HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-06 Agenda Packet
AGENDA – Revised Final
City Council/Public Financing Authority
Regular Meeting
Monday, July 6, 2020 at 4:00 PM
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
Recorded live from the
City Council Chambers
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SPECIAL NOTICE REGARDING COVID-19
STAFF
OLIVER CHI, City Manager
MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney
ROBIN ESTANISLAU, City Clerk
ALISA BACKSTROM, City Treasurer
On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On
March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 which allows a local legislative 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.
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 HBTV-3.
To ensure the public’s right to fully participate in providing meaningful public comments at the July 6, 2020, City Council
meeting:
1. The Council Chambers will be open for public attendance to provide public comments. Social distancing measures
will be in place, and once a participant has made a public comment, the participant will be asked to exit the Council Chambers. The
City will provide an area for viewing the Council meeting on television to a limited number of participants. During Public Comments,
members of the public may provide a comment, on an agendized or non-agendized item, in person with a 3-minute time limit; or,
2. The public may submit a comment telephonically. At 6:00 PM, individuals wishing to provide a comment on agendized
or non-agendized items may call (669) 900-6833 and enter Webinar ID: 986 8560 9496. Once a caller has entered the meeting,
they will be placed in a holding queue. Callers will be prompted to speak in the order received, and after the Clerk confirms the
last three digits of their phone number, are encouraged, but not required to identify themselves by name. Each caller will be
provided 3 minutes to speak. Individuals wishing to provide comments on items scheduled for Study Session or Closed Session
items should enter the call queue at 4:00 PM. The call queue will also be re-opened for comments during the Public Hearing
portion of the agenda at an undetermined time.
Members of the public may submit SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION (information received by the City Clerk's Office following
distribution of the Council agenda packet): Members of the public wishing to submit written (supplemental) communication on
agenda items for distribution to the City Council and placed into the administrative record can email
SupplementalComm@Surfcity-hb.org. Supplemental Communications received by 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be
distributed to City Council prior to consideration of agenda-related items, and will be announced, but not read, and placed into the
administrative record during the Supplemental Communications portion of the Meeting. In addition, any communications sent to
city.council@surfcity-hb.org on Council agenda items will be treated as Supplemental Communications and announced, but
not read, during the meeting.
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 to make reasonable arrangements for 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 July 6, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
4:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, Brenden
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution)
PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO STUDY SESSION / CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (3 Minute
Time Limit) - At 4:00 PM, individuals wishing to provide a comment on a Study Session or Closed
Session item may call (669) 900-6833 and enter Webinar ID: 986 8560 9496. Once a caller has
entered the meeting, their call will be placed in a holding queue and will be answered in the order
received. When invited to speak, callers are encouraged to identify themselves by name, and can
speak for no more than 3 minutes.
STUDY SESSION
20-17311.Police Chief Handy to provide an update on Police Department
Protocols and Procedures
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION
20-17242.Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney
regarding the following lawsuit: Maday (Margaret) / Solorio (Andrew)
v. City of Huntington Beach/Travis Mossbrooks; OCSC Case No.:
30-2020-01133396.
20-17253.Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney
regarding the following lawsuit: Austin (Ronald) v. City of
Huntington Beach, et al.; OCSC Case No.: 30-2020-01140605.
20-17344.Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney
regarding the following lawsuit: Rosier (Maliek) v. City of Huntington
Beach, et al.; USDC Case No.: SACV 18-2175 DOC (DFMx).
Page 1 of 7
AGENDA July 6, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
20-17355.Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney
regarding the following lawsuit: Californians for Homeownership,
Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No. 30-2019-01107760.
20-17366.Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney
regarding the following lawsuit: Cruz (Martin & Ana) and N.B.C. v.
City of Huntington Beach, et al.; USDC Case No. 8:19-cv-1449-DOC
(ADSx).
20-17377.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
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.
20-16838.Patricia Mercado of the Center of Spiritual Living in Huntington
Beach, and member of the Greater Huntington Beach Interfaith
Council
CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
20-17219.Mayor Semeta to call on John Etheridge to invite the Huntington
Beach City Council to the Rededication Ceremony of the Surfing
Page 2 of 7
AGENDA July 6, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
Walk of Fame on August 1.
