (65) is not eligible for paid Part A of Medicare and his/her spouse who is also age sixty-five (65) is eligible for paid Part A of Medicare, the subsidy shall be for the retiree’s Part A only. I. Cancellation: 1. For retirees/dependents eligible for paid Part A of Medicare, the following cancellation provisions apply: a. Coverage for a retiree under the Retiree Medical Subsidy Plan will be eliminated on the first day of the month in which the retiree reache s age sixty-five (65). If such retiree was covering dependents under the Plan, dependents will be eligible for COBRA continuation benefits effective as of the retiree’s sixty -fifth (65th) birthday. b. Dependent coverage will be eliminated upon whichever of the following occasions comes first: i. After thirty six (36) months of COBRA continuation coverage, or ii. When the covered dependent reaches age sixty -five (65) and in the event such dependent reaches age sixty-five (65) prior to the retiree reaching age sixty-five (65). c. At age sixty-five (65) retirees are eligible to make application for Medicare. Upon being considered “eligible to make application,” whether or not application has been made for Medicare, the Retiree Medical Subsidy Plan will be eliminated. 776 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT D – RETIREE MEDICAL SUBSIDY PLAN MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 54 d. Retiree Medical Subsidy Plan and COBRA participants shall be notified of non - payment of premium by means of a certified letter from Human Resources in accordance with the provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding. e. A retiree who fails to pay premiums due for coverage and is in arrears for sixty (60) days shall be terminated from the Plan and shall not have reinstatement rights. 777 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT E 9/80 WORK SCHEDULE MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 55 9/80 WORK SCHEDULE This work schedule is known as the “9/80.” The 9/80 work schedule is designed to be in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In the event that there is a conflict with the current rules, practices and/or procedures regarding work schedules and leave plans, then the rules listed below shall govern. 9/80 Work Schedule Defined The 9/80 work schedule shall be defined as wo rking nine (9) days for eighty (80) hours in a two (2) week pay period by working eight (8) days at nine (9) hours per day and working one (1) day for eight (8) hours, with a scheduled unpaid lunch break d uring each work shift, totaling forty (40) hours in each FLSA workweek. The 9/80 work schedule shall not reduce service to the public, departmental effectiveness, productivity and/or efficiency as determined by the City Manager or designee. A. The FLSA workweek for each employee on a 9/80 schedule shall beg in and end four (4) hours into that employee’s regularly scheduled shift on the day of the week that the employee alternatively works an eight (8) hour shift and takes off. For example, employees on a 9/80 schedule who are assigned to the Civic Center sha ll have an FLSA workweek that starts and ends four (4) hours into the employee’s regularly scheduled shift each Friday, as these employees may only have 9/80 schedules that provide for alternating Fridays off with working eight (8) hour days on Fridays. Em ployees may only take their lunch break on their eight (8) hour day after first having worked four (4) hours in that shift, unless the employee receives prior approval of their Supervisor, as overtime may occur in such situations. B. Two (2) Week Pay Period – The pay period for employees starts Friday mid -shift (P.M.) and continues for fourteen (14) days until Friday mid -shift (A.M.). During this period, each week is made up of four (4) nine (9) hour workdays totaling (thirty-six (36) hours) and one (1) four (4) hour Friday and those hours equal forty (40) work hours in each workweek (e.g. the Friday is split into four (4) hours for the A.M. shift, which is charged to workweek one and four (4) hours for the P.M. shift, which is charged to workweek two). C. A/B Schedules – To continue to provide service to the public every Friday, employees on a 9/80 schedule assigned to the Civic Center, are to be divided between two schedules, known as the “A” schedule and the “B” schedule, based upon the departmental needs. For identification purposes, the “A” schedule shall be known as the schedule with a day off on the Friday in the middle of the pay period, or, “off on payday”, the “B” schedule shall have the first Friday (P.M.) and the last Friday (A.M.) off, or “working on payday.” An example is listed below: AM PM AM PM AM PM F F S S M T W Th F F S S M T W Th F F A Schedule 4 4 - - 9 9 9 9 - - - - 9 9 9 9 4 4 B Schedule - - - - 9 9 9 9 4 4 - - 9 9 9 9 - - D. Schedule Changes – FLSA non-exempt employees cannot change their assigned schedules, without prior approval of their Supervisor, Department Head, and the Human 778 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT E 9/80 WORK SCHEDULE MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 56 Resources Director or designee. The purpose of this authorization is to revi ew the impact on overtime. FLSA exempt employees may change their schedule s at the beginning of any pay period with Supervisor and Department Head approval. E. Emergencies – All employees on the 9/80 work schedule are subject to be called to work any time to meet any and all emergencies or unusual conditions which, in the opinion of the City Manager, Department Head or designee may require such service from any of said employees. Overtime Defined FLSA Non-Exempt Employees – All non-exempt employees under the 9/80 work schedule shall earn overtime for all hours worked after the first forty (40) hours in their designated FLSA workweek as required under FLSA. Employees are re quired to obtain Supervisor authorization prior to working any overtime. 1. Overtime Compensation – As stated in Article IX.B. 2. Compensatory Time – As stated in Article IX.B. Leave Benefits When an employee is off on a scheduled workday under the 9/80 work schedule, then nine (9) hours of eligible leave per workday shall be charged against the employee’s leave balance or eight (8) hours shall be charged if the day off is a Friday. All leaves shall continue under the current accrual, eligibility, request and approval requirements. 1. General Leave – As stated in Article XII.A.1. 2. Sick Leave – As stated in Article XII.A.3. 3. Bereavement Leave – As stated in Article XII.A.4. 4. Holidays a. If a holiday falls on an FLSA non -exempt employee’s flex day off, the employee must then take the work shift before or after the holiday off with their Superv isor and Department Head approval. If the employee cannot take the work shift before or after the holiday off, the employee will be credited General Leave with the number of hours of the employee’s regularly scheduled work shift. b. If a holiday falls on an FLSA exempt employee’s flex day off, the employee must then take the work shift before or after the holiday off with Supervisor and Department Head approval. FLSA exempt employees shall not be granted any Administrative/General Leave or any added compensation for not taking a work shift off on a scheduled holiday. 5. Jury Duty - The provisions of the Personnel Rules shall continue to apply, however, if an FLSA exempt employee is called to serve on jury duty during a the employee’s flex day off, Saturday or Sunday or on a City holiday, then the jury duty shall be considered the same as having occurred during the employee’s day off from work; therefore, the employee will receive no added compensation. 779 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT F 4/10 WORK SCHEDULE MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 57 4/10 WORK SCHEDULE This work schedule is known as the “4/10” work schedule. The 4/10 work schedule is designed to be in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In the event that there is a conflict with the current rules, practices and/or procedures regarding work schedules and leave plans, then the rules listed below shall govern. 4/10 Work Schedule Defined The 4/10 work schedule shall be defined as working four (4) days for forty (40) hours in an FLSA workweek by working four (4) days at ten (10) hours per day, plus a minimum of thirty (30) minutes unpaid lunch during each work shift. The FLSA workweek shall be defined as Saturday 12:00:00 A.M. to Friday 11:59:59 P.M. The 4/10 work schedule shall not reduce service to the public, departmental effectiveness, productivity and /or efficiency as determined by the City Manager or designee. All employees on the 4/10 work schedule are subject to be called to work any time to meet any and all emergencies or unusual conditions which, in the opinion of the City Manager, Department Head or designee may require such service from any of said employees. Overtime Defined FLSA Non-Exempt Employees – All non-exempt employees under the 4/10 work schedule shall earn overtime for all hours worked after the first forty (40) hours in an FLSA work week as required under FLSA. Employees a re required to obtain Supervisor authorization prior to working any overtime. 1. Overtime Compensation – As stated in Article IX.B. 2. Compensatory Time – As stated in - Article IX.B. Leave Benefits When an employee is off on a scheduled workday under the 4/10 work schedule, then ten (10) hours of eligible leave per workday shall be charged against the employee’s leave balance. All leaves shall continue under the current accrual, eligibility, request and approval requ irements. 1. General Leave – As stated in - Article XII.A.1. 2. Sick Leave – As stated in Article XII.A.3. 3. Bereavement Leave – As stated in - Article XII.A.4. 4. Holidays a. If a holiday falls on an FLSA non -exempt employee’s Friday off, the employee must then take the work shift before or after the holiday off with Supervisor and Department Head approval. If the employee cannot take the work shift before or after the holiday off, the employee will be credited with General Leave the number of hours of the employee’s regularly scheduled work shift. 780 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT F 4/10 WORK SCHEDULE MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 58 b. If a holiday falls on an FLSA exempt employee’s Friday off, the employee must then take the work shift before or after the holiday off with Supervisor and Department Head approval. FLSA exempt employees shall not be granted any Administrative/General Leave or any added compensation for not taking a work shift off on a scheduled holiday. 5. Jury Duty - The provisions of the Personnel Rules shall continue to apply, however, if an FLSA exempt employee is called to serve on jury duty during a normal Friday off, Saturday or Sunday or on a City holiday, then the jury duty shall be considered the same as having occurred during the employee’s day off from work; therefore, the employee will receive no added compensation. 781 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT G – AGENCY SHOP AGREEMENT MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 59 AGENCY SHOP AGREEMENT Legislative Authority The City of Huntington Beach (City) and the Huntington Beach Municipal Employees Association (Association) mutually understand and agree that in accordance with State of California law, per adoption of SB 739 (Gove rnment Code Section 3502.5), and SB 866 (Government Code Section(s) 3550, 3551, 3552, 3553, 3555.5 and 3556) the Association will be covered by an Agency Shop. As a result of this Agency Shop Agreement between the City and the Association, this Agency Shop Agreement hereby requires that all bargaining unit employees represented by the Association: 1. Make the voluntary election to join the Association and pay Association Dues 2. Or opt-out of Association membership The following Agency Shop Agreement will be i mplemented in conformity with California Government Code Section 3502.5 and applicable law (SB 866) and will be incorporated into any successor Memorandum of Understanding entered into between City and Association, unless rescinded pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Association Dues The City shall deduct Association Dues, from all employees who have signed a written authorization, and a copy of that authorization has been provided to the Human Resources Director. The authorization shall indicate the Association Dues, to be deducted. Employees who do not sign the written authorization, shall be deemed to opt-out of Association membership. Employees on leave without pay or employees who earn a salary less than the Association deduction shall not have Association Dues deducted for that pay period. The Association shall notify the Human Resources Director of the amount of the Association Dues to be deducted from the unit members’ paychecks. New Hire Notification All new hires in the bargaining un it shall be informed by the Human Resources Director or designee, at the time of hire, that an Agency Shop Agreement is in effect fo r their classification, by providing a copy of this Agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding and a form, mutually developed between the City and the Association that outlines the employee’s choices under the Agency Shop Agreement. The employee shall be provided thirty (30) calendar days from the date of hire to elect their choice and provide a signed copy of that choice to t he Human Resources Director. Deductions under this Agency Shop Agreement for new hires will start with the first full payroll period beginning thirty (30) days after the new hire submits his/her selection to the Human Resources Director. The Association may request to meet with new hires at a time and place mutually agreed upon between the City and the Association. Records The Association shall keep an adequate itemized record of its financial transactions and shall make a written financial report thereof, in the form of a balance sheet certified as to accuracy by its president and treasurer or corresponding principal officer, or by a certified public accountant, available annually, to the City within 60 days following the end of its fiscal year. All forms submitted by an employee to the City, or by the Association on behalf of an employee, shall be retained by the City in the employee’s personnel file. 782 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT G – AGENCY SHOP AGREEMENT MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 60 The Human Resources Director or designee shall provide the Association a list of all unit members with dues paying status with each Association Dues check remitted to the Association. This list and the Association Dues shall be submitted by the City to the Association within three weeks of each pay period. Rescission Of Agreement The Agency Shop Agreement may be rescinded at any time during the period of time that the Association remains the exclusive bargaining agent for the u nit employees by a majority vote of all the employees in the bargaining unit. A request for such vote must be supported by a pet ition containing the signatures of at least thirty percent (30%) of the employees in the unit. The election shall be by secret ballot and conducted by California State Mediation and Conciliation and in accordance with state law. INDEMNIFICATION The Association shall indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from and against all claims and liabilities as a result of implementing and maintaining this Agency Shop Agreement. The City and the Association recognize the right of the employees to form, join and participate in lawful activities of employee organizations and the equal alternative right of employees to refuse to join or participate in employee organization activities. During the life of this Agreement all unit members who choose to become member s of the Association shall be required to maintain their membership in the Association in good standing, subject however, to the right to resign from membership no sooner than Ap ril 15 or later than May 15, of any year this Agreement remains in effect. Any unit member may exercise the right to resign by submitting a written notice to the Association and to the City during the resignation period on the Deduction Authorization/Change in Status form. The change in deductions from the employee’s payroll will be effective with the first full pay period beginning thirty (30) days or more after the Human Resources Director receives the employee’s written notice. The City and the Association agree that neither shall discriminate nor retaliate against any employee for the employee’s participation or non-participation in any Association activity. Payroll Deduction The City will deduct from each paycheck of unit employees, and remit to the Association, the normal and regular Association Dues, in the timelines described as voluntarily authorized in writing by the employee, subject to the following conditions: 1. Such deductions shall be made only upon submission of a Deduction Authorization/Change in Status form to the Human Resources Director. Said form shall be duly completed and signed by the employee. If no form is completed by the employee, the employee shall be considered to have elected to opt-out. 2. The City shall not be obligated to put into effect any new, changed or discontinued deduction until the first full pay period commencing thirty (30) days or longer after such submission. Every effort will be made by the City to remit dues to the Association within three (3) weeks of receipt. The Association agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless against any 783 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT G – AGENCY SHOP AGREEMENT MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 61 and all suits, claims, demands and liabilities that may arise out of, or by reason of, any action that shall be taken by the City for the purpose of complying with this Section. 784 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT H – CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION PROGRAM MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 62 Guidelines 1. Purpose The purpose of the voluntary catastrophic leave donat ion program is to bridge employees who have been approved leave time to either; return to work, long-term disability, or medical retirement. Permanent employees who accrue vacation, general leave or compensatory time may donate such leave to another perma nent employee when a catastrophic illness or injury befalls that employee or because the employee is needed to care for a seriously ill family member. The leave -sharing Leave Donation Program is Citywide across all departments and is intended to provide an additional benefit. Nothing in this program is intended to change current policy and practice for use and/or accrual of vacation, general, or sick leave. 2. Definitions Catastrophic Illness or Injury - A serious debilitating illness or injury, which incapa citates the employee or an employee's family member. Family Member - For the purposes of this policy, the definition of family member is that defined in the Family Medical Leave Act (child, parent, spouse or domestic partner). 3. Eligible Leave Accrued compensatory time off, vacation or general leave hours may be donated. The minimum donation an employee may make is two (2) hours and the maximum is forty (40) hours. 4. Eligibility Permanent employees who accrue vacation or general leave may donat e such hours to eligible recipients. Compensatory time off accrued may also be donated. An eligible recipient is an employee who: • Accrues vacation or general leave; • Is not receiving disability benefits or Workers' Compensation payments; and • Requests donated leave. 5. Transfer of Leave The maximum donation credited to a recipient's leave account shall be the amount necessary to ensure continuation of the employee's regular salary during the employee's period of approved catastrophic leave. Donat ions will be voluntary, confidential and irrevocable. Hours donated will be converted into a dollar amount based on the hourly wage of the donor. The dollar amount will then be converted into accrued hours based on the recipient’s hourly wage. An employee needing leave will complete a Leave Donation Request Form and submit it to the Department Director for approval. The Department Director will forward the form to Human Resources for processing. Human Resources, working with the department, will send out the request for leave donations. 785 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT H – CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION PROGRAM MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 63 Employees wanting to make donations will submit a Leave Donation Form to the Finance Department (payroll). All donation forms submitted to payroll will be date stamped and used in order received for each bi-weekly pay period. Multiple donations will be rotated in order to insure even use of time from donors. Any donation form submitted that is not needed will be returned to the donor. 786 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT H – CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION PROGRAM MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 64 Please return this form to the Human Resources Office for processing Voluntary Catastrophic Leave Donation Program Leave Request Form Requestor, Please Complete According to the provisions of the Voluntary Catastrophic Leave Donation Program, I hereby request donated Vacation, Administrative Leave, General Leave or Compensatory Time. MY SIGNATURE CERTIFIES THAT: • A Leave of absence in relation to a catastrophic illness or injury has been approved by my Department; and • I am not receiving disability benefits or Workers' Compensation payments. Name: (Please Print or Type: Last, First, MI) Work Phone: Department: Job Title: Employee ID#: Requestor Signature: Date: Department Director Signature: Date: Human Resources Department Use Only End donation date will bridge to: Long Term Disability Medical Retirement beginning Length of FMLA leave ending Return to work End donation date: Human Resources Director Signature: Date signed: 787 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT H – CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION PROGRAM MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 65 Voluntary Catastrophic Leave Donation Program Leave Donation Form Donor, please complete Donor Name: (Please Print or Type: Last, First, MI) Work Phone: Donor Job Title: Type of Accrued Leave: Vacation Compensatory Time General Leave Administrative Leave Number of Hours I wish to Donate: Hours of Vacation Hours of Compensatory Time Hours of General Leave Hours of Administrative Leave I understand that this voluntary donation of leave credits, once processed, is irrevocable; but if not needed, the donation will be returned to me. I also understand that this donation will remain confidential. I wish to donate my accrued Vacation , Compensatory Time, Administrative Leave or General Leave hours to the Catastrophic Leave Donation Program for: Eligible recipient employee's name (Last, First, MI): Donor Signature: Date: Please submit to Payroll in the Finance Department. 788 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATIONTEAMSTERS EXHIBIT I – HEALTH AND OTHER INSURANCE BENEFITS TEAMSTERS MISCELLANEOUS SECURITY TRUST FUND MEA HBMT MOU October 1, 20179 through September 30, 201920 66 • The Teamsters Miscellaneous Security Trust Fund contracts with the City of Huntington Beach to provide medical benefit plan options. • Coverage for MEA employees shall begin the first of the month following employment. The City of Huntington Beach shall remit one (1) payment of three (3) months of medical premiums for new enrollees. 789 City of Huntington Beach File #:20-1553 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager PREPARED BY:Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager Subject: Introduction of the Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Between the Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association and the City of Huntington Beach for January 1, 2020 , through June 30, 2023 Statement of Issue: The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association (POA) expired on December 31, 2019. Subsequently, the City and POA engaged in good-faith negotiations, ultimately reaching tentative agreement on terms in February 2020 on a 3.5-year contract covering the period January 1, 2020, through June 30, 2023. Financial Impact: Pursuant to the terms reached in the MOU with POA, the total projected cost of the labor pact as estimated by the Finance Department is $1.21 million in Year 1; $1.15 million in Year 2; and $1.40 million in Year 3.This results in an average annual cost increase of $1.25 million per year during the life of the agreement, which constitutes an average annual 0.8% increase in the City’s overall FY 2019/20 personnel budget of $162.04 million. Recommended Action: Introduction of the Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Between the Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association and the City of Huntington Beach for the period January 1, 2020, through June 30, 2023. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the introduction of the proposed successor MOU for POA employees , and direct staff to: (1) continue to meet and confer with the Association, or (2) utilize the impasse procedures contained within the City’s Employer-Employee Relations Resolution Analysis: City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™790 File #:20-1553 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 The Police Officers’ Association (POA) represents approximately 250 employees in the City. Starting in late 2019, representatives for the City and POA engaged in active negotiations on a new labor agreement, ultimately reaching tentative agreement on contract terms for a 3.5-year period in February 2020. Key changes in the proposed MOU include the following: Term of Agreement January 1, 2020 through June 30, 2023 Wage Increases §Year 1 - employees shall receive a 4.0% base salary increase §Year 2 - employees shall receive a 3.5% base salary increase §Year 3 - employees shall receive a 3.5% base salary increase CalPERS Cost Sharing §Classic Member Safety: o Year 1 - classic member safety employees shall contribute an additional 2% contribution towards CalPERS costs (for a total employee contribution of 11%). o Year 2 - classic member safety employees shall contribute an additional 1% contribution towards CalPERS costs (for a total employee contribution of 12%). o Year 3 - classic member safety employees shall contribute an additional 1% contribution towards CalPERS costs (for a total employee contribution of 13%). §Classic Member Miscellaneous: o Year 1 - classic member miscellaneous employees shall contribute an additional 1% contribution towards CalPERS costs (for a total employee contribution of 9%). §New Member Safety o Year 1 - new member safety employees shall contribute an additional 1.25% contribution towards CalPERS costs (for a total employee contribution of 13%). §New Member Miscellaneous o Year 1 - new member miscellaneous employees shall contribute an additional 1.50% contribution towards CalPERS costs (for a total employee contribution of 7.75%). o Year 2 - new member miscellaneous employees shall contribute an additional 1.25% contribution towards CalPERS costs (for a total employee contribution of 9%). Medical Benefits §Year 1 - no change to the City’s medical contribution. §Year 2 - the City’s monthly contribution to the CalPERS PORAC Region 2 medical plan rates will increase to a maximum of $786 for employee only coverage. No other changes will be made to the City’s medical contribution program. §Year 3 - the City’s monthly contribution to the CalPERS PORAC Region 2 medical plan rates will increase to a maximum of $826 for employee only, $1,704 for two party and $2,180 for family coverage. Eliminate Existing Vacation & Sick Leave Programs For A General Leave Bank §Convert current existing vacation and sick leave programs to the City’s standard General City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™791 File #:20-1553 MEETING DATE:4/6/2020 §Convert current existing vacation and sick leave programs to the City’s standard General Leave bank program. Other Items §Cooperate with a classification and compensation study. §Holiday in Lieu Pay adjustments to align accrual with existing work schedules. There were several other modifications to contract provisions, including deletion of obsolete language, regulatory compliance language changes, and general clean-up language. A summary of these and all other negotiated provisions are included as Exhibit “A”. Environmental Status: Not applicable. Strategic Plan Goal: Non-Applicable - Administrative Item Attachment(s): 1. Summary of Memorandum of Understanding Modifications 2. Fiscal Impact Report 3. Proposed Memorandum of Understanding - Exhibit “A” City of Huntington Beach Printed on 4/3/2020Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™792       City of Huntington Beach  Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association (HBPOA)  Summary of MOU Modifications    Article # Subject Proposal  I Term January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023  VI A  Salary Schedule Year 1 – employees will receive a base salary increase of four  percent (4.0%).  Year 2 – employees will receive a base salary increase of three  and  one half percent (3.50%).  Year 3 – employees will receive a base salary increase of three  and  one half percent (3.50%).  VII(G)  Holiday in Lieu Pay  Employees shall be paid each biweekly payroll one twenty‐sixth  (1/26) of the total one hundred and twenty (120) holiday hours  earned for the year.    VII(M)  Special Pay The  parties  agree  that  either  party  to  this MOU  may  reopen  negotiations during the term of this 2020‐2023 MOU regarding  the rotation of specialty assignments.  Any changes would require  an agreement of the parties.    VIII(D)  One Time Payment For Law  Enforcement Equipment  The parties agree to delete this language since this was a one‐time  payment and no longer belongs in the MOU.  IX(A)(4)  Work Schedule  Communications Center  Work Week Communications Center     Employees in the classifications of Communications Operator‐PD  and Communications Supervisor‐PD  work a 3/12.5+5 schedule in  which employees are scheduled to work three 12.5 hour shifts (on  consecutive days) each week, with one additional five hour shift  each 14 days that is adjacent to the employee’s first or last  regularly scheduled shift of the week.   Employees may arrange  shift trades such that the employee’s work one 10 hour day each  28 days.  These employees’ FLSA workweeks shall begin exactly  2.5  hours  into  the  start  time  of  their  five‐hour  shift  and  end  exactly 168 hours later.      During the term of this 2020‐2023 MOU, either the City or the  Association may request to meet and confer over changes to this  work schedule at any time.  If either party makes such a request  to the other, the parties agree that they will promptly meet and  confer.  No changes to the work schedule can occur without an  agreement of the parties.    IX(B)(1)  Compensatory Time Off  The parties agree if by June 30, 2023, they have been unable to  agree  upon  a  successor  MOU,  the  compensatory  time  off  provisions will continue unless either party informs the other that  it  no  longer  agrees  to  allow  the  continued  accrual  of  compensatory time off in lieu of overtime compensation.  If that  occurs, thirty (30) days after providing such notice to the other  793     side, all overtime worked will be paid unless and until the parties  agree upon a subsequent compensatory time off provision in the  MOU.   X(A)(1)  Retiree Medical The City shall contribute $100.00 to the Trust per month for each  represented employee.  Equal contributions shall be made on the  first two pay periods of each month. This benefit will continue  until June 30, 2023 on which day it will sunset unless the parties  affirmatively negotiate to maintain or modify it.   At such tim e, the  City  will  no  longer  have  the  obligation  to  make  this  $100.00  contribution to the Trust.   X(B)(1)(b)(i)  Health and Other Insurance  Benefits  For 2020 the City shall maintain its current maximum contribution  amounts  of  $774  (single  party  coverage)  $1,623,  (two  party  coverage) and $2076 (family coverage.    For 2021, the City agrees to contribute the CalPERS PORAC Region  2 Rate, but no more than: $786 for employee only, $1,623 for two  party and $2076 for family coverage.  For 2022, the City agrees to contribute the CalPERS PORAC Region  2 Rate, but no more than: $826 for employee only, $1,704 for two  party and $2,180 for family coverage.   XI Retirement Classic Member Safety CalPERS Cost Sharing:    Year 1 – classic member safety members shall cost share two  percent  (2%)  compensation  earnable  in  accordance  with  Government Code section 20516(f).     Year 2 – classic member safety members shall cost share an  additional  one  percent  (1%)  compensation  earnable  in  accordance with Government Code section 20516(f), for a total  cost share of three percent (3%).      Year 3 – classic member safety members shall cost share an  additional  one  percent  (1%)  compensation  earnable  in  accordance with Government Code section 20516(f), for a total  cost share of four percent (4%).      Classic Member Miscellaneous CalPERS Cost Sharing:    Year 1 – classic member miscellaneous members shall cost share  one  percent  (1%)  compensation  earnable  in  accordance  with  Government Code section 20516(f).   New Member Safety CalPERS Cost Sharing:    Year 1 – new member safety members shall cost share 1.25%  pensionable compensation in accordance with Government Code  section 20516(f).    794     This will ensure that these members will pay 13% of pensionable  compensation (when combined with the 11.75% pensionable  compensation  that  these  employees  are  required  to  pay  as  determined by CalPERS’s annual evaluation.  If in future fiscal  years  the  member  contribution  rate  for  new  member  safety  members  shall  become  greater  or  less  than  11.75%  of  pensionable compensation, as determined by CalPERS’s annual  valuation,  the  additional  contribution  made  by  the  employee  under 20516(f) will be increased or decreased accordingly, so that  the  total  employee  contribution  equals  13%  of  pensionable  compensation.  In  the  event  that  50%  of  normal  cost,  as  determined by CalPERS, exceeds 13%, these employees shall pay  50% of normal cost, only.  New Member Miscellaneous CalPERS Cost Sharing:    Year 1 – new member miscellaneous members shall cost share  1.50%  pensionable  compensation  in  accordance  with  Government Code section 20516(f).    Year 2 – new member miscellaneous members shall cost share an  additional amount of pensionable compensation (estimated at  one  and  one  quarter  percent  (1.25%))  in  accordance  with  Government Code section 20516(f) for total cost shall of two and  three‐quarters percent (2.75%).    This will ensure that effective the beginning of the pay period  including  January  1,  2021,  these  members  will  pay  9%  of  pensionable  compensation  (when  the  estimated  2.75%  is  combined with the 6.25% pensionable compensation that these  employees are required to pay as determined by CalPERS’s annual  evaluation).  If in future fiscal years, (including 2021 if the normal  cost rate is modified from 6.25%) member contribution rate for  new member safety members shall become greater or less than  6.25% of pensionable compensation, as determined by CalPERS’s  annual  valuation,  the  additional  contribution  made  by  the  employee  under  20516(f)  will  be  increased  or  decreased  accordingly, so that the total employee contribution equals 9% of  pensionable compensation. In the event that 50% of normal cost,  as determined by CalPERS, exceeds 9%, these employees shall pay  50% of normal cost, only.  XII(C)  Vacation  and  Sick  Leave  –  Conversion to General Leave   General Leave:    795     1. Purpose ‐ The purpose of annual General Leave is to  provide  a  rest  period,  which  will  enable  each  employee to return to work physically and mentally  refreshed, as well as for an illness or injury of the  employee  not  otherwise  covered  under  other  provisions of law (e.g., Labor Code 4850, workers’  compensation laws, etc.)       2. Anniversary Date ‐ For the purpose of computing  General Leave, an employee’s anniversary date shall  be  the  most  recent  date  on  which  he/she  commenced  full‐time  City  employment,  unless  otherwise  provided  in  writing  by  agreement  between the City and the employee upon initial hire  or re‐hire.    3. Annual General Leave Eligibility ‐ All employees shall  be entitled to use annual General Leave with pay  except the following:    a. Employees who have not completed six (6)  months  of  continuous  service  with  the  City.  However, employees with less than  six (6) months of continuous service may,  after  90  days,  use  up  to  24  hours  of  General Leave for the purpose of an injury  to or illness of themselves.     b. Employees who work less than full‐time  who  are  not  permanent.   However,  employees who do not work full‐time and  are not permanent may, after 90 days, use  up to 24 hours of General Leave for the  purpose  of  illness,  injury,  or  family  sickness.     c. Employees on leave of absence.    4. General  Leave  Accrual  ‐  Employees  in  the  City’s  service, having an average work week of forty (40)  hours, shall accrue annual General Leave with pay in  accordance with the following:    796     a. For the first (1st) through the fourth (4th)  year of continuous service, General Leave  shall be accrued at the rate of one  hundred and seventy six (176) hours per  year (6.77 hours biweekly).    b. For the fifth year (5th) and through the  ninth  (9th)  year  of  continuous  service,  General Leave shall be accrued at the rate  of two hundred (200) hours per year (7.69  hours biweekly).    c. For the tenth (10th) year and through the  fourteenth  (14th)  year  of  continuous  service, General Leave shall be accrued at  the rate of two hundred and twenty four  (224) hours per year (8.62 hours biweekly)    d. For  the  fifteenth  (15th)  year  and  thereafter of continuous service, General  Leave shall be accrued at the rate of two  hundred and fifty six (256) hours per year  (9.85 hours biweekly).      5. Use of General Leave    a. No  employee  shall  be  permitted  to  use  General  Leave  in  excess  of  actual  time  earned  and  General  Leave  shall  not  be  accrued in excess of six hundred and forty  (640) hours.   General  Leave  use  for  vacations shall be taken only with  permission of the Chief of Police (or his/her  designee);  however,  the  Chief  of  Police  shall  schedule  all  vacations  with  due  consideration  for  the  wishes  of  the  employee  and  particular  regard  for  the  needs of the department.  If used as sick  leave, employees must call in prior to their  shift and provide a supervisor with notice  that they are using General Leave due to  illness or injury.       797     b. General Leave accumulated in excess of the  six hundred and forty (640) hour cap shall  be paid at the base hourly rate of pay on  the  first  payday  following  such  accumulation.     6. General  Leave  Pay  at  Separation  for  Employees  Exempt from the Retirement Medical Trust ‐ Upon  separation of employment, employees exempt from  the Retirement Medical Trust shall be paid for  unused General Leave at their current regular rate  of pay for all unused, earned General Leave to which  they are entitled up to and including the last day of  employment.      7. General Leave Conversion to Cash – During Calendar  Year 2020, an employee may elect to cash out up to  one‐hundred  and  twenty  (120)  hours  of  accrued  vacation leave and/or general leave at their current  regular rate of pay.    On or before the beginning of the pay period which  includes  December  15  of  each  calendar  year  beginning  in  December  2020,  an  employee  may  make an irrevocable election to cash out up to one  hundred and twenty (120) hours of accrued General  Leave which will be earned in the following calendar  year  at  the  employee’s  regular  rate  of  pay.   The  employee can elect to receive up to sixty (60) hours  of General Leave cash out in the pay period that  includes July 15.  The employee shall receive any  remaining  General  Leave  cash  out  to  which  they  irrevocably elected to cash out in the pay period  that includes December 1.   However, if the  employee’s General Leave balance is less than the  amount the employee elected to cash out (in the  prior calendar year) the employee will receive cash  for the amount of leave the employee has accrued  at the time of the cash out.  8. Deferred Compensation/General Leave Cash Out ‐  The value of any unused earned General Leave may  be  transferred  to  deferred  compensation  at  the  regular rate of pay in connection with separation  from  employment,  but  only  during  the  time  the  798     employee is actively employed with the City.  The  employee must request the transfer no later than  the pay period prior to the employee’s last day of  employment.   Any  unused  earned  General  Leave  remaining upon separation will be transferred to the  qualified medical retirement trust program on a pre‐ tax basis.     9. Sick Leave – Full‐time employees hired on or before  the pay period following Council approval of this  2020‐2023 MOU will receive a one‐time Sick Leave  bank totaling 144 hours.  Up to 72 hours of this Sick  Leave may be used for family Sick Leave per the  relationships included in Labor Code section 233.  Once this Sick Leave bank is fully used, employees  will no longer receive Sick Leave, only General Leave  as described above.     This one‐time bank may not be cashed out at any  time,  nor,  upon  separation  from  employment,  transferred  to  deferred  compensation  and/or  a  qualified medical retirement trust program.   New Article  XIV L  Classification and  Compensation Study  The  Association  agrees  to  cooperate  with  a  classification  and  compensation study within one year of approval of this MOU.         799 City of Huntington BeachCity Proposal #3 2/4/2020DRAFT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3MOU Item #DescriptionRate / $Estimated YOYImpactEstimated YOYImpactEstimated YOYImpactTotal Cost of ProposalNotes:1 Term: 3.5 years (January 1, 2020 through June 30, 2023)2aBase Salary Pay Increase of 4 percent effective 1/1/20, and 3.5 percent effective 1/1/21 and 1/1/22.Various1,475,659         1,357,676         1,411,421         4,244,756         Effective January 1, 20202b CalPERS Pick Up by Employees of two percent (2%) in Year 1 and one percent (1%) thereafter, not to exceed 13 percent for sworn and 9 percent for non‐sworn classifications.Various(480,840)           (211,889)           (218,347)           (911,076)           Effective January 1, 20203a Eliminate existing 60‐day per injury/illness sick leave benefit (offset 3c)(867,351)           (21,684)             (22,226)             (911,261)           Based on FY 18/19 sick leave usage3bGeneral Leave Accrual 654,057             16,351                16,760               687,168            0‐4 years ‐ 176 hours; 5‐9 years ‐ 200 hours; 10‐14 years ‐ 224 hours, 15+ years – 256 hours (assumes elimination of vacation accrual)3c Provide existing employees with 144 hours of sick leave (no cash value upon separation)867,351            21,684               ‐                     889,035            3d Eliminating existing 60‐day per injury/illness sick leave benefits will have ongoing net savings to the City.  Offset General Leave Accrual to reflect the long‐term savings.(654,057)           (16,351)             (16,760)             (687,168)           4‐                     ‐                      224,604                         224,604  Modification of Article X of the MOU.  Effective January 1, 2022, the City’s increase shall be capped to no more than 5% higher than our current contribution rates, as follows: $813 / $1,704 / $2,180. 5 RMT the City’s contribution shall sunset March 31, 2023 (last day of new agreement).‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     Modification of Article X of the MOU.  $288,000 annual cost has a neutral fiscal impact as this is included in the current FY 19/20 budget.6Increase holidays to 12 hours/holiday215,403          5,385.07         5,520                226,307          7Class/Comp Study‐                   ‐                   ‐                    ‐                   Part of Citywide Class/Comp StudyTotal Cost of Proposal1,210,222       1,151,172       1,400,972        3,762,366       The City’s contribution towards employees’ health insurance at each plan level (i.e., E/ee, E/ee+1, E/ee+2 or more) shall be increased January 1 each year of the agreement to equal the CalPERS PORAC Region 3 Rate, if such rate exceeds the City’s then‐current contribution.  These estimates are subject to change.For Discussion Purposes Only800 Tentative Agreement – March 29 Memorandum of Understanding Between Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association and City of Huntington Beach October 1, 2017 – December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 - June 30, 2023 801 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION TABLE OF CONTENTS HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 i PREAMBLE ......................................................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE I - TERM OF MOU ............................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE II - REPRESENTATIONAL UNIT/CLASS ........................................................... 1 ARTICLE III - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS .............................................................................. 2 ARTICLE IV - EXISTING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT .............................................. 2 ARTICLE V - SEVERABILITY ............................................................................................. 2 ARTI CLE VI - SALARY SCHEDULE ................................................................................... 2 A. Salary Schedule ............................................................................................................... 