20-169810.Mayor Semeta to present the Mayor’s HB Excellence Award to
Public Works Utilities Manager, Brian Ragland
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution)
PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit) - At 6:00 PM, individuals wishing to provide a comment
on an agendized or non-agendized item may call (669) 900-6833 and enter Webinar ID: 986 8560
9496. Once a caller has entered the meeting, their call will be placed in a holding queue and will be
answered in the order received. When invited to speak, callers are encouraged to identify
themselves by name, and can speak for no more than 3 minutes.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS - LIAISON REPORTS, AB 1234 REPORTING, AND
OPENNESS IN NEGOTIATIONS DISCLOSURES
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
20-149111.Ascon Landfill Site Update
20-172312.Update of the City COVID-19 Response Plan and Actions for Review
and Discussion
CONSENT CALENDAR
20-171813.Approve and Adopt Minutes
Approve and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes
dated June 15, 2020, as written and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Recommended Action:
20-172214.Adopt Resolution No. 2020-31 authorizing the City to Levy the
Annual Retirement Property Tax for Fiscal Year 2020/21 to pay for
Pre-1978 Employee Retirement Benefit Levels
Adopt Resolution No. 2020-31, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach Levying a Retirement Property Tax for Fiscal Year 2020/2021 to Pay for Pre-1978
Employee Retirement Benefits” of $0.01500 per $100 of assessed valuation. The tax rate
of $0.01500 would continue the tax rate included in the current Fiscal Year 2019/20
Adopted Budget.
Recommended Action:
Page 3 of 7
AGENDA July 6, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
20-168815.Approve and authorize execution of a three-year contract with
Waymakers in the amount of $335,405 for the management of the
Juvenile Diversion Program
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a “Professional Services
Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and Waymakers for the Management of
the Juvenile Diversion Program.”
Recommended Action:
20-172716.Termination of Rent Abatement for Certain Tenants at City-owned
Facilities effective August 1, 2020 and authorize City Manager to
reinstate if necessary
A)Authorize and direct the City Manager, or his designee, to terminate Rent Abatement
to concessionaire tenants of various City-owned facilities, effective August 1, 2020. A list
of the tenants is outlined in Attachment No. 1; and,
B)Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to reinstate the Rent Abatement if future
COVID-19 pandemic actions severely impact the tenants ability to operate.
Recommended Action:
20-172917.Approve the appointment of Sean Crumby to the position of Public
Works Director and authorize the City Manager to execute the
Employment Agreement
Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the “Employment Agreement Between
the City of Huntington Beach and Sean Crumby” for the position of Public Works Director.
Recommended Action:
PUBLIC HEARING
Individuals wishing to speak on matters scheduled for Public Hearing may call (669) 900-6833 and
enter Webinar ID #986 8560 9496 at the time the Public Hearing is opened. Once a caller has
entered the queue, their call will be held until they are invited to speak announcement of the last 3
digits of their phone number. Callers will be asked to identify the agenda number of their Public
Hearing item, and are encouraged to identify themselves by name. Callers are provided 3 minutes
to speak.
20-171718.Approve for Introduction Ordinance Nos. 4214, 4212, 4215, 4216, and
4213, approving Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 19-005 and
Municipal Code Amendment adding Chapter 5.110 (Group Homes)
Recommended Action:
Page 4 of 7
AGENDA July 6, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
A) Find that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section
15061 (b)(3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty
that there is no possibility that the amendment to the HBZSO will have a significant effect
on the environment (Attachment No. 1); and ,
B) Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005 with findings (Attachment No. 1),
approve amendment to Huntington Beach Municipal Code adding Chapter 5.110 (Group
Homes), and approve for introduction:
Ordinance No. 4214, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 203 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
Titled Definitions (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005);” and,
Ordinance No. 4212, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 204 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
Titled Use Classifications (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005);” and,
Ordinance No. 4215, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 210 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
Titled R Residential Districts (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005);” and,
Ordinance No. 4216, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
Titled Site Standards (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005);” and,
Ordinance No. 4213, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Title 5 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Titled Business Licenses
and Regulations;” (Attachment Nos. 2 - 6).