2 B. Collection of Payroll Overpayments ................................................................................. 2 ARTICLE VII - SPECIAL PAY ............................................................................................. 3 A. Police Professional Development Plan ......................................................................... 3 B. Flight Pay ...................................................................................................................... 4 C. Certified Flight Instructors ............................................................................................. 4 D. Shift Differential ............................................................................................................. 5 E. Motor Pay ...................................................................................................................... 5 F. Bilingual Pay ................................................................................................................. 5 G. Holidays ........................................................................................................................ 6 1. Holiday In-Lieu Pay .................................................................................................... 6 2. Holidays Worked........................................................................................................ 6 3. Holidays ..................................................................................................................... 6 H. FTO Compensation ....................................................................................................... 7 I. Longevity Pay ................................................................................................................ 7 J. Effective Date of Special Pays ...................................................................................... 7 K. No Pyramiding/Compounding of Special Pays .............................................................. 8 L. Nurse Pay ..................................................................................................................... 8 ARTICLE VIII - UNIFORMS, CLOTHING, TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT ............................... 8 A. Uniforms ........................................................................................................................ 8 B. Special Assignment Uniform Needs .............................................................................. 9 C. Motorcycle Britches ....................................................................................................... 9 D. One Time Payment for Law Enforcement Equipment ......................................................... 8 ARTICLE IX - HOURS OF WORK/OVERTIME ................................................................... 9 A. Work Schedule .............................................................................................................. 9 2. 4/10 Schedule ............................................................................................................ 9 3. 7/11.5 Schedule ......................................................................................................... 9 4. Forty Hour Work Week Communication Center ...................................................... 10 5. Overtime .................................................................................................................. 10 B. Other Time .................................................................................................................. 11 1. Compensatory Time Off ........................................................................................... 11 2. Work Time ............................................................................................................... 12 802 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION TABLE OF CONTENTS HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 ii 3. Subpoena Compensation ........................................................................................ 13 4. Standby Pay ............................................................................................................ 13 5. Call Back ................................................................................................................. 13 6. Telephonic Business ................................................................................................ 14 7. Canine Compensation ............................................................................................. 14 8. Shift Trading ............................................................................................................ 14 ARTICLE X - HEALTH AND OTHER INSURANCE BENEFITS ........................................ 14 A. Retiree Medical Trust .................................................................................................. 14 B. Health .......................................................................................................................... 15 1. CalPERS Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act .................................. 16 2. Dental Insurance...................................................................................................... 17 3. Retiree (Annuitant Coverage) .................................................................................. 17 4. Medical/Vision Opt-Out ............................................................................................ 18 5. Section 125 Employee Plan ..................................................................................... 18 6. Life Insurance .......................................................................................................... 18 7. Income Protection Plan ............................................................................................ 19 8. Long Term Care....................................................................................................... 20 ARTICLE XI - RETIREMENT ............................................................................................. 22 A. "Classic Member" Safety Employee Retirement Benefits ........................................... 21 1. 3% @ Age 50 Plan .................................................................................................. 21 2. 1959 Survivors' Benefit Level IV .............................................................................. 21 3. Pre-retirement Optional 2 Death Benefit .................................................................. 21 4. One-Year Final Compensation ................................................................................ 21 5. "Classic Member" Safety CalPERS Member Contribution ....................................... 21 B. "Classic Member" Miscellaneous Employee Retirement Benefits ............................... 22 1. 2.5% @ Age 55 Plan ............................................................................................... 22 2. 1959 Survivors' Benefit Level IV ............................................................................. 22 3. Pre-retirement Optional 2 Death Benefit .................................................................. 22 4. One-Year Final Compensation ................................................................................ 22 5. "Classic Member" Miscellaneous CalPERS Member Contribution .......................... 22 C. Retirement Benefits for Safety and Miscellaneous Employees ................................... 22 D. CalPERS "New Member" Retirement Benefits ............................................................ 22 E. "New Members" Safety Retirement Benefits ............................................................... 23 1. 2.7% @ Age 57 Plan ............................................................................................... 23 2. 1959 Survivors' Benefit Level IV ............................................................................. 23 3. Pre-retirement Optional 2 Death Benefit .................................................................. 23 4. Final Compensation ................................................................................................. 23 F. "New Members" Miscellaneous Retirement Benefits ................................................... 23 1. 2% @ Age 62 Plan .................................................................................................. 23 2. 1959 Survivors' Benefit Level IV .............................................................................. 23 3. Pre-retirement Optional 2 Death Benefit .................................................................. 23 4. Final Compensation ................................................................................................. 23 803 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION TABLE OF CONTENTS HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 iii ARTICLE XII - LEAVE BENEFITS ..................................................................................... 26 A. Vacation ...................................................................................................................... 26 1. Anniversary Date ..................................................................................................... 26 2. Annual Vacation....................................................................................................... 26 3. Vacation Accrual ...................................................................................................... 26 4. Vacation ................................................................................................................... 26 5. Vacation Pay at Separation ..................................................................................... 27 6. Vacation Conversion to Cash................................................................................... 27 7. Deferred Compensation/Vacation Cash Out ............................................................ 25 B. Sick Leave Compensation ........................................................................................... 27 2. Police Sergeants Sick Leave Pay Off ...................................................................... 25 C. Bereavement Leave .................................................................................................... 30 D. Leave Benefits Entitlement .......................................................................................... 31 E. Catastrophic Leave Donation Program ....................................................................... 31 F. Nurse Employees Certification .................................................................................... 31 G. Cash Out of Compensatory Time ................................................................................ 31 H. Association Business .................................................................................................. 31 ARTI CLE XIII - CITY PERSONNEL RULES ...................................................................... 32 ARTICLE XIV - MISCELLANEOUS ................................................................................... 27 A. Tuition Reimbursement ............................................................................................... 32 B. Meal Allowance ........................................................................................................... 32 1. Per Diem .................................................................................................................. 32 2. Per Diem Schedule .................................................................................................. 33 C. Mileage Allowance ...................................................................................................... 33 D. Weapon Vesting .......................................................................................................... 33 E. Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing .................................................................. 33 F. Take Home Vehicles/ Distance to Work ...................................................................... 33 G. Administrative Appeal Procedure ................................................................................ 33 H. Direct Deposit .............................................................................................................. 34 I. Meet and Confer ......................................................................................................... 29 J. Physical Fitness Program ............................................................................................ 29 K. Administrative Dispatcher Assignment ........................................................................ 29 EXHIBIT A - SALARY SCHEDULE ................................................................................... 32 EXHIBIT B - ASSOCIATION BANK TIME ......................................................................... 41 EXHIBIT C – SERVICE CREDIT SUBSIDY ....................................................................... 43 EXHIBIT D - ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCEDURE ................................................. 38 EXHIBIT E - VOLUNTARY CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION .................................. 41 EXHIBIT F - JOB SHARING PROGRAM .......................................................................... 45 EXHIBIT G - ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AGREEMENT............................. 47 804 HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Between THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (Hereinafter called CITY) and THE HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION (Hereinafter called ASSOCIATION or POA) PREAMBLE WHEREAS the designated representatives of the City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association have met and conferred in good faith with respect to salaries, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment for the employees represented by the Association; NOW, THEREFORE, this Memorandum of Understanding is made to become effective October 1, 2017 January 1, 2020 and it is agreed as follows: ARTICLE I - TERM OF MOU This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) shall be in effect for a term commencing on October 1, 2017 January 1, 2020 and ending at 11:59 p.m. on June 30December 31, 202319. Except as expressly provided herein, no further improvements or changes in the salaries and monetary benefits and other terms and conditions of employment of the employees represented by the Association shall take effect during the term of this agreement and the Association expressly waives any right to request any improvements or changes in salaries or monetary benefits and other terms and conditions of employment specifically provided herein for the employees represented in the unit. Provided, however, the City and Association shall, upon request, meet and confer to address issues not specifically covered by provisions of this MOU, and/or discussed during the meet and confer process immediately preceding the adoption of the current MOU. ARTICLE II - REPRESENTATIONAL UNIT/CLASS It is recognized that the Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association is the employee organization which has the right to meet and confer in good faith with the City on behalf of employees of the Huntington Beach Police Department within the classification titles as outlined in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. 805 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 2 ARTICLE III - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS The City and Chief of Police retain all rights, powers and authority to manage and direct the performance of police services and the work force, except as modified by the Memorandum of Understanding. Nothing herein shall change the City’s obligation to meet and confer as to the effects of any such management decision upon wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment or be construed as granting the City or Chief of Police the right to make unilateral changes in wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment. The parties agree the City has the right to unilaterally make decisions on all matters that are outside the scope of bargaining. Such matters include, but are not limited to, consideration of the merits, necessity, level or organization of police services, staffing requirements, overtime assignments, number and location of work stations, nature of work to be performed, contracting for any work or operation, reasonable employee performance standards, reasonable work and safety rules and regulations. ARTICLE IV - EXISTING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT Except as expressly provided herein, the adoption of this Memorandum of Understanding shall not change existing terms, conditions of employment that have been established in prior agreements between City and the Association. ARTICLE V - SEVERABILITY If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this MOU or any additions or amendments thereof, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this MOU and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion, and any additions or amendments thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub- sections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions, or the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. ARTICLE VI - SALARY SCHEDULE A. Salary Schedule - Employees shall be compensated at hourly salary rates by classification title and salary range during the term of this agreement as set out in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. Effective the beginning of the pay period including January 1, 2020, employees will receive a base salary increase of four percent (4.0%). Effective the beginning of the pay period including January 1, 2021, employees will receive a base salary increase of three and one half percent (3.50%). 806 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 3 Effective the beginning of the pay period including January 1, 2022, employees will receive a base salary increase of three and one half percent (3.50%). B. Collection of Payroll Overpayments - In the event that a payroll over payment is discovered and verified, and considering all reasonable factors including the length of time that the overpayment was made and if and when the employee could have reasonably known about such overpayment, the City will take action to collect from the employee the amount of overpayment(s). Such collection shall be processed by payroll deduction over a reasonable period of time considering the total amount of overpayment. In the event the employee separates from employment during the collection period, the final amount shall be deducted from the last payroll check of the employee. If applicable, the balance due from the employee shall be communicated upon employment separation if the last payroll check does not sufficiently cover the amount due the City. It shall be the responsibility of the employee and the City to periodically monitor the accuracy of compensation payments or reimbursements due to the possibility of a clerical oversight or error. The City reserves the right to also collect compensation overpayments caused by or the result of misinterpretation of a pay provision by non- authorized personnel. The interpretation of all pay provisions shall be administered by the City Manager or designee and as adopted by the City Council. Unauthorized compensation payments shall not constitute a past practice. ARTICLE VII - SPECIAL PAY A. Police Professional Development Plan 1. The Professional Development Plan for sworn personnel shall be as follows: a. College Degree Program i. Upon earning an AA Degree or attaining “Junior status” in a degree program, an employee shall be paid three percent (3%) of base hourly rate of pay in addition to other compensation. ii. Upon earning a BA/BS Degree, an employee shall be paid six percent (6%) of base hourly rate of pay in addition to other compensation. This pay is in lieu of pay received under sub-section (a)i above. iii. College degrees or College units under this program shall conform to POST standards for accreditation as noted in POST Regulation 9070 (c)(1)(A) and (B). iv. The parties agree, to the extent permitted by law, the compensation in this section is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(2) and Section 571.1(b)(2) Educational Incentive Pay. 807 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 4 b. POST Certificate Program i. Upon verification of having earned an Intermediate POST Certificate, an employee shall be paid three percent (3%) of base hourly rate of pay in addition to other compensation. ii. Upon verification of having earned an Advanced POST Certificate, an employee shall be paid six percent (6%) of base hourly rate of pay in addition to other compensation. This pay is in lieu of pay received under sub-section (b)i above. iii. The parties agree, to the extent permitted by law, the compensation in this section is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(2) and Section 571.1(b)(2) Peace Officer Standard Training (POST) Certificate Pay. 2. Stipulations: a. Eligibility must be approved by the Chief of Police. An employee must maintain his/her certification to remain eligible for the pay. b. Obtaining transcripts or other acceptable documentation is the employee’s responsibility. An employee may verify “Junior” status by submission of written verification that the employee has completed 60 or more accredited units and has achieved Junior status with that educational institution. 3. POST Supervisory Leadership Institute: Police Sergeants that have completed the POST Supervisory Leadership Institute shall receive $80 per month. The parties agree, to the extent permitted by law, the compensation in this section is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(2) and Section 571.1(b)(2) Peace Officer Standard Training (POST) Certificate Pay. 4. The maximum benefit that may be paid to an employee under Section (A) (Police Professional Development Plan) is twelve percent (12%) of the base hourly rate. In addition, Sergeants may be eligible for POST Supervisory Leadership Institute pay as provided in subparagraph 3, above. B. Flight Pay - Employees assigned to the Air Support Unit to fly in the helicopter as their primary duty assignment (i.e., assigned at least 50% of their scheduled hours in a pay period) shall be paid eight percent (8%) of their base hourly rate of pay in addition to other compensation. The parties agree, to the extent permitted by law, the compensation in this section is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(4) and Section 571.1(b)(3) Flight Time Premium. C. Certified Flight Instructors - Employees assigned as certified flight instructors shall be paid thirteen percent (13%) of their base hourly rate of pay in addition to other compensation. This pay is in lieu of Flight Pay defined in Section B above. The parties agree, to the extent permitted by law, the compensation in this section is 808 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 5 special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(4) and Section 571.1(b)(3) Flight Time Premium. D. Shift Differential - Detention and Communication Employees’ required to work on a regular assigned shift that occurs during swing shift or graveyard shift, as defined by departmental policy through the meet and confer process, shall be paid five percent (5%) of the employee’s base hourly rate of pay in addition to other compensation for all hours worked during the swing or graveyard shift. The parties agree the department policy has been established by the meet and confer process. The parties agree, to the extent permitted by law, the compensation in this section is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(4) and Section 571.1(b)(3) Shift Differential. E. Motor Pay 1. Employees regularly assigned to motorcycle duty shall be paid as hazardous duty pay five percent (5%) of their base hourly rate of pay in addition to other compensation. 2. The parties agree any time spent on maintenance and/or cleaning of motorcycles shall be on-duty unless overtime has been approved in advance. The Department shall supply necessary materials needed to perform the following duties: a. Keeping the assigned motorcycle cleaned and waxed. b. Keeping the drive chain properly lubricated and adjusted, if applicable. c. Performing a daily check of the motorcycle fluid levels and tire pressure. d. Scheduling required routine services at specified mileage intervals with police motorcycle mechanics. The parties agree, to the extent permitted by law, the compensation in this section is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(4) and Section 571.1(b)(3) Motorcycle Patrol Premium. F. Bilingual Pay - Qualified employees who meet the criteria shall be paid five percent (5%) of their base hourly rate of pay in addition to other compensation. Human Resources will have written and oral tests designed and administered to test for qualifications. The qualifications will cover the more routine foreign language requirements in filling out crime reports, interviewing suspects and witnesses, and responding to the public on matters relating to an incident or other police action. 1. The languages included will be Spanish, Vietnamese and American Sign Language. Additional languages may be approved at the discretion of the Chief of Police. 809 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 6 2. Authorization of qualified employees for bilingual compensation will be based on the following: a. A need for the employee to use the language in the City to support the implementation of police operations. b. At the discretion of the Chief of Police, the number of employees qualified in each category may be limited based on department needs. c. Successful completion of tests authorized by the Chief of Police will be required to qualify for bilingual pay for any of the languages. Retesting may be done on an annual basis. 3. The parties agree, to the extent permitted by law, the compensation in this section is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(4) and Section 571.1(b)(3) Bilingual Premium. G. Holidays 1. Holiday In-Lieu Pay - Employees represented by the Association and actively employed by the City, in addition to other compensation, shall be paid each biweekly payroll one twenty-sixth (1/26) of the total one hundred (100) holiday hours earned for the year. Effective the pay period following City Council approval of this 2020-2023 MOU, employees shall be paid each biweekly payroll one twenty-sixth (1/26) of the total one hundred and twenty (120) holiday hours earned for the year. 2. Holidays Worked - Employees who are required to work on a recognized City holiday shall receive Holiday Pay in addition to the Holiday In-Lieu Pay set forth above equal to fifty percent (50%) of their regular rate of pay for all time actually worked from 12:00 a.m. through 11:59 p.m. on the recognized holiday. The parties agree, to the extent permitted by law, the compensation in this section is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(5) and Section 571.1(b)(4) Holiday Pay. 3. Holidays - The following are the City recognized paid holidays under this MOU: a. New Year’s Day (January 1) b. Martin Luther King’s Birthday (third Monday in January) c. President’s Day (third Monday in February) d. Memorial Day (last Monday in May) e. Independence Day (July 4) f. Labor Day (first Monday in September) g. Veteran’s Day (November 11) h. Thanksgiving Day (fourth Thursday in November) i. Friday after Thanksgiving j. Christmas Day (December 25) 810 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 7 H. FTO Compensation - Compensation shall be one-quarter (.25) hours pay at the base hourly rate, which may be deposited as compensatory time, for each hour worked as a Field Training Officer in addition to other compensation for the following assignments: 1. Police Officers who have successfully completed a POST certified Field Training Officer Course and have been designated Field Training Officers, assigned to Traffic or Patrol Bureaus, shall be eligible for Field Training Officer compensation. 2. Detention Officers designated to act as Training Officers. 3. Motor Officers designated to act as Training Officers. 4. Communication Employees designated as Training Officers. The parties agree, to the extent permitted by law, the compensation in this section is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(4) and Section 571.1(b)(3) Training Premium. I. Longevity Pay - The City shall provide all sworn employees represented by the Association, the following longevity pay in addition to other compensation as established by the Department’s Sworn Personnel Seniority List: 1. Five percent (5%) of the base hourly rate of pay at 10 years of qualified sworn law enforcement experience. 2. Ten percent (10%) of the base hourly rate of pay at 20 years of qualified sworn law enforcement experience. This pay is in lieu of the pay identified in sub-section 1 above. Only sworn law enforcement experience as defined by California Penal Code Sections 830.1 and 830.2 or the out-of-state equivalent as determined by the Chief of Police shall be included as qualified sworn law enforcement experience in the calculation of longevity. The parties agree, to the extent permitted by law, the compensation in this section is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(1) and Section 571.1(b)(1) Longevity Pay. J. Effective Date of Special Pays - All special pay shall be effective the first full pay period following certification and verification as approved by the Chief of Police or designee. All pays in this section are considered special pays and shall be included as part of the regular rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime. All pays not in this section are not considered special pays and are not included in the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime, except On-Call Court Time (Article IX(B)(3)(b)) and Cancelled Subpoenas (Article IX(B)(3)(c)) which shall be calculated 811 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 8 into the regular rate of pay at base hourly rate, but not reported to PERS as special compensation. K. No Pyramiding/Compounding of Special Pay - Each special pay is a percentage of that employee’s base hourly rate of pay and shall not be counted towards the value of any other special pay. L. Nurse Pay - Employees in the classification of Detention Shift Supervisor, who possess a Nurse certification, pursuant to the Nurse classification job description, shall receive five percent (5%) of their base hourly rate, for so long as they possess the Nursing Degree or certification. The parties agree, to the extent permitted by law, the compensation in this section (Nurse Pay) is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(2) and Section 571.1(b)(2) Educational Incentive Pay. M. Reopener – Rotation of Specialty Assignments - The parties agree that either party to this MOU may reopen negotiations during the term of this 2020-2023 MOU regarding the rotation of specialty assignments. Any changes to the MOU would require an agreement of the parties. ARTICLE VIII - UNIFORMS, CLOTHING, TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT A. Uniforms 1. The City shall continue the Uniform Allowance in lieu of the City providing uniforms for employees represented by the Association. Such allowance shall be thirteen hundred dollars ($1,300) for sworn employees and twelve hundred dollars ($1,200) for non-sworn employees per year. The Uniform Allowance for all employees shall be paid with the first paycheck in December. Employees hired after January 1st shall have their uniform allowance pro-rated for each month in which they were on active duty for a least one full shift, separately from payroll checks. It is the mutual intent of the parties that this allowance shall be utilized solely for the purpose of replacing, repairing and maintaining uniforms and clothing worn in the line of duty. The City will continue to make initial issuance of required uniforms and replace uniforms and equipment damaged in the line of duty including safety equipment required by state law, City resolution or ordinance, or by order of the Chief of Police. 2. PERS Reporting of Uniform Allowance - The City shall report to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) the uniform allowance for each sworn and civilian classification as special compensation in accordance with Title 2, California Code of Regulation, Section 571(a)(5). Notwithstanding the previous sentence, for “new members” as defined by the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013, the uniform allowance will not be reported as compensation earnable to CalPERS. 812 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 9 B. Special Assignment Uniform Needs - Uniforms and equipment for special assignments shall continue to be provided by the City. C. Motorcycle Britches - Motorcycle officers shall receive four pairs of britches at the time of assignment. After initial issue, replacement britches may be issued on the recommendation of the Traffic Bureau Commander with approval of the Department Head. All replaced britches must be turned in when replacement britches are received. D. One Time Payment for Law Enforcement Equipment Effective at the beginning of the pay period following City Council approval of this 2017-2019 MOU, all employees in the unit on that date will receive a one-time lump sum payment of one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200.00) which is to reimburse employees for the previous and future purchases of law enforcement related equipment. This payment will only be made to employees in the unit at the beginning of the pay period following City Council approval of this 2017-2019 MOU. The employees in the unit acknowledge that the reimbursement will be used solely for out of pocket costs they have and will incur for equipment related to their job. The parties agree and acknowledge that since this one time lump sum payment is specifically being made for the reimbursement of out of pocket costs of work related equipment, it is not special compensation (as defined under Title 2 Section 571 for classic member employees) and therefore will not be reported to CalPERS as compensation earnable. This payment will be made one time and the City is not obligated to make it again unless the parties affirmatively agree to such a payment in the future. ARTICLE IX - HOURS OF WORK/OVERTIME A. Work Schedule: 1. The work schedules agreed to by the City and the Association shall be as set forth herein unless the Association and the City mutually agree to changes. All employees are subject to be called to work any time to meet any and all emergencies or unusual conditions which, in the opinion of the City Manager, Chief of Police or designee, may require such service from any of said employees. a. All work schedules are designed to be in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). b. Meal times are included in all work schedules. 2. 4/10 Schedule - All employees not assigned a different work schedule pursuant to this article shall work a 4/10 schedule consisting of four (4) consecutive ten (10) hours days followed by three (3) consecutive days off in a seven (7) day period. All employees work an eighty (80) hour work period, except for Communication Employees who work a forty (40) hour work week. 813 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 10 3. 7/11.5 Schedule – The “7/11.5” work schedule applies to designated employees of the Uniform Division and Jail. a. Workday – A workday for employees assigned to the 7/11.5 work schedule will consist of 11 hours and 25 minutes of work. b. Eighty (80) Hour Work Period – For those sworn and detention employees working 11 hours and 25 minutes a day, the work period will consist of two consecutive weeks with three (3) consecutive shifts of 11 hours and 25 minutes in one week and four (4) consecutive shifts of 11 hours and 25 minutes in the second week. The total hours for these two consecutive weeks shall be considered equaling eighty (80) hours. The two-week cycle then repeats itself. These employees are subject to a 14 day FLSA work period in accordance with Section 7(k) of the FLSA. c. Exceptions – At the discretion of the Chief of Police, specialized assignments within the Uniform Division will work either the 4/10 or 7/11.5 as described above. Unless agreed upon by the Association, changes to these work shifts shall only be made during recruitment of new officers into the assignments. Task Force assignments outside the Police Department will be flexible based on an eighty (80) hour work period. d. Beach Schedule - If posted during recruitment, employees working the Beach detail shall be assigned a fixed schedule that incorporates a work week of four consecutive days comprised of two (2) 8-hour days and two (2) 12-hour days. e. Schedule – Employees assigned to training or a school in excess of thirty-two (32) hours in a work week will work a five (5) day, eight (8) hour work week in lieu of their regular work schedule. 4. Forty (40) Hour Work Week Communications Center - Non-Sworn employees who are assigned to the Communications Center currently work a 4/10 work schedule. Upon mutual agreement of the Police Chief and the Association, the work schedule for the Communications Center may be changed to a work schedule of 11 hours and 25 minutes a day. One (1) work week shall consist of three consecutive shifts of 11 hours and 25 minutes and one (1) work week of four consecutive shifts of 11 hours and 25 minutes. The two (2) week cycle then repeats itself. Effective at the next shift change (scheduled for late May 2019) the work schedule of employees in the Employees in the classifications of Communications Operator-PD and Communications Supervisor-PD classifications work shall be a 3/12.5+5 schedule in which employees are scheduled to work three 12.5 hour shifts (on consecutive days) each week, with one additional five hour shift each 14 days that is adjacent to the employee’s first or last regularly scheduled shift of the week. Employees may arrange shift trades such that the employee’s work one 10 hour day each 28 days. These employees’ FLSA workweeks shall begin 814 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 11 exactly 2.5 hours into the start time of their five- hour shift and end exactly 168 hours later. At the discretion of the Police Chief, the 3/12.5+5 work schedule may be terminated effective at the end of three deployments, (the third deployment is scheduled to end in May 2020) provided notice of such termination is provided to the President of HBPOA in writing before February 12, 2020. If terminated, the affected employees shall revert to the 4/10 work schedule described in the first paragraph of this Article IX. A. 4. During the term of this 2020-2023 MOU, either the City or the Association may request to meet and confer over changes to this work schedule at any time. If either party makes such a request to the other, the parties agree that they will promptly meet and confer. No changes to the work schedule can occur without an agreement of the parties. 5. Overtime a. Employees assigned to an eighty (80) hour work period shall be paid at the rate of one and one-half (1 ½) times their regular rate of pay for all time worked in excess of their regularly scheduled shift and/or 80-hour work period. Their 80 hour work period is authorized and in accordance with Section 7(k) of the FLSA. b. Employees assigned to a forty (40) hour work week shall be paid at the rate of one and one-half (1 ½) times their regular rate of pay for all time worked in excess of their regularly scheduled shift and/or forty (40) hour work week. However, Communication Operators on the 7/11.5 or 3/12.5+5 work schedule must work a minimum of forty (40) hours in the work week before earning overtime. Any hours worked in excess of the regularly scheduled shift that do not exceed forty (40) hours in a work week shall be paid at their regular rate of pay. B. Other Time: 1. Compensatory Time Off - Federal law controls the use of compensatory time off. Title 29 U.S. Code Section 207(o) allows the employer and employee representative to establish a compensatory time off bank in lieu of a cash overtime payment as required by the FLSA. The parties agree an employee may elect to bank compensatory time up to a maximum one hundred sixty (160) hours. The employee’s right to use compensatory time off may be restricted if a request to use is not made by providing reasonable notice or the requested use is “unduly” disruptive. The parties agree reasonable notice is seventy two (72) hours. If compensatory time off is requested with 72 hours or more notice, its use cannot be denied unless to do so would be unduly disruptive. A request to use compensatory time off made with less than the 72 hours’ notice can still be granted at the discretion of the manager to whom the request is made. In addition to the preceding, the Chief of Police shall identify days or events on which compensatory time can be denied. These days or events will be designated 815 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 12 as "unduly disruptive days". There shall be a maximum of seven (7) unduly disruptive days per calendar year. The Chief of Police shall identify these "unduly disruptive days" as early as possible and no later than 45 days prior to the designated date or event. Employees who already had been granted time off with pay for the "unduly disruptive days" selected by the Chief of Police prior to the time the selection had been made shall be allowed to continue to take that time off with pay. The Modified Maximum Deployment Calendar currently being used will be eliminated and shall be replaced by the designated "unduly disruptive days." The parties agree if by June 30December 31, 202319, they have been unable to agree upon a successor MOU, the compensatory time off provisions will continue unless either party informs the other that it no longer agrees to allow the continued accrual of compensatory time off in lieu of overtime compensation. If that occurs, thirty (30) days after providing such notice to the other side, all overtime worked will be paid unless and until the parties agree upon a subsequent compensatory time off provision in the MOU. The parties agree that use of compensatory time off at the following times will be unduly disruptive: a. At any time when the request for compensatory time off request presents an officer’s safety problem by going below shift minimum as presented by the City in the meet and confer process. b. The Association, its officers, agents, representatives and/or members agree that during the term of this MOU they will not call, engage in, request or condone the use of compensatory time off for any strike, walkout, work stoppage, job action, slowdown, sick-out, blue flu, withholding of services or other interference with City operations, or honor any job action by any other employee of the City, employee organizations, or employees of any other employers by withholding or refusing to perform services. In the event that the Association, its officers, agents, representatives, and/or members engage in any of the conduct prohibited herein above, the compensatory time off provision of this MOU shall sunset and thereafter overtime hours shall be compensated at the employee’s overtime rate. c. To the extent that these provisions are inconsistent with the Settlement Agreement in HBPOA, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. Case No. CV 92-6265 CMB (Shx) said settlement agreement is superseded. Provisions not so superseded shall not be affected by the agreement. 2. Work Time - For the purpose of computing the 80 hour work period for sworn employees in the unit and the 40 hour workweek for non-sworn employees in the unit, the following shall be included as hours worked in determining the eligibility for overtime pay. a. Sick leave. b. Vacation and General Leave time taken during the work period. 816 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 13 c. Compensatory time off taken during the work period. d. Any other paid leave time taken during the work period. 3. Subpoena Compensation a. Court Appearance Time - Employees required to appear in court during other than their scheduled working hours shall be paid a minimum of three (3) hours overtime pay; provided, however, that if such time overlaps with the employee’s scheduled working hours, said rate shall be limited to those hours occurring prior to or after the employee’s scheduled work time. The City shall recognize administrative subpoenas the same as criminal and civil, including subpoenaed hearings conducted by telephone. Telephone Business under subpoena is differentiated from Telephonic Work as described in Section 6 below. b. On-Call Court Time - Employees required to be on-call for a court appearance during other than their scheduled working hours shall be paid a minimum of three (3) hours pay at their regular rate of pay for each morning and afternoon court session provided, however, that if such time overlaps with the employee’s scheduled working hours, said rate shall be limited to those hours occurring prior to or after the employee’s scheduled work time. On-Call Court Time shall not be considered hours worked for the purpose of calculating overtime. Employees shall not be paid On-Call Court Time if Court Appearance Time is paid. c. Cancelled Subpoenas - Employee shall be paid two (2) hours of pay at their regular rate of pay for subpoenas cancelled with less than twenty-four (24) hours’ notice. d. Retiree - In accordance with department policy, if the City accepts a subpoena on behalf of a current employee who then retires or a retiree, a stipend will be provided for court appearance time. The stipend will be based on the present Step E of the base hourly rate of pay of the position the retiree held before retirement from City service. Paid court preparation time and travel expenses shall be mutually agreed upon between the City and the retiree. 4. Standby Pay - An employee who is placed on standby status by a supervisor shall be paid four (4) hours pay at their base hourly rate of pay for each 24 (twenty-four) hour period, or any part thereof, of standby status. 