20-172819.Approve FY 2020/2021-2024/2025 Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Consolidated Plan, FY 2020/2021 Annual Action Plan for
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME
Investment Partnership (HOME) Programs, FY 2020/2021-2024/2025
Citizen Participation Plan, and FY 2020/2021-2024/2025 Regional
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the following in compliance
with the Consolidated Plan Procedures of 24 CFR Part 91:
A) Approve the 2020/2021-2024/2025 Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Consolidated Plan; and,
Recommended Action:
Page 5 of 7
AGENDA July 6, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
B) Approve the 2021/2021 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Programs; and,
C) Approve the 2020/2021-2024/2025 Citizen Participation Plan; and,
D) Approve the 2020/2021-2024/2025 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing; and,
E) Authorize the City Manager to sign all necessary documents .
20-173020.Public Hearing to consider acceptance of Economic Development
Subsidy Study for Pinnacle Petroleum Sales Tax Agreement
A) Open the public hearing and receive written and oral testimony; and ,
B) Receive and file the “Five Year Report Pursuant to California Government Code
Section 53083 on an Operating Covenant Agreement By and Between the City of
Huntington Beach and Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc.,” in compliance with Government Code
Section 53083.
Recommended Action:
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
20-172621.Authorize and direct the City Manager to enter into the City’s
standard Professional Services Agreement with the following
service providers for the Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA)
Program: 1) Families Forward, 2) Interval House, and 3) Mercy
House; and, approve the Operating Guidelines
A)Authorize and direct the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement
with Families Forward in an amount not to exceed $313,000; and,
B)Authorize and direct the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement
with Interval House in an amount not to exceed $151,249; and,
C)Authorize and direct the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement
with Mercy House in an amount not to exceed $309,079; and,
D)Approve the Operating Guidelines (Attachment #1), which will be attached to the
Professional Services Agreement as an exhibit.
Recommended Action:
20-1741***22.Consideration of a Temporary Closure of the Second Block of Main
Page 6 of 7
AGENDA July 6, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
Street to vehicular traffic to allow restaurants to serve patrons in the
public right of way.
Direct the City Manager to temporarily close the second block of Main Street in response
to the current State order prohibiting indoor restaurant service, and work with all related
departments including the City Attorney’s Office, Community Development, and the Police
Department to develop a permitting system to allow restaurants to serve patrons food in
the public right-of-way.
Recommended Action:
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized)
ADJOURNMENT
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority is
Monday, July 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 7 of 7
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1731 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Police Chief Handy to provide an update on Police Department Protocols and Procedures
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™9
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1724 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed
Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Maday (Margaret) /
Solorio (Andrew) v. City of Huntington Beach/Travis Mossbrooks; OCSC Case No.: 30-2020-
01133396.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™10
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1725 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed
Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Austin (Ronald) v.
City of Huntington Beach, et al.; OCSC Case No.: 30-2020-01140605.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™11
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1734 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed
Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Rosier (Maliek) v.
City of Huntington Beach, et al.; USDC Case No.: SACV 18-2175 DOC (DFMx).
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™12
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1735 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed
Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Californians for
Homeownership, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No. 30-2019-01107760.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™13
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1736 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed
Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Cruz (Martin & Ana)
and N.B.C. v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.; USDC Case No. 8:19-cv-1449-DOC (ADSx).
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™14
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1737 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
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 7/1/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™15
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1683 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Patricia Mercado of the Center of Spiritual Living in Huntington Beach, and member of the Greater Huntington Beach
Interfaith Council
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™16
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1721 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Mayor Semeta to call on John Etheridge to invite the Huntington Beach City Council to the Rededication
Ceremony of the Surfing Walk of Fame on August 1.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™17
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1698 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Mayor Semeta to present the Mayor’s HB Excellence Award to Public Works Utilities Manager,
Brian Ragland
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™18
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1491 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Ascon Landfill Site Update
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™19
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1723 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Update of the City COVID-19 Response Plan and Actions for Review and Discussion
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™20
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1718 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
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 June 15, 2020 require review
and approval.
Financial Impact:
None.