5. Call Back - Employees who are called back to work will be paid a minimum of two (2) hours pay at the overtime rate, upon arrival at the department or the incident scene until released. Should the called back employee be cancelled prior to arrival, the two (2) hour minimum shall be paid. 817 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 14 6. Telephonic Business - Off-duty employees shall be compensated a minimum of fifteen (15) minutes as hours worked when telephoned to conduct departmental business. Telephonic departmental business beyond fifteen (15) minutes shall be compensated in fifteen (15) minute increments (i.e., 16-30 minutes = 30 minutes of compensation, 31-45 minutes = 45 minutes compensation and so forth). Telephonic business is not considered Call Back Time as outlined in Article IX.B.5. 7. Canine Compensation - Employees assigned to canine duty shall be paid for the off-duty care, feeding and grooming of their canine and the routine, off-duty canine-related maintenance of their canine car. The City and the Association have considered the time that canine officers typically spend on off-duty canine care, and determined it to be fifteen (15) hours per month. Employees assigned to canine duty shall be paid fifteen (15) hours per month of overtime rate of pay based on the canine care salary rate. The canine care salary rate shall be two-thirds (2/3) of the Canine Officer's base pay rate, excluding any specialty or similar pays. In negotiating this MOU, the City requested that the Association conduct an actual inquiry of the hours which employees assigned to Canine duties perform each month to ensure compliance with the FLSA and in particular the case of Leever v. City of Carson City (9th Cir. 2004). The Association advised the City that the inquiry revealed that the hours to which the parties have agreed – (fifteen hours per month) accurately describes the time such employees are performing such duties each month. In addition to the fifteen (15) hours of pay per month described in the preceding paragraph, canine officers shall be paid for off-duty veterinary visits and extraordinary off-duty care, provided that, absent an emergency, the Officers shall obtain supervisor approval for such care and shall submit payroll exemption slips. Any such additional canine compensation shall be paid at their overtime rate as defined in Article IX.A.4. The parties agree, to the extent permitted by law, the compensation in this section is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(4) and Section 571.1(b)(3) Canine Officer/Animal Premium. 8. Shift Trading The parties agree the provisions below are compliant with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Unit members have the right to trade shifts with their colleagues within the same classification subject to the following conditions: a. Both employees agree to the shift trade voluntarily. b. The employees trading the shifts shall complete an appropriate shift trade form signed by both employees and presented to a supervisor for approval prior to the first affected shift. Supervisors will not unreasonably deny a trade. 818 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 15 c. The employee whose shift is worked gets credit for the shift. Thus, the employee whose shift was worked will record the time as time worked on his or her time sheet. Payback of the traded shift will be the responsibility of the two employees who trade shifts and will not be monitored by the City. However, the parties agree shift trades will be accomplished by the employees who trade within six (6) months of the first shift traded. If an employee leaves the City having not paid back a shift, it shall be the responsibility of the two employees to work out any pay back. ARTICLE X - HEALTH AND OTHER INSURANCE BENEFITS A. Retiree Medical Trust The City authorizes the HBPOA to participate in an employee welfare medical benefit trust fund program, called the PORAC Retiree Medical Trust, with the following conditions: 1. The City shall contribute $100.00 to the Trust per month for each represented employee. Equal contributions shall be made on the first two pay periods of each month. This benefit will continue until June 30December 31, 202319 on which day it will sunset unless the parties affirmatively negotiate to maintain or modify it. At such time, the City will no longer have the obligation to make this $100.00 contribution to the Trust. 2. The City shall withhold $100.00 per month for each represented employee to participate in the program. The withholding could change and if it does, it shall be in an amount as designated in writing by the HBPOA. Deductions shall be taken on the first two checks of each month. Generally, participation and contributions are required for every member of the bargaining unit represented by the Association. However, this requirement will not apply to an employee who is entitled to receive full retiree medical coverage due to his or her service in the United States military (Military Exception). 3. HBPOA shall pay all associated expenses incurred to participate in this program. 4. Upon request, the HBPOA shall provide documentation to the City as follows: a. A copy of the in-force employee medical welfare benefit trust fund program; b. A statement certifying that funds collected are for employee welfare medical benefits for HBPOA represented employees only; c. A copy of the current program document as well as any changes, amendments or written confirmation that there have been no changes to the employee medical welfare benefit trust fund program provider; 819 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 16 d. Verification of the funds submitted to the PORAC Retiree Medical Trust, and e. A statement certifying that the submitted funds are only being utilized to provide employee welfare medical benefit trust funds for participating members including members of the HBPOA. 5. City shall pay the withheld funds to the PORAC Retiree Medical Trust bi-weekly. 6. All Federal and State laws regarding employee medical welfare benefit trust funds coverage shall be followed. 7. HBPOA agrees that it will indemnify and hold harmless the City as well as all direct or indirect successors, officers, directors, heirs, predecessors, assigns, agents, insurers, employees, attorneys, representatives, and each of them, past and present, from and against any claims, lawsuits, penalties, interest, taxes, or liability of any kind whatsoever, which may result from the qualified employee welfare benefit trust fund program. B. Health The City shall continue to make available group medical, dental and vision benefits to all Association employees and qualified dependents. The effective date for medical, dental and vision coverage is the first of the month following date of hire. Effective the first of the month following the employee’s date of hire, any required employee payroll deduction shall begin with the first full pay period following the effective date of coverage and shall continue through the end of the month in which the employee separates, unless otherwise precluded by CalPERS Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA). All employee contributions shall be deducted on a pre- tax basis. 1. CalPERS Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act The City presently contracts with CalPERS to provide medical coverage. The City is required under CalPERS PEMHCA to make a contribution to retiree medical premiums. A retiree’s right to receive a City contribution, and the City’s obligation to make payment on behalf of retirees, shall only exist as long as the City contracts with CalPERS for medical insurance. In addition, while the City is in CalPERS, its obligations to make payments on behalf of retirees shall be limited to the required statutory minimum payment. a. PEMHCA Employer Contributions The City shall contribute on behalf of each employee, the required statutory minimum payment per month for the payment of premiums for medical insurance under the PEMHCA program. As the statutory minimum is increased, the City shall make the appropriate adjustments by decreasing its flex benefits contribution accordingly as defined in the following sub-section. b. Maximum Employer Contributions toward Flex Benefits 820 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 17 The City’s maximum monthly employer contribution for each employee’s medical and vision insurance premiums are set forth as follows: i. Employee only (“EE”) – The cost of the medical premium up to a maximum of $699.00. Effective in the pay period which includes February 1, 2019, the amount is increased to $774.00. Effective in the pay period that includes January 1, 2021, the City agrees to increase this amount to the PORAC Region 2 amount for employee only coverage but not higher than $786.00 per month. Effective in the pay period that includes January 1, 2022, the City agrees to increase this amount to the PORAC Region 2 amount for employee only coverage but not higher than $826.00 per month. ii. Employee + one dependent (“EE” + 1) – The cost of the medical premium up to a maximum of $1,399.00. Effective in the pay period which includes February 1, 2019, the amount is increased to $1,623.00. Effective in the pay period that includes January 1, 2022, the City agrees to increase this amount to the PORAC Region 2 amount for employee plus 1 coverage but not higher than $1,704.00 per month. iii. Employee + two or more dependents (“EE” + 2) – The cost of the medical premium up to a maximum $1,789.00. Effective in the pay period which includes February 1, 2019, the amount is increased to $2,076.00. Effective in the pay period that includes January 1, 2022, the City agrees to increase this amount to the PORAC Region 2 amount for employee plus 2 or more dependents coverage but not higher than $2,180.00 per month. iv. The City shall also pay up to $22.76 per month for each employee for the VSP Vision Plan. The parties agree the required PEMHCA statutory minimum contribution is included in this sum stated in the sub-section above. If the employee enrolls in a plan wherein the costs exceed the City Contribution, the employee is responsible for all additional premiums through pre-tax payroll deductions. 2. Dental Insurance The annual maximum benefit for the Delta Dental PPO plan is $2000 (two thousand dollars). The maximum monthly City contribution for dental insurance shall be as follows: 1) employee only (“EE”) - $57.86; 2) employee plus one dependent (“EE+1”) - $108.02 or 3) employee plus two or more dependents (“EE+2”) - $142.36. 3. Retiree (Annuitant) Coverage As required by the Government Code retired employees (annuitants) shall have available the ability to participate in the PEMHCA program. The City’s requirement 821 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 18 to provide retirees and/or annuitants medical coverage is solely governed by the Government Code requirement that requires the City to extend this benefit to retirees (annuitants). While the City is contracted with CalPERS to participate in the PEMHCA program, CalPERS shall be the sole determiner of eligibility for retiree and/or annuitant to participate in the PEMHCA program. a. City Contribution (Unequal Contribution Method) for Retirees As allowed by the Government Code and the CalPERS Board, and requested by the Association, the City contracted for and uses the Unequal Contribution Method to make City contributions on behalf of each retiree or annuitant. The starting year for the unequal contributions method was 2004 at $1.00 per month. The City’s contribution for each annuitant shall be increased annually by five percent (5%) of the monthly contribution for employees, until such time as the contributions are equal. The Service Credit Subsidy will be reduced every January 1st by an amount equal to any required amount to be paid by the City on behalf of the retiree (annuitant). The City shall make these payments only while the City is a participant in the PEMHCA program. b. Termination of Participation in the CalPERS PEMHCA program – Impact to Retirees The City’s requirement to provide retirees (annuitants) medical coverage is solely governed by the Government Code requirement that PEMHCA agencies extend this benefit to retirees (annuitants). If by agreement between the Association and the City or if the City elects to impose termination of its participation in the PEMHCA program, retirees (annuitants) shall no longer be eligible for City provided medical insurance. In the event that the City terminates its participation in the PEMHCA program, the retiree medical subsidy program in place in Resolution No. 2001-28 Exhibit C to the MOU shall be reinstated. The City shall make any necessary modifications to conform to the new City sponsored medical insurance plan. c. Termination Clause The City and Association may each request termination of the City’s contract with CalPERS after the announcement of State Legislation, Judicial Rulings, or a CalPERS Board Action that changes the employer’s contribution, insurance premiums or program changes to the CalPERS medical plan. The City and Association may elect to terminate its participation in the CalPERS PEMHCA program by mutual agreement through the meet and confer process between the Association and the City. 4. Medical/Vision Opt-Out 822 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 19 Employees covered by group health insurance outside of a City-provided program (evidence of which must be supplied to the Human Resources Department), may elect to discontinue City medical coverage and either direct the cash value of the City’s Contribution Cap for employee only (“EE”) medical coverage as described in Article X.B.1.(b) be deposited into their Deferred Compensation account, or any other pre-tax program offered or approved by the City, or the employee may elect to receive this amount as a taxable cash medical-opt out benefit. In order to be eligible for the opt-out payment the employee must be able to demonstrate to the City’s satisfaction that they are enrolled in a qualified employer-sponsored group health plan that provides minimum essential coverage as defined by the Affordable Care Act, (The coverage must be obtained through another source other than coverage in the individual market, whether or not obtained through Covered California) and will not incur penalties under the ACA. An employee may also elect to discontinue vision coverage. The employer-paid portion of the premium paid for vision coverage will be applied toward the medical premium. 5. Section 125 Employee Plan The City shall provide an Internal Revenue Code section 125 employee plan that allows employees to use pre-tax salary to pay for regular childcare, adult dependent care and/or unreimbursed medical expenses as determined by the Internal Revenue Code. 6. Life Insurance The City will provide $50,000 term life insurance and $50,000 accidental death and dismemberment insurance without evidence of insurability other than evidence of working full time. Additional life insurance may be purchased consistent with the plan limitations, at the employee’s cost, with evidence of insurability. 7. Income Protection Plan The City authorizes the HBPOA to administer its own Long Term Disability (LTD) Program providing the following conditions are adhered to: a. The City and HBPOA agree that the City shall no longer provide a City sponsored LTD Program. b. HBPOA shall contract with an authorized provider for a LTD program for the employees represented by the HBPOA. c. The City shall pay to HBPOA for the cost of LTD premiums not to exceed thirty-eight dollars ($38) per month per occupied covered position represented by HBPOA. 823 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 20 d. Non-dues paying represented employees shall be covered by the LTD Policy at the same premium rate as dues paying represented employees. e. City payment to HBPOA is to be made for each represented employee per month based on the bi-weekly payroll. f. HBPOA shall pay the authorized provider for the cost of premiums and any expenses incurred for administering the program. g. The City shall provide the HBPOA with a monthly report of covered employees. h. No self-funding/self-insurance of LTD benefits is permitted under this agreement. i. Upon request, the HBPOA shall provide an annual certification of the Plan on each anniversary the Plan is in effect which will include: 1) A copy of the most current audited financial statements; 2) A copy of the latest actuarial report, which should be completed by an independent “Fellow of the Society of Actuaries”; 3) A copy of the in-force LTD Program; 4) A statement certifying that premiums collected are for LTD benefits for HBPOA represented employees only; 5) A copy of the current plan document as well as any changes or amendments, or written confirmation that there have been no changes as LTD provider; 6) A copy of the “Summary Annual Report” and, upon request, a copy of the latest filed Form 5500; 7) A listing of active HBPOA claimants with all relevant data as requested by City (i.e., date of disability, etc.) including the allocated reserves for each claimant; 8) Verification of the premium received and credited by the HBPOA. 9) A statement certifying that the submitted premiums are only being utilized to provide LTD benefits for participating members including members of the HBPOA; and 10) A written confirmation from the plan administrator confirming (i) that it is authorized to do business in California; (ii) that it is properly licensed; 824 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 21 (iii) that it maintains current “Errors and Omissions” insurance; and (iv) that it is bonded. j. All Federal and State laws regarding LTD benefit coverage shall be followed. k. HBPOA agrees that it will indemnify and hold harmless the City as well as all direct or indirect successors, officers, directors, heirs, predecessors, assigns, agents, insurers, employees, attorneys, representatives, and each of them, past and present, from and against any claims, lawsuits, penalties, interest, taxes, or liability of any kind whatsoever, which may result from the HBPOA sponsored and administered LTD insurance program. 8. Long Term Care a. The City authorizes the HBPOA to administer its own Long Term Care (LTC) Program providing the following conditions are adhered to: b. HBPOA shall contract with an authorized provider for LTC program for the employees represented by the HBPOA. c. The City shall pay to HBPOA for the cost of LTC premiums not to exceed twenty-five ($25) per month per occupied covered position represented by HBPOA. d. Non-dues paying represented employees shall be covered by the LTC Program at the same premium rate as dues paying represented employees. e. City payment to HBPOA is to be made for each represented employee per month based on the bi-weekly payroll. f. HBPOA shall pay the authorized provider for the cost of premiums and any expenses incurred for administering the program. g. The City shall provide the HBPOA with a monthly report of covered employees. h. No self-funding/self-insurance of LTC benefits is permitted under this agreement. i. Upon request, the HBPOA shall provide any reasonable documentation to the City as similarly described in the LTD Program. j. All federal and State laws regarding LTC benefit coverage shall be followed. k. HBPOA agrees that it will indemnify and hold harmless the City as well as all direct or indirect successors, officers, directors, heirs, predecessors, assigns, agents, insurers, employees, attorneys, representatives, and each of them, past and present, from and against any claims, lawsuits, penalties, interest, 825 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 22 taxes, or liability of any kind whatsoever, which may result from the HBPOA sponsored and administered LTC Program. ARTICLE XI – RETIREMENT A. “Classic Member” Safety Employee Retirement Benefits: 1. 3% @ Age 50 Plan - The City shall provide the 3% @ Age 50 retirement formula set forth in California Government Code Section 21362.2 for all safety employees defined as “classic members” per the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) represented by the Association. 2. 1959 Survivors’ Benefit Level IV (California Government Code Section 21574) - Members of the City’s safety retirement plan shall be covered by the Fourth Level of the 1959 Survivor Benefit. 3. Pre-retirement Optional 2 Death Benefit (California Government Code Section 21548 – Safety Employees) 4. One-Year Final Compensation (California Government Code Section 20042) 5. “Classic Member” Safety CalPERS Member Contribution - a. All “classic members” shall pay their CalPERS member contribution of nine percent (9%) of compensation earnable. b. The City has adopted the CalPERS Resolution in accordance with IRS Code section 414(h)(2) to ensure that both the employee contribution and the City pickup of the required member contribution are made on a pre-tax basis. However, ultimately, the tax status of any benefit is determined by the law. 6. Classic Member Safety CalPERS Cost Sharing: a. Effective the beginning of the pay period including January 1, 2020, classic member safety members shall cost share two percent (2%) compensation earnable in accordance with Government Code section 20516(f). b. Effective the beginning of the pay period including January 1, 2021, classic member safety members shall cost share an additional one percent (1%) compensation earnable in accordance with Government Code section 20516(f), for a total cost share of three percent (3%). c. Effective the beginning of the pay period including January 1, 2022, classic member safety members shall cost share an additional one percent (1%) compensation earnable in accordance with Government Code section 20516(f), for a total cost share of four percent (4%). 826 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 23 B. “Classic Member” Miscellaneous Employee Retirement Benefits: 1. 2.5 % @ Age 55 Plan (California Government Code Section 21354.4) – Members of the City’s miscellaneous retirement plan with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) shall receive the 2.5% at age 55 CalPERS retirement plan. 2. 1959 Survivors’ Benefit Level IV (California Government Code Section 21574) - Members of the City’s miscellaneous retirement plan shall be covered by the Fourth Level of the 1959 Survivor Benefit. 3. Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit (California Government Code Section 21548) - Members of the City’s miscellaneous retirement plan shall be covered by the Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit. 4. One-Year Final Compensation (California Government Code Section 20042) 5. Classic Miscellaneous CalPERS Member Contribution - a. All “classic members” shall pay their CalPERS member contribution of eight percent (8%) of compensation earnable. b. The City has adopted the CalPERS Resolution in accordance with IRS Code section 414(h)(2) to ensure that both the employee contribution and the City pickup of the required member contribution are made on a pre-tax basis. However, ultimately, the tax status of any benefit is determined by the law. 6. Classic Member Miscellaneous CalPERS Cost Sharing: Effective the beginning of the pay period including January 1, 2020, classic member miscellaneous members shall cost share one percent (1%) compensation earnable in accordance with Government Code section 20516(f). C. Retirement Benefits for Safety and Miscellaneous Employees - Self-Funded Supplemental Retirement Benefit – In the event a PERS member elects Option #1, #2, #2W, #3, #3W or #4 of the Public Employees’ Retirement law, and the member is a unit employee who was hired prior to July 6, 1998, the City shall pay the difference between such elected option and the unmodified allowance which the member would have received for his/her life alone as provided in California Government Code sections 21455, 21456, 21457, and 21548 as said referenced Government Code sections exist as of the date of this agreement. This payment shall be made only to the member, shall be payable by the City during the life of the member, and upon that member’s death, the City’s obligation shall cease. The method of funding this benefit shall be at the sole discretion of the City. All unit employees hired after July 6, 1998 shall not be eligible for this benefit. 827 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 24 D. CalPERS “New Member” Retirement Benefits: For “New Members” within the meaning of the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) of 2013 as defined in California Government Code Section 7522.04(f). Employees (both sworn and miscellaneous) shall pay one half of the normal cost rate, as established by CalPERS each year in its annual valuation for the City, as required by California Government Code Section 7522.30(c). E. “New Member” Safety Retirement Benefits 1. CalPERS “New Member” Safety Retirement Formula: 2.7% @ Age 57 Plan - The City shall provide the 2.7% @ Age 57 retirement formula set forth in California Government Code Section 7522.25(d) for all safety employees defined as “new members” per the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) represented by the Association. 2. 1959 Survivors’ Benefit Level IV (California Government Code Section 21574) – Members of the City’s safety retirement plan shall be covered by the Fourth Level of the 1959 Survivor Benefit. 3. Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit (California Government Code Section 21548) these members of the City’s safety retirement plan shall be covered by the Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit. 4. Final Compensation - Final compensation will be based on the highest annual average pensionable compensation during the 36 consecutive months immediately preceding the effective date of his or her retirement, or some other 36 consecutive month period designated by the member, as required by California Government Code Section 7522.32(a). 5. New Member Safety CalPERS Cost Sharing: Effective the beginning of the pay period including January 1, 2020, new member safety members shall cost share 1.25% pensionable compensation in accordance with Government Code section 20516(f). This will ensure that these members will pay 13% of pensionable compensation (when combined with the 11.75% pensionable compensation that these employees are required to pay as determined by CalPERS’s annual evaluation. If in future fiscal years, the member contribution rate for new member safety members shall become greater or less than 11.75% of pensionable compensation, as determined by CalPERS’s annual valuation, the additional contribution made by the employee under 20516(f) will be increased or decreased accordingly, so that the total employee contribution equals 13% of pensionable compensation. In the event that 50% of normal cost, as determined by CalPERS, exceeds 13%, these employees shall pay 50% of normal cost, only. 828 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 25 F. “New Member” Miscellaneous Retirement Benefits 1. CalPERS “New Member” Miscellaneous Retirement Formula: 2% @ Age 62 Plan -The City shall provide the 2% @ Age 62 retirement formula set forth in California Government Code Section 7522.20(a) for all non-safety employees defined as “new members” per the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) represented by the Association. 2. 1959 Survivors’ Benefit Level IV (California Government Code Section 21574) – Members of the City’s miscellaneous retirement plan shall be covered by the Fourth Level of the 1959 Survivor Benefit. 3. Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit (California Government Code Section 21548) these members of the City’s miscellaneous retirement plan shall be covered by the Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit. 4. Final Compensation - Final compensation will be based on the highest annual average pensionable compensation during the 36 consecutive months immediately preceding the effective date of his or her retirement, or some other 36 consecutive month period designated by the member, as required by California Government Code Section 7522.32(a). 5. New Member Miscellaneous CalPERS Cost Sharing: Effective the beginning of the pay period including January 1, 2020, new member miscellaneous members shall cost share 1.50% pensionable compensation in accordance with Government Code section 20516(f). Effective the beginning of the pay period including January 1, 2021, new member miscellaneous members shall cost share an additional amount of pensionable compensation earnable (estimated at one and one quarter percent (1.25%)) compensation earnable in accordance with Government Code section 20516(f) for total cost shall of two and three-quarters percent (2.75%). This will ensure that effective the beginning of the pay period including January 1, 2021, these members will pay 9% of pensionable compensation (when the estimated 2.75% is combined with the 6.25% pensionable compensation that these employees are required to pay as determined by CalPERS’s annual evaluation). If in future fiscal years, (including 2021 if the normal cost rate is modified from 6.25%) member contribution rate for new member safety members shall become greater or less than 6.25% of pensionable compensation, as determined by CalPERS’s annual valuation, the additional contribution made by the employee under 20516(f) will be increased or decreased accordingly, so that the total employee contribution equals 9% of pensionable compensation. In the event that 50% of normal cost, as determined by CalPERS, exceeds 9%, these employees shall pay 50% of normal cost, only. 829 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 26 ARTICLE XII - LEAVE BENEFITS Subsection A Vacation and Subsection B(1) on Sick Leave Compensation shall only apply from January 1, 2020 until 12:00 a.m. the first day of the pay period following City Council approval of this 2020-2023 MOU. On that date at 12:01 a.m., new subsection C, General Leave, shall apply. A. Vacation: 1. Anniversary Date - For the purpose of computing vacation, an employee’s anniversary date shall be the most recent date on which he/she commenced full- time City employment. 2. Annual Vacation - The purpose of annual vacation is to provide a rest period, which will enable each employee to return to work physically and mentally refreshed. All employees shall be entitled to annual vacation with pay except the following: a. Employees who have not completed six (6) months of continuous service with the City. b. Employees who work less than full-time who are not permanent. c. Employees on leave of absence. 3. Vacation Accrual - Employees in the City’s service, having an average work week of forty (40) hours, shall accrue annual vacation with pay in accordance with the following: a. For the first (1st) through the fourth (4th) year of continuous service, vacation time will be accrued at the rate of one hundred twelve (112) hours per year (4.31 biweekly). b. For the fifth year (5th) and through the ninth (9th) year of continuous service, vacation time will be accrued at the rate of one hundred thirty six (136) hours per year (5.23 biweekly). c. For the tenth (10th) year and through the fourteenth (14th) year of continuous service, vacation time will be accrued at the rate of one hundred sixty (160) hours per year (6.15 biweekly) d. For the fifteenth (15th) year and thereafter of continuous service, vacation time will be accrued at the rate of one hundred ninety two (192) hours per year (7.38 biweekly). 4. Vacation 830 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 27 a. No employee shall be permitted to take a vacation in excess of actual time earned and vacation shall not be accrued in excess of four hundred (400) hours. Vacations shall be taken only with permission of the Chief of Police; however, the Chief of Police shall schedule all vacations with due consideration for the wish of the employee and particular regard for the need of the department. b. Vacation accumulated in excess of the four hundred (400) hour cap shall be paid at the base hourly rate of pay on the first pay day following such accumulation. 5. Vacation Pay at Separation For Employees Exempt From the Retirement Medical Trust – These employees shall be paid for unused vacation upon separation of employment at which time they shall be paid compensation at their current regular rate of pay for all unused, earned vacation to which they are entitled through their last day of employment. 6. Vacation Conversion to Cash - Through the end of 2019, aAn employee may elect to take up to eighty (80) hours of pay at their current regular rate of pay per calendar year for accrued vacation in lieu of time off. It is the intent of the parties that employees will take vacation during the current year. Effective in calendar year 2020, oOn or before the beginning of the pay period which includes December 15 (starting in 2019) of each calendar year, an employee may make an irrevocable election to cash out up to eighty (80) hours of accrued vacation which will be earned in the following calendar year at the employee’s regular rate of pay. By Thanksgiving in the following year, the employee will receive cash for the amount of vacation the employee irrevocably elected to cash out in the prior year. However, if the employee’s vacation leave balance is less than the amount the employee elected to cash out (in the prior calendar year) the employee will receive cash for the amount of leave the employee has accrued at the time of the cash out. 7. Deferred Compensation/Vacation Cash Out - The value of any unused earned vacation may be transferred to deferred compensation at the regular rate of pay in connection with separation from employment, but only during the time the employee is actively employed with the City. The employee must request the transfer no later than the pay period prior to the employee’s last day of employment. Any unused earned vacation remaining upon separation will be transferred to the qualified medical retirement trust program on a pre-tax basis. B. Sick Leave Compensation 1. All employees shall be entitled to use a maximum of sixty (60) calendar days paid sick leave per incident or illness. This leave shall not accumulate beyond the one year maximum and there shall be no pay off rights to unused leave upon separation of employment from the City. 831 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 28 2. Police Sergeants Sick Leave Pay Off a. Police Sergeants promoted before December 23, 2000, shall be entitled to the following sick leave payoff plan: At separation from employment, all employees shall be paid, at their regular rate of pay, for twenty-five percent (25%) of unused, earned sick leave to four hundred eighty (480) hours accrued, and for thirty-five (35%) of all unused, earned sick leave in excess of four hundred eighty (480) hours, but not to exceed seven hundred twenty (720 hours). No Police Sergeant shall be paid at separation for more than seven hundred twenty (720) hours of unused, accumulated sick leave. C. General Leave: 1. Purpose - The purpose of annual General Leave is to provide a rest period, which will enable each employee to return to work physically and mentally refreshed, as well as for an illness or injury of the employee not otherwise covered under other provisions of law (e.g., Labor Code 4850, workers’ compensation laws, etc.) and as permitted by the law for the following family members: Child, Parent, Spouse, Registered Domestic Partner, Grandparent, Grandchild and Sibling per Labor Code section 233. 2. Anniversary Date - For the purpose of computing General Leave, an employee’s anniversary date shall be the most recent date on which he/she commenced full- time City employment, unless otherwise provided in writing by agreement between the City and the employee upon initial hire or re-hire. 3. Annual General Leave Eligibility - All employees shall be entitled to use annual General Leave with pay except the following: a. Employees who have not completed six (6) months of continuous service with the City. However, employees with less than six (6) months of continuous service may, after 90 days, use up to 24 hours of General Leave for the purpose of an injury to or illness of themselves. b. Employees who work less than full-time who are not permanent. However, employees who do not work full-time and are not permanent may, after 90 days, use up to 24 hours of General Leave for the purpose of illness, injury, or family sickness. c. Employees on leave of absence. 4. General Leave Accrual - Employees in the City’s service, having an average work week of forty (40) hours, shall accrue annual General Leave with pay in accordance with the following: 832 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 29 a. For the first (1st) through the fourth (4th) year of continuous service, General Leave shall be accrued at the rate of one hundred and seventy six (176) hours per year (6.77 hours biweekly). b. For the fifth year (5th) and through the ninth (9th) year of continuous service, General Leave shall be accrued at the rate of two hundred (200) hours per year (7.69 hours biweekly). c. For the tenth (10th) year and through the fourteenth (14th) year of continuous service, General Leave shall be accrued at the rate of two hundred and twenty four (224) hours per year (8.62 hours biweekly) d. For the fifteenth (15th) year and thereafter of continuous service, General Leave shall be accrued at the rate of two hundred and fifty six (256) hours per year (9.85 hours biweekly). 5. Use of General Leave a. No employee shall be permitted to use General Leave in excess of actual time earned and General Leave shall not be accrued in excess of six hundred and forty (640) hours. General Leave use for vacations shall be taken only with permission of the Chief of Police (or his/her designee); however, the Chief of Police shall schedule all vacations with due consideration for the wishes of the employee and particular regard for the needs of the department. If used as sick leave, employees must call in prior to their shift and provide a supervisor with notice that they are using General Leave due to illness or , injury, or family sickness. b. General Leave accumulated in excess of the six hundred and forty (640) hour cap shall be paid at the base hourly rate of pay on the first payday following such accumulation. 6. General Leave Pay at Separation for Employees Exempt from the Retirement Medical Trust - Upon separation of employment, employees exempt from the Retirement Medical Trust shall be paid for unused General Leave at their current regular rate of pay for all unused, earned General Leave to which they are entitled up to and including the last day of employment. 7. General Leave Conversion to Cash -– During Calendar Year 2020, Aan employee may elect to cash out take up to one-hundred and twenty (120) hours of accrued vacation leave and/or general leave pay at their current regular rate of pay per calendar year for accrued General Leave in lieu of time off. It is the intent of the parties that employees will take General Leave as vacation during the current year. On or before the beginning of the pay period which includes December 15 of each calendar year beginning in December 2020, an employee may make an irrevocable election to cash out up to one hundred and twenty (120) hours of 833 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 30 accrued General Leave which will be earned in the following calendar year at the employee’s regular rate of pay. The employee can elect to receive up to sixty (60) hours of General Leave cash out in the pay period that includes July 15. The employee shall receive any remaining General Leave cash out to which they irrevocably elected to cash out in the pay period that includes December 1. However, if the employee’s General Leave balance is less than the amount the employee elected to cash out (in the prior calendar year) the employee will receive cash for the amount of leave the employee has accrued at the time of the cash out. 8. Deferred Compensation/General Leave Cash Out - The value of any unused earned General Leave may be transferred to deferred compensation at the regular rate of pay in connection with separation from employment, but only during the time the employee is actively employed with the City. The employee must request the transfer no later than the pay period prior to the employee’s last day of employment. Any unused earned General Leave remaining upon separation will be transferred to the qualified medical retirement trust program on a pre-tax basis. 9. Sick Leave – Full-time employees hired on or before the pay period following Council approval of this 2020-2023 MOU will receive a one-time Sick Leave bank totaling 144 hours. Up to 72 hours of this Sick Leave may be used for family Sick Leave per the relationships included in Labor Code section 233. Once this Sick Leave bank is fully used, employees will no longer receive Sick Leave, only General Leave as described above. This one-time bank may not be cashed out at any time, nor, upon separation from employment, transferred to deferred compensation and/or a qualified medical retirement trust program. D. Bereavement Leave - Employees shall be entitled to bereavement leave not to exceed three (3) working days in each instance of death in the immediate family. Immediate family is defined as father, mother, sister, brother, spouse, registered domestic partner, children, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather, stepmother, step grandfather, step grandmother, grandchildren, stepsisters, stepbrothers, mother-in- law, father-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepchildren, or wards of which the employee is the legal guardian. 834 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 31 E. Leave Benefits Entitlement – As employees do not accrue sick leave, all employees will be allowed to use up to (sixty) 60 hours per calendar year for family sick leave to care for a child, parent, spouse, registered domestic partner grandchild, grandparent, sibling or step-parent. Effective upon the City Council approval of this 2020-2023 MOU, employees may use up to one half one of their annual accrued General Leave for family sick leave. F.E. The City will provide family and medical care leave for eligible employees that meet all requirements of State and Federal law. Rights and obligations are set forth in the Department of Labor Regulations implementing the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the regulations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). Time off for a work related injury shall not run concurrently with FMLA or CFRA leave for sworn and detention employees. The City shall comply with all State and Federal leave benefit entitlements laws. An employee on an approved leave shall be allowed to use paid Sick Leave and earned Vacation, General Leave and/or Compensatory Time for the duration of the approved leave. G.F. Catastrophic Leave Donation Program - Under certain conditions, employees may donate leave time to another employee in need. The program is outlined in Exhibit F. H.G. Nurse Employees Certification - The City shall allow licensed nurse employees time off with pay to attend required courses necessary to maintain certification requirements. I.H. Cash Out of Compensatory Time Off - Through the end of 2019, tTwice each year, employees may, at their option, be paid for their compensatory time off. Payment when requested under this section shall be at the employee’s regular rate of pay in effect at the time the request is made. Effective in calendar year 2020, oOn or before the beginning of the pay period which includes December 15 (starting in 2019) of each calendar year, an employee may make an irrevocable election to cash out accrued compensatory time off which will be earned in the following calendar year. The employee can elect to receive cash for their accrued compensatory time off up to two times per calendar year, and in a cumulative amount not to exceed the number of hours the employee irrevocably elected to cash out in the prior year. However, if the employee’s compensatory time off leave balance in the pay period containing December 15th is less than (the balance of) the total amount the employee elected to cash out (in the prior calendar year) the employee will receive cash for the amount of leave the employee has accrued at the time of the cash out. Compensatory time off which is cashed out will be paid at the employee’s regular rate of pay. J.I. Association Business - An allowance of one thousand forty (1040) hours per year shall be established for the purpose of allowing authorized representatives of the 835 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 32 Association to represent members of the Association in their employment relations. Such allowance may be utilized only by those persons authorized by the Board of Directors of the Association and such utilization shall be subject to the rules indicated in Exhibit B. Up to two hundred (200) hours per year of unused hours may be carried over to the subsequent year. ARTICLE XIII - CITY PERSONNEL RULES All MOU provisions that supersede the City’s Personnel Rules shall automatically be incorporated into the City’s Personnel Rules as applicable. All City Personnel Rules shall apply to Association members, however, to the extent this MOU modifies the City’s Personnel Rules, the Personnel Rules as modified will apply to Association members. ARTICLE XIV – MISCELLANEOUS A. Tuition Reimbursement - Education costs shall be paid to non-sworn employees on the basis of full refund for tuition fees, books and supplies-provided, however, that maximum reimbursement shall be at the rates currently in effect in the University of California system. Upon approval of the Department Head and the Human Resources Director, employees may be compensated for actual cost of tuition, books, and fees at accredited educational institutions that charge higher rates than the University of California, if it can be demonstrated by the employee that said educational institution presents the only accredited course or program within a reasonable commuting distance of the employee. Tuition reimbursement shall be limited to job related courses or approved degree objectives and require prior approval by the Department Head and Human Resources Director. Reimbursements shall be made when employees present proof to the Human Resources Director that they have paid such costs and successfully completed the course(s) with either a “C” grade or better, or a “Pass” grade in a pass/fail grading system. B. Meal Allowance: 1. Per Diem - Employees shall be entitled to per diem under the following circumstances: a. Personnel with prior knowledge and approval of their supervisor, and on work assignments, or attending, meetings or training in excess of a twenty-five (25) mile radius beyond their normal work station, and which extends more than one (1) hour beyond their normal work hours or require lodging. 