Recommended Action:
Approve and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes dated June
15, 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):
1. June 15, 2020 CC/PFA regular meeting minutes
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™21
Minutes
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular
and Housing Authority Special Meeting
City of Huntington Beach
Monday, June 15, 2020
5:00 PM - Council Chambers
6:00 PM - Council Chambers
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
A video recording of the 6:00 PM portion of this meeting
is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and archived at
www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas/
5:00 PM — COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER — 5:01 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Carr, and Brenden
Absent: Peterson
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Received After Agenda Distribution) — None
PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (3 Minute Time Limit) — None
A motion was made by Brenden, second by Posey to recess to Closed Session for Item 1. With no
objections, the motion passed.
RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION — 5:03 PM
CLOSED SESSION
1. 20-1703 Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into
Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following Workers'
Compensation Claims:
a. Jaime Lopez v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers' Comp. Case Nos. COHB-18-
0082, COHB-18-0154, COHB-16-0289 and COHB-13-0235; and
b. Gerard Melendrez v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers' Comp. Case No. COHB-
17-0207
6:00 PM — COUNCIL CHAMBERS
RECONVENED CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING AND CALLED TO
ORDER A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
22
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 2 of 21
ROLL CALL
Present: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
Absent: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Led by Councilmember Posey
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.
2. 20-1682 Mike Michaud from Dance 4 Joy Ministries and member of the Greater Huntington
Beach Interfaith Council
CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY — None
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
3. 20-1693 Mayor Semeta presented the Making A Difference Award to Huntington Beach
High School Student, Sophia Cendro
Mayor Semeta introduced Ms. Cendro as exhibiting the true spirit of the Making A Difference Award of
exceptional and selfless service. Ms. Cendro, 2020 Graduate of Huntington Beach High School,
received the Oiler of the Year Award for her innovative Trauma for Teachers program. Ms. Cendro
coordinated and organized many resources for this program to train and prepare school staff with
knowledge and supplies to treat victims of school violence — training which can also be used in the
greater community. Fire Chief Haberle announced that Ms. Cendro was just promoted and is now a
Lifeguard II, a position she will hold through the summer before starting her nursing education in the
fall.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution)
Pursuant to the Brown "Open Meetings" Act, City Clerk Robin Estanislau announced supplemental
communications received by her office following distribution of the Council Agenda packet.
City Manager’s Report
#4. (20-1490) PowerPoint communication entitled Ascon Landfill Site Update submitted by Assistant
City Manager, Travis Hopkins.
#5. (20-1692) Email communications submitted by Dallas Weaver and Forest Earl.
#6. (20-1711) PowerPoint communication dated June 15, 2020, entitled Update on Recent Protest
Activity in Region submitted by Chief of Police, Robert Handy.
#6. (20-1711) Email communications submitted by Steve Crowley, Shammy Dee and Carlos Lopez.
23
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 3 of 21
Consent Calendar
#9. (20-1504) Email communications submitted by:
Leon Heimkes
Lisa Simington (2)
Bonnie Cayer
Jerome Schreiber
Alex & Georgia Gilderman
Alice Elderkin
Lynda Engel
Sabrina Schreiber
Cynthia Sanchez
Administrative Items
#22. (20-1697) PowerPoint communication submitted by Assistant to the City Manager, Brittany Mello,
entitled COVID-19 Small Business Relief Program.
#22. (20-1697) Revised Staff Report and Updated Attachment 1 submitted by Marie Knight, Director
of Organizational Learning and Engagement.
#23. (20-1712) Email communication submitted by Bob Bolen, including two letters, one with
signatures from Second Block business owners.
#23. (20-1712) Email communications submitted by Sue Welfringer, Amory Hanson, Robert Koury and
Steve Shepard.
Councilmember Items
#24. (20-1714) Email communications submitted by Pat Goodman and Rabbi Stephen J. Einstein.
#25. (20-1715) Inter-Office Memo and substitute George Floyd Resolution submitted by
Councilmembers Carr and Delgleize.
#25. (20-1715) Email communications submitted by Pat Goodman and Rabbi Stephen J. Einstein.