836 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 33 b. Meeting or training assignments, which include a meal, will be reimbursed at the actual cost of the meeting or meal, not to exceed the prorated per diem schedule. c. Meal expenses other than listed in “a” or “b” may be considered for reimbursement (receipt required) at the discretion of the Division Commander. d. Receipts are not required, other than as noted above. 2. Per Diem Schedule - Forty-five dollars ($45) per twenty-four (24) hour period or prorated as follows; Breakfast – Ten dollars ($10.00), Lunch – Fifteen dollars ($15.00), Dinner – Twenty dollars ($20.00). C. Mileage Allowance - The City shall reimburse employees for the use of personal automobiles at the existing IRS reimbursable rate. D. Weapon Vesting - Unit employees’ assigned a weapon shall be vested with ten percent (10%) ownership per year so that ten (10) years after assignment of the weapon to the employee, he/she shall be fully vested with ownership. Employees are responsible for paying the gun transfer fee when the weapon is transferred to them. E. Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing - The City maintains the right to conduct a test during working hours of any employee that it reasonably suspects is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance in the workplace, consistent with department policy. F. Take Home Vehicles/Distance to Work - Employees who take work vehicles home under this provision must reside within thirty-five (35) miles of the City limits. Those employees assigned a motorcycle who reside beyond thirty-five (35) miles of the City limits at the time of ratification of this Agreement may drive their motorcycle to and from their residence to their place of work if such travel does not exceed three hundred and fifty (350) miles per week. The following unit classifications shall be allowed to take a City vehicle home under this provision: Employees assigned to the Executive Division, Administrative Division, Investigation Division and specific assignments in the Uniform Division that require a vehicle assignment as part of their duties (i.e., Canine, Motorcycle, Accident Reconstruction, Special Enforcement Bureau). Employees who take a City vehicle home are expected to be reasonably available to respond to work-related activities; however, there is no restriction of the employee’s off-duty activities implied or intended by this expectation. G. Administrative Appeal Procedure - In compliance with the Government Code, the Administrative Appeal Procedure for all public safety officers is referenced in Exhibit D of this MOU. 837 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 34 H. Direct Deposit - All employees hired after April 1, 2006 shall be required to enroll in and maintain participation in the City’s direct deposit pay system. I. Meet and Confer - During the term of this Agreement, the City retains the right to meet and confer on any specific issue related to payroll implementation and/or compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). J. Physical Fitness Program - Any physical fitness time earned under prior HBPD Policy Manual Section 208.9 can still be used, but can be denied if it will require the Department to backfill the employee requesting to use the time. K. Administrative Dispatcher Assignment 1. The Administrative Dispatcher assignment will be for two years. The employee in the assignment on the date of City Council approval of this 2017-19 MOU will stay in the assignment for two years from her initial date of appointment. a. Future appointees will have the chance to apply by providing interest memos prior to expiration of the assignment. The City will post a notice for two weeks informing prospective appointees that during that two-week period they may submit their interest memos. b. If no person submits an interest memo, the then current appointee can be reappointed for another one-year assignment. If that person no longer wishes to serve in the assignment, the Communications Manager has the discretion to keep the assignment vacant or to appoint another (i.e., a different person) Communications Supervisor to the assignment for one year. c. If one person (different from the then current appointee) submits an interest memo, that person (not the then current appointee) will be appointed to the assignment. d. If more than one person (different from the then current appointee) submits an interest memo, there will be a selection process and the City reserves the right to select the appointee among those who submitted interest memos. 2. The Communications Administrative Supervisor will not be above the Communications Supervisor in the Organizational Chart and will reflected as follows in the Communications 1 Manual: Communications Manager Communications Supervisor Communications Administrative Supervisor Communications Operator 838 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 35 L. Classification and Compensation Study: The Association agrees to cooperate with a classification and compensation study within one year of approval of this MOU. 839 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 36 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of Understanding this _____ day of _____ 202019. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION By: By: Fred A. Wilson Oliver Chi City Manager Yasha Nikitin POA President By: By: Robert Handy Chief of Police Sean McDonough POA Vice President By: By: Peter J. Brown Chief Negotiator Pete Teichmann POA Board Member By: Lori Ann Farrell-HarrisonTravis Hopkins Assistant City Manager By: Robert Wexler Chief Negotiator By: Michele Warren Human Resources Director By: Brian Seitz Police Captain By: JoAnn Diaz Principal Human Resources Analyst APPROVED AS TO FORM By: By: Sandy Henderson Senior Human Resources Analyst Michael E. Gates City Attorney 840 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT A – SALARY SCHEDULE HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 37 Effective September 24, 2016 Non-Sworn 3.0% Increase Effective September 24, 2016 Job No Job Description Pay Grade A B C D E 0280 Communications Operator - PD POA280 29.63 31.27 32.99 34.81 36.73 0281 Communications Supervisor - PD POA281 33.92 35.78 37.76 39.84 42.03 0221 Detention Officer POA221 29.50 31.12 32.83 34.64 36.55 0220 Detention Officer, Nurse POA220 31.01 32.71 34.51 36.41 38.41 0222 Detention Shift Supervisor POA222 33.75 35.61 37.57 39.64 41.83 0225 Police Recruit POA225 25.65 27.06 28.55 30.12 31.78 Sworn 3.0% Increase Effective September 24, 2016 Job No Job Description Pay Grade A B C D E 0223 Police Officer POA223 37.29 39.34 41.50 43.78 46.19 0159 Police Sergeant POA159 47.85 50.48 53.25 56.20 59.28 841 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT A – SALARY SCHEDULE HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 38 Non-Sworn 4.0% Increase Effective January 1, 2020 Job No Job Description Pay Grade A B C D E 0280 Communications Operator - PD POA280 30.82 32.52 34.31 36.20 38.20 0281 Communications Supervisor - PD POA281 35.28 37.21 39.27 41.43 43.71 0221 Detention Officer POA221 30.68 32.36 34.14 36.03 38.01 0220 Detention Officer, Nurse POA220 32.25 34.02 35.89 37.87 39.95 0222 Detention Shift Supervisor POA222 35.10 37.03 39.07 41.23 43.50 0225 Police Recruit POA225 26.68 28.14 29.69 31.32 33.05 Sworn 4.0% Increase Effective January 1, 2020 Job No Job Description Pay Grade A B C D E 0223 Police Officer POA223 38.78 40.91 43.16 45.53 48.04 0159 Police Sergeant POA159 49.76 52.50 55.38 58.45 61.65 842 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT A – SALARY SCHEDULE HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 39 Non-Sworn 3.50% Increase Effective January 1, 2021 Job No Job Description Pay Grade A B C D E 0280 Communications Operator - PD POA280 31.90 33.66 35.51 37.47 39.54 0281 Communications Supervisor - PD POA281 36.51 38.51 40.64 42.88 45.24 0221 Detention Officer POA221 31.75 33.49 35.33 37.29 39.34 0220 Detention Officer, Nurse POA220 33.38 35.21 37.15 39.20 41.35 0222 Detention Shift Supervisor POA222 36.33 38.33 40.44 42.67 45.02 0225 Police Recruit POA225 27.61 29.12 30.73 32.42 34.21 Sworn 3.50% Increase Effective January 1, 2021 Job No Job Description Pay Grade A B C D E 0223 Police Officer POA223 40.14 42.34 44.67 47.12 49.72 0159 Police Sergeant POA159 51.50 54.34 57.32 60.50 63.81 843 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT A – SALARY SCHEDULE HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 40 Non-Sworn 3.50% Increase Effective January 1, 2022 Job No Job Description Pay Grade A B C D E 0280 Communications Operator - PD POA280 33.02 34.84 36.75 38.78 40.92 0281 Communications Supervisor - PD POA281 37.79 39.86 42.06 44.38 46.82 0221 Detention Officer POA221 32.86 34.66 36.57 38.60 40.72 0220 Detention Officer, Nurse POA220 34.55 36.44 38.45 40.57 42.80 0222 Detention Shift Supervisor POA222 37.60 39.67 41.86 44.16 46.60 0225 Police Recruit POA225 28.58 30.14 31.81 33.55 35.41 Sworn 3.50% Increase Effective January 1, 2022 Job No Job Description Pay Grade A B C D E 0223 Police Officer POA223 41.54 43.82 46.23 48.77 51.46 0159 Police Sergeant POA159 53.30 56.24 59.33 62.62 66.04 844 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT B – ASSOCIATION BANK TIME HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 41 GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF THE ASSOCIATION BANK TIME A. Any substantial1 time used for the Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association business while the member is using that time, is on a working status and this time will be deducted from the Association Bank, as per the Memorandum of Understanding. B. Any Association member desiring to use Association time, while on duty, shall obtain permission from their immediate supervisor, then from the President of the Association. An Association member shall, on all but emergency situations, give adequate advance notice to his/her supervisor when requesting time off for Association business. If the employee’s absence is less than one hour, use of Association bank time is not required. If the employee is away from work in excess of one hour, an Association book-time slip for all time away from work is required. In the event that the President of the Association is not available to grant permission, the Vice-President will then have the responsibility to make the appropriate decision. If the Association member’s immediate supervisor will not grant the person who is requesting time off for Association business, then the President shall be immediately notified by the member. If the business is of such a nature that it must be conducted by that particular Association member, then the President will take the matter to the Division level and every effort will be made to resolve the issue. C. Any member using Association time, while on duty, will submit an Association Bank Time Form and an overtime request form to the President. The member must write on top of the overtime form “ASSOCIATION BANK TIME OFF” and the payroll exception form will be signed by the supervisor and the President of the Police Officers’ Association or his representative. The communiqué will have the exact time and date that was used for the Association business, the location where the business was conducted. D. Those Association members that may use the Association Bank are: 1. President of the Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association. 2. Board of Directors of the Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association. 1 1. Substantial time, being defined as that time in excess of one hour and where the Association member is not available for duty until the Association business is concluded. 845 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT B – ASSOCIATION BANK TIME HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 42 3. Members assigned to committees designated by the President or the Board of Directors. 4. PORAC Representative. 5. Any other Association member designated. E. All memorandums and payroll exemption forms will be forwarded to payroll and the copies will be sent to the Secretary of the Association for accounting purposes. 846 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT C – SERVICE CREDIT SUBSIDY HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 43 SERVICE CREDIT SUBSIDY PLAN An employee who has retired from the City and meets the plan participation requirements shall receive a monthly Service Credit Subsidy as provided below if the employee incurs expenses for medical premiums or purchases medical insurance to reimburse the retiree for the payment of qualified medical expenses incurred for the purchase of medical insurance. If two retired employees are married or registered domestic partners and both were covered by this MOU at the time of retirement, each would receive a reimbursement equal to the amount of his or her monthly Service Credit Subsidy even if only one purchased the medical plan and the other was named as a dependent, irrespective of who was the purchaser of the medical plan. If a retired member has a spouse or registered domestic partner who has retired from another bargaining unit, that spouse or registered domestic partner is not precluded from receiving the subsidy if at the time of his/her retirement the MOU governing that individual authorized the subsidy. The City shall continue to treat this Subsidy as a non-taxable reimbursement unless otherwise required by the Internal Revenue Service. Plan Participation Requirements 1. At the time of retirement, the employee has a minimum of ten (10) years of continuous regular (permanent) City service or is granted an industrial disability retirement; and 2. At the time of retirement, the employee is employed by the City; and 3. Following official separation from the City, the employee is granted a retirement allowance by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). The City’s obligation to pay the Service Credit Subsidy as indicated shall be modified downward or cease during the lifetime of the retiree upon the occurrence of any one of the following: a. On the first of the month in which a retiree or dependent reaches age 65 or on the date the retiree or dependent can first apply and become eligible, automatically or voluntarily, for medical coverage under Medicare (whether or not such application is made) the City’s obligation to pay Service Credit Subsidy may be adjusted downward or eliminated. b. In the event of the death of an eligible employee, whether retired or not, the amount of the Service Credit Subsidy benefit which the deceased employee was eligible for at the time of his/her death shall be paid to the surviving spouse or dependent for a period not to exceed twelve (12) months from the date of death. 4. Minimum Eligibility for Benefits – With the exception of an industrial disability retirement, eligibility for Service Credit Subsidy begins after an employee has completed ten (10) years of continuous regular (permanent) service with the City of 847 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT C – SERVICE CREDIT SUBSIDY HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 44 Huntington Beach. Said service must be continuous unless prior service is reinstated at the time of his/her rehire in accordance with the City’s Personnel Rules. To receive the Service Credit Subsidy retirees are required to purchase medical insurance from City sponsored plans. The City shall have the right to require any retiree (annuitant) to annually certify that the retiree is purchasing medical insurance benefits. 5. Disability Retirees - Industrial disability retirees with less than ten (10) years of service shall receive a maximum monthly payment toward the premium for health insurance of $121.00. Payments shall be in accordance with the stipulations and conditions, which exist for all retirees. 6. Service Credit Subsidy – Payment shall not exceed dollar amount which is equal to the qualified medical expenses incurred for the purchase of City sponsored medical insurance. 7. Maximum Monthly Service Credit Subsidy Payments - All retirees, including those retired as a result of disability, whose number of years of service prior to retirement exceeds ten (10) continuous years of regular (permanent) service shall be entitled to maximum monthly Service Credit Subsidy by the City for each year of completed City service as follows: Maximum Service Credit Subsidy Retirements After: Years of Service Service Credit Subsidy 10 $ 121 11 136 12 151 13 166 14 181 15 196 16 211 17 226 18 241 19 256 20 271 21 286 22 300 23 315 24 330 25 344 848 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT C – SERVICE CREDIT SUBSIDY HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 45 8. Medicare: a. All persons are eligible for Medicare coverage at age 65. Those with sufficient credited quarters of Social Security will receive Part A of Medicare at no cost. Those without sufficient credited quarters are still eligible for Medicare at age 65, but will have to pay for Part A of Medicare if the individual elects to take Medicare. In all cases, the participant pays for Part B of Medicare. b. When a retiree and his/her spouse are both 65 or over, and neither is eligible for paid Part A of Medicare, the Service Credit Subsidy shall pay for Part A for each of them or the maximum subsidy, whichever is less. c. When a retiree at age 65 is eligible for paid Part A of Medicare and his/her spouse is not eligible for paid Part A of Medicare, the spouse shall not receive the subsidy. When a retiree at age 65 is not eligible for paid Part A of Medicare and his/her spouse who is also age 65 is eligible for paid Part A of Medicare, the subsidy shall be for the retiree’s Part A only. 9. Cancellation: a. For retirees/dependents eligible for paid Part A of Medicare, the following cancellation provisions apply: i. Coverage for a retiree under the Service Credit Subsidy Plan will be eliminated on the first day of the month in which the retiree reaches age 65. ii. At age 65 retirees are eligible to make application for Medicare. Upon being considered “eligible to make application,” whether or not application has been made for Medicare, the Service Credit Subsidy Plan will be eliminated. 849 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT D – ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCEDURE HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 46 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCEDURE 1. Authority a. Rule 20 of the existing City Personnel Rules provides an administrative procedure for appealing any discipline that involves a loss in pay. Rule 20 applies to all City employees. b. Government Code Section 3304(b) allows that an appeal procedure be made available to all “public safety officers” (as defined at Government Code § 3301) for the following “punitive actions as defined in Government Code section 3303:” (i) written reprimands; and (ii) transfer for purposes of punishment with no loss of pay. Such actions will be collectively referred to as an “Action.” Case law allows such an appeal procedure to be more limited than afforded under Rule 20. c. This provision is intended to establish the Administrative Arbitration Panel to hear appeals from public safety officers. This provision only applies to an “Action” as defined above in “b.” (Government Code § 3304(b)) 2. Administrative Arbitration Panel a. Appeals will be heard by a neutral fact finding group of three City employees. b. Only active full-time employees of the City of Huntington Beach Police Department may serve on the Administrative Arbitration Panel. The Panel is comprised of one employee selected by the POA, one employee selected by the Chief of Police, and the third employee selected by mutual agreement between the first two panel members. If no agreement can be reached, the “strike-out” process will be used to select the third Panel member, with the POA and the Chief each submitting four names for consideration. A coin toss will determine the party striking first with the POA reserving the right to call the coin or defer. c. The panel member selected by the Chief of Police, the POA, and the panel member selected by the Chief of Police and the POA shall each select one alternate to the panel to serve in place of a panel member in case of conflicts of interest. d. A panel member will serve one year. If the panel member selected to serve on an Administrative Arbitration Panel has direct involvement in the punitive action or is a party to the issue, he or she will be replaced by the alternate 3. Appeal Notice a. An appealing officer has five (5) calendar days from date of receipt of an “Action” to file a written appeal with the Chief of Police; otherwise, the “Action” shall stand as issued with no further rights to appeal. b. If an officer chooses not to appeal an “Action,” they may submit a written rebuttal within thirty (30) days from date of receiving the “Action.” The written rebuttal will be filed with the “Action” in the officer’s official personnel file. 850 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT D – ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCEDURE HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 47 4. Scheduling of Hearing Upon receipt of the written appeal notice, the Chief of Police is required to immediately request the Administrative Arbitration Panel to convene for a hearing. The Administrative Arbitration Panel is required to convene within thirty (30) days of receiving notice from the Chief of Police. 5. Hearing Procedure a. All hearings shall be closed to the public unless the disciplined officer requests a public hearing. b. All hearings shall be tape-recorded. c. The Administrative Arbitration Panel shall hear testimony from the appealing officer and the Department (specifically, the officer who investigated the conduct that led to the Written Reprimand). Testimony shall not exceed one hour from each side and an additional fifteen (15) minutes shall be given to each for rebuttal. The Department shall be heard first. d. If an appealing officer wishes to submit a written argument in lieu of oral testimony, they may do so provided that they notify the opposing party. The written testimony may not exceed one thousand five hundred (1,500) words. The written testimony must be submitted to the Administrative Arbitration Panel and the Chief of Police by no later than three (3) days in advance of the scheduled hearing. e. There is no right to sworn testimony, subpoenas, cross-examination or representation by third parties, including attorneys, at the hearing. f. In all “Actions” involving punitive discipline, the burden of proof shall be on the Department to show by a preponderance of the evidence that just cause exists for imposing discipline. In all non-punitive “Actions” (e.g., a non-punitive transfer that results in a loss of pay), the burden of proof shall be on the Department to show by a preponderance of the evidence that reasonable grounds exist for the transfer. 