City Manager Oliver Chi announced that staff is requesting to withdraw Consent Calendar Item
No. 9 (20-1504) regarding establishing Permit Parking District "Z" for further modifications.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit) — 29 In-Person Speakers; 10 Speakers by phone
At 6:00 PM, individuals wishing to provide a comment on an agendized or non-agendized item were
instructed to call 1+ (669) 900-6833 and enter Webinar ID: 941 8390 5102. Once a caller entered the
meeting, their call was placed in a holding queue and answered in the order received. When invited to
speak, callers were encouraged to identify themselves by name, and allowed to speak for no more than
3 minutes.
The number [hh:mm:ss] following the speakers' comments indicates their approximate starting time in
the archived video located athttp://www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas.
Tien Tran, a 22-year resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and shared his opinion on the
poor condition of the tennis courts at both Edison Community Center and LeBard Park, and stated a
petition with 105 signatures requesting maintenance and repairs was submitted at change.org.
(00:15:18)
Kelly Miller, Visit HB Team Member, Downtown Business Improvement District Board Member, and 7-
year resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and stated support for Administrative Item No.
23 (20-1712) regarding a Pilot Program to close the Second Block of Main Street to traffic. (00:17:39)
24
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 4 of 21
Ralph Bauer, long-time resident of Huntington Beach and former Council Member and Mayor, was
called to speak and shared comments on the Huntington Beach Declaration of Human Dignity that he
helped create in 1996, his hope for united humanity, his support for police departments, and suggested
that a Commission of Social Justice be formed so the police can focus on fighting crime. (00:20:56)
Shirley Dettloff, long-time resident of Huntington Beach and former Council Member and Mayor, was
called to speak and commended the City Council and staff for their leadership during this pandemic
which kept City Hall functioning. Ms. Dettloff asked that the Council reaffirm the Huntington Beach
Declaration of Human Dignity, which she helped create in 1996, to reaffirm that the City does not
tolerate any form of racism or prejudice. (00:23:29)
Ken Inouye, a long-time resident of Huntington Beach, Orange County Human Relations Council
Chairman, and First Chair of the Huntington Beach Human Relations Task Force, was called to speak
and stated support for Councilmember Items No. 24 (20-1714) to Reaffirm the City's Commitment to
the Declaration of Human Dignity Policy, and No. 25 (20-1715) City Council Resolution to Stand
Together in Unity as oneHB. (00:26:57)
Ashley Dos Santos was called to speak and stated support for Councilmember Items No. 24 (20-1714)
to Reaffirm the City's Commitment to the Declaration of Human Dignity Policy, and No. 25 (20-1715)
City Council Resolution to Stand Together in Unity as oneHB. (00:28:44)
Robert Bolen, owner of Huntington Beach Realty and Downtown property, was called to speak and
stated opposition to Administrative Item No. 23 (20-1712) regarding a Pilot Program to close the
Second Block of Main Street to traffic. (00:32:02)
Garry Troxell was called to speak and shared his opinion on race relations. (00:34:29)
Sheila Krussman was called to speak and shared her dismay that so many City amenities, such as the
libraries, are being unnecessarily shut down due to COVID-19 and encouraged immediate re-openings.
Mayor Semeta asked her to complete a blue card for follow-up. (00:36:59)
Susie Smith, owner of Making Waves Hair Salon on Main Street, was called to speak and stated
opposition to Administrative Item No. 23 (20-1712) regarding a Pilot Program to close the Second Block
of Main Street to traffic, and asked for more planning time so that every Downtown business has the
opportunity to weigh in on the project. (00:40:21)
Sandy Taylor, owner of two businesses on Main Street, was called to speak and stated opposition to
Administrative Item No. 23 (20-1712) regarding a Pilot Program to close the Second Block of Main
Street to traffic. (00:42:30)
Tanya Brown, owner of a business on Main Street, was called to speak and stated opposition to
Administrative Item No. 23 (20-1712) regarding a Pilot Program to close the Second Block of Main
Street to traffic, and added that she is a small business owner in need of funding but every COVID-19
application has been denied. Mayor Semeta asked her to complete a blue card for follow-up. (00:43:09)
Scott Tucker, Gallagher's Pub and Grill owner, was called to speak and stated that if Administrative
Item No. 23 (20-1712) regarding a Pilot Program to close the Second Block of Main Street to traffic is
not going to benefit all Downtown businesses, then the plan should not be approved, and added that as
a small business owner he also has not been approved for any COVID-19 funding. (00