6. Rendering of Decision by the Administrative Arbitration Panel a. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Administrative Arbitration Panel shall deliberate in closed session. b. The decision of the Administrative Arbitration Panel is binding with no further rights to appeal. c. The decision of the Administrative Arbitration Panel must be issued in writing to the appealing officer within seven (7) calendar days from the conclusion of the hearing. d. The member of the Administrative Arbitration Panel who was selected by the POA and the Chief of Police shall be responsible for preparing and distributing the decision with a copy to both parties. e. The decision shall include the following:  Sustained (“Action” stands) 851 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT D – ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCEDURE HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 48  Not Sustained (“Action” does not stand)  Other Recommendation(s) to the Chief of Police f. In the event an officer’s “Action” is Sustained, they may, within five (5) calendar days from the date of the Administrative Arbitration Panel’s decision, file a written rebuttal. The written rebuttal will be filed with the “Action” in the employee’s official personnel file, along with the tape recording of the hearing. 852 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT E – VOLUNTARY CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 49 Guidelines 1. Purpose The purpose of the voluntary catastrophic leave donation program is to bridge employees who have been approved leave time to either: return to work, long- term disability, or medical retirement. Permanent employees who accrue vacation, general leave or compensatory time may donate such leave to another permanent employee when a catastrophic illness or injury befalls that employee or because the employee is needed to care for a seriously ill family member. The leave-sharing Leave Donation Program is Citywide across all departments and is intended to provide an additional benefit. Nothing in this program is intended to change current policy and practice for use and/or accrual of vacation, general, or sick leave. 2. Definitions Catastrophic Illness or Injury - A serious debilitating illness or injury which incapacitates the employee or an employee's family member. Family Member - For the purposes of this policy, the definition of family member is that defined in the Family Medical Leave Act (child, parent, spouse or domestic partner). 3. Eligible Leave Accrued compensatory time off, vacation or general leave hours may be donated. The minimum donation an employee may make is two (2) hours and the maximum is forty (40) hours. 4. Eligibility Permanent employees who accrue vacation or general leave may donate such hours to eligible recipients. Compensatory time off accrued may also be donated. An eligible recipient is an employee who: • Accrues vacation or general leave; • Is not receiving disability benefits or Workers' Compensation payments; and • Requests donated leave. 5. Transfer of Leave The maximum donation credited to a recipient's leave account shall be the amount necessary to ensure continuation of the employee's regular salary during the employee's period of approved catastrophic leave. Donations will be voluntary, 853 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT E – VOLUNTARY CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 50 confidential and irrevocable. Hours donated will be converted into a dollar amount based on the hourly wage of the donor. The dollar amount will then be converted into accrued hours based on the recipient’s hourly wage. An employee needing leave will complete a Leave Donation Request Form and submit it to the Department Director for approval. The Department Director will forward the form to Human Resources for processing. Human Resources, working with the department, will send out the request for leave donations. Employees wanting to make donations will submit a Leave Donation Form to the Finance Department (City payroll). All donation forms submitted to payroll will be date stamped and used in order received for each bi-weekly pay period. Multiple donations will be rotated in order to insure even use of time from donors. Any donation form submitted that is not needed will be returned to the donor. 854 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT E – VOLUNTARY CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 51 Please return this form to the Human Resources Office for processing. Voluntary Catastrophic Leave Donation Program Leave Request Form Requestor, Please Complete According to the provisions of the Voluntary Catastrophic Leave Donation Program, I hereby request donated vacation, general leave or compensatory time. MY SIGNATURE CERTIFIES THAT: • A Leave of absence in relation to a catastrophic illness or injury has been approved by my Department; and • I am not receiving disability benefits or Workers' Compensation payments. Name: (Please Print or Type: Last, First, MI) Work Phone: Department: Job Title: Employee ID#: Requester Signature: Date: Department Director: Date: Human Resources Division Use Only End donation date will bridge to: Long Term Disability Medical Retirement beginning Length of FMLA leave ending Return to work End donation date: Human Resources Director Signature: Date signed: 855 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT E – VOLUNTARY CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 52 Voluntary Catastrophic Leave Donation Program Leave Donation Form Donor, please complete Donor Name: (Please Print or Type: Last, First, MI) Work Phone: Donor Job Title: Type of Accrued Leave: Vacation Compensatory Time General Leave Number of Hours I wish to Donate: Hours of Vacation Hours of Compensatory Time Hours of General Leave I understand that this voluntary donation of leave credits, once processed, is irrevocable; but if not needed, the donation will be returned to me. I also understand that this donation will remain confidential. I wish to donate my accrued vacation, comp or general leave hours to the Leave Donation Program for: Eligible recipient employee's name (Last, First, MI): Donor Signature: Date: Please submit to Payroll in the Finance Department. 856 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT F – JOB SHARING PROGRAM HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 53 A. Definition Job Sharing: Two employees share one job, subject to the following conditions: B. Eligibility 1. Police Officers eligible for this program must have three (3) years experience as a patrol Officer for Huntington Beach Police. Lateral Officers with two (2) years prior patrol experience are eligible after two (2) years of patrol assignment with HBPD. Police Sergeants are not eligible for the job sharing program. 2. Communications Operators eligible for this program must have three (3) years dispatch experience as a Communications Operator for Huntington Beach Police. Lateral Communication Operators with three (3) years of prior experience are eligible after two (2) years experience with HBPD. 3. Detention Officers are eligible after two (2) years experience as Detention Officers with HBPD. C. Benefits Job Sharing employees will: 1. Bid for one position on a patrol squad or duty position. 2. Use the seniority of the junior member of the team to establish bid shift order. 3. Receive medical coverage for employee only, or a $200 stipend upon proof of medical coverage per MOU proposal. 4. Accrue Seniority for PERS and the department on a half time basis. 5. Receive hourly pay. 6. Receive one half (1/2) uniform allowance. 7. Receive half education pay at individual rate. 8. Receive half holiday pay. 9. Receive Sick time per MOU. 10. Accrue vacation and General Leave on half time basis. 11. Earn seniority on half time basis. 12. Earn compensation for court appearance per MOU. 13. Receive time and one half pay for mandatory overtime. 857 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT F – JOB SHARING PROGRAM HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 54 D. Conditions 1. Absent an emergency, employees seeking a return to full time assignment are required to give 90-day notice of intent. 2. In the event of an emergency separation of the sharing partner, the remaining partner will enjoy a 90-day window within the shared position before returning to full time employment. 3. The remaining partner will return to full time when the sharing partner leaves the position, unless replaced by another qualified job share employee. 4. Job sharing employees are not eligible for voluntary overtime. 5. Up to five positions would be eligible for job sharing in uniform patrol. 6. Only one position in dispatch and the jail would be eligible for job sharing. 7. Job sharing employees cannot work specialty assignments (i.e. SWAT, Beach Detail, HNT). 8. Job Sharing would be limited to a five (5) year term. Job sharing candidates leaving the position would be eligible for re-entry after one year in patrol. 858 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT G – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AGREEMENT HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 55 LABOR MANAGEMENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION This Labor Management Alternate Dispute Resolution Agreement (“Agreement”) entered into by and between the City of Huntington Beach (“City”) and the Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association (“HBPOA”) is created pursuant to California Labor Code Section 3201.7(a)(3)(c). Nothing in this Agreement diminishes the entitlement of an employee to compensation payments for total or partial disability, temporary disability, or medical treatment fully paid by the employer as otherwise provided in Division 4 of the Labor Code. Nothing in this Agreement denies to any employee the right to representation by counsel at all stages during the alternative dispute resolution process. Article I. Purpose The purposes of this Agreement are: 1. To provide active employees claiming compensable injuries under Division 4 of the California Labor Code (“Workers’ Compensation Law”) with an expedited procedure to resolve medical disputes in accordance with Article IV, Section D of this Agreement to facilitate their prompt return to work at either full duties or a transitional duty assignment; 2. To provide retirees claiming a presumptive injury as defined by California Labor Code (hereinafter “Labor Code”) section 3212 et seq. with an expedited procedure to resolve medical disputes in accordance with Article IV, Section D of the Agreement; 3. To reduce the number and severity of disputes between the City and covered employees, when those disputes relate to workers’ compensation; and 4. To provide workers’ compensation coverage in a way that improves labor management relations, improves organizational effectiveness, and reduces costs to the City. These purposes will be achieved by utilizing an exclusive list of medical providers to be the sole and exclusive source of medical evaluations for disputed issues surrounding covered employees in accordance with California Labor Code Section 3201.7©. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual terms, covenants and conditions herein, the parties agree as follows: Article II. Term of Agreement The City and HBPOA enter into this Agreement with the understanding that the law authorizing this Agreement is new, untested and evolving. The parties further understand that this Agreement governs a pilot program and that it will become effective after it is 859 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT G – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AGREEMENT HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 56 executed by the parties, submitted to the Administrative Director of the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers’ Compensation in accordance with Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 10202(d), and accepted by the Administrative Director as evidenced by the Director’s letter to the parties indicating approval of the Agreement. This Agreement shall be in effect for eighteen (18) months from the date of the implementation of the program. Thereafter, it shall be reviewed and, if found to be effective will continue and remain in force from year to year unless terminated by either party. Any claim arising from an industrial injury sustained before the termination of this Agreement shall continue to be covered by the terms of this Agreement, until all medical issues related to the pending claim are resolved. Any medical issue resolved under this Agreement shall be final and binding. The parties reserve the right to terminate this Agreement at any time for good cause, by mutual agreement or by act of the legislature. The terminating party must give thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. The parties agree to meet and confer in good faith to try and resolve the issues underlying the termination during the thirty day period prior to the termination of the Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement, the parties shall become fully subject to the provisions of the California law to the same extent as they were prior to the implementation of this Agreement, except as otherwise specified herein. Article III. Scope of Agreement A. This Agreement applies only to injuries, as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law, claims by 1) active employees; 2) retirees who claim a presumptive injury as defined by California Labor Code Section 3212 et seq.; and 3) active employees who file a claim and subsequently retire before the claim is resolved. Retirees who filed claims while they were active employees are covered under this Agreement only for the purposes of petitions to reopen a pre-existing claim unless covered under A(2). This Agreement does not apply to any other retired employees. This Agreement does not cover post-retirement amendments to active claims. B. Employees who are covered under this Agreement remain covered during the entire period of active employment. C. Injuries occurring and claims filed after termination of this Agreement are not covered by this Agreement. D. This Agreement is restricted to establishing an exclusive list of medical providers to be used for medical dispute resolution for the above-covered employees in accordance with California Labor Code Section 3201.7(c). Article IV. Medical Provider A. This Agreement does not constitute a Medical Provider Network (“MPN”). Physicians who act as a covered employee’s independent medical examiner (“IME”) under this Agreement shall not act as the same employee’s treating physician even if the physician has been pre-designated as the employee’s 860 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT G – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AGREEMENT HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 57 treating physician, unless otherwise mutually agreed by the parties. Pre- designation of a physician must comply with the requirements set forth in Labor Code section 4600(d)(1). B. All employees with a disputed medical issue as described below in Section D must be evaluated by an approved physician from the exclusive list of approved medical providers. Said physician will serve as an IME. If the IME needs the opinion of a different specialist, the IME shall refer the employee to a physician of the IME’s choice even if that doctor is not on the approved list. The exclusive list of approved medical providers will be established when the Agreement has been approved by all parties. C. The exclusive lists of approved medical providers shall include the specialties as agreed upon by the parties. D. An IME shall be used for all medical disputes that arise in connection with a workers’ compensation claim including but not limited to determination of causation, the nature and extent of an injury, the nature and extent of permanent disability and apportionment, work restrictions, ability to return to work, including transitional duty, future medical care, and resolution of all disputes arising from utilization review, including need for spinal surgery pursuant to Labor Code section 4062(b). The parties will use the originally chosen IME for all subsequent disputes under this Agreement. In the event that said IME is no longer available, then the parties shall utilize the next specialist on the list pursuant to Article IV G d (below). The IME process will begin when either party gives the other written notice of an objection. Objections from the City will be sent to the employee with a copy to the employee’s legal representative if represented and a copy to HBPOA. Objections from the employee or employee’s legal representative will be sent to the employee’s assigned Claims Examiner with a copy to the Claims Manager. Objections will be sent within thirty days of receipt of a medical report or a utilization review decision. A letter delaying decision of the claim automatically creates a dispute. A subsequent acceptance of the claim and/or resolution of the dispute issue eliminates the need for completion of the dispute resolution process set forth in this Agreement. E. The exclusive list of approved medical providers shall serve as the exclusive source of medical-legal evaluations as well as all other disputed medical issues arising from a claimed injury. F. The parties hereby agree that from time to time the exclusive list of approved medical providers may be amended. For either party to add an IME to the exclusive list of medical providers, the party must provide notice, in writing, to the other party of its intent to add a physician to the list. Absent a written objection to the other party within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the written proposal, the addition will be made. In the event there is an objection, the physician will not be added to the list. A physician may only be deleted from the exclusive list of medical providers if he/she breaches the terms and conditions of the contract with the City or by mutual agreement of the parties. 861 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT G – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AGREEMENT HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 58 G. Appointments. a. The Claims section of the Workers’ Compensation Division shall make appointment(s) with the IME within ten days of the date of the objection and/or notification of delay for employees covered under this Agreement. b. The employee shall be responsible for providing the Claims staff with his/her work schedule prior to an appointment being made so that appointments can be made during an employee’s nonworking hours or the first or last hour of his/her workday. The amount of time allotted for hours spent at a physician’s appointment during working hours will be subject to verification and will be allowed accordingly. c. Mileage reimbursement to covered employees shall be consistent with City policy and in accordance with Labor Code Section 4600 (e)(2) unless transportation is provided by the City. d. For purposes of appointments, the Claims staff will select the IME’s by starting with the first name from the exclusive list of approved medical providers within the pertinent specialty, and continuing down the list, in order, until the list is exhausted, at which time the Claims staff will resume using the first name on the list. e. The City is not liable for the cost of any medical examination used to resolve the parties’ disputes governed by this Agreement where said examination is furnished by a medical provider that is not authorized by this Agreement. Medical evaluations cannot be obtained outside of this Agreement for disputes covered by this Agreement. f. Both parties shall be bound by the opinions and recommendation of the IME selected in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. H. Industrial Disability Retirements a. The City and HBPOA recognize that the ADR process can also be utilized to obtain a competent medical opinion as it relates to determining an employees' eligibility for an Industrial Disability Retirement (IDR), pursuant to California Government Code Sections 21154 and 21156(a)(2). b. Pursuant to the guidelines outlined in Article IV of this Agreement, the City and the HBPOA shall meet and confer to identify an agreed-upon listing of IMEs to serve as the competent medical examiner in reviewing an employees' eligibility for an IDR. I. Use of IME When Medical Disputes Exist a. An IME shall be used for all medical disputes that arise in connection with a workers' compensation claim, including but not limited to determination of causation, the nature and extent of an injury, the nature and extent of 862 POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT G – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AGREEMENT HBPOA MOU October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023 59 permanent disability and apportionment, work restrictions, ability to return to work, including transitional duty, future medical care, and resolution of all disputes arising from utilization review, including need for spinal surgery pursuant to Labor Code section 4062(b). b. Furthermore, City and HBPOA agree that IME reports will be admissible in any proceeding and / or hearing involving an injured employee. Article V. Discovery A. Employees covered by this Agreement shall provide the Claims staff with fully executed medical, employment and financial releases and any other documents reasonably necessary for the City to resolve the employee’s claim, when requested. B. The parties agree they have met and conferred on the language of the medical/financial/employment releases to be used under this Agreement. If said releases cause undue delay and/or unforeseen adverse impact(s) to the City and/or the HBPOA and/or its members, then either party may request a meet and confer regarding said under delay and/or adverse impact(s). The parties shall meet and confer within 30 days of a party’s request to meet and confer. C. Employees shall cooperate in providing a statement. D. This Agreement does not preclude a formal deposition of the applicant or the physician when necessary. Attorney’s fees for employee depositions shall be covered by Labor Code section 5710. There will be no attorney’s fees for doctor’s depositions. Article VI. General Provisions A. The Agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the parties and supersedes all other Agreements, oral or written, with respect to the subject matter in this Agreement. B. This Agreement shall be governed and construed pursuant to the laws of the State of California. C. This Agreement, including all attachments and exhibits, shall not be amended, nor any provisions waived, except in writing, signed by the parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. D. If any portion of this Agreement is found to be unenforceable or illegal the remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect. E. Notice required under this Agreement shall be provided to the parties as follows: F. In the event that there is any legal proceeding between the parties to enforce or interpret this Agreement or to protect or establish any rights or remedies hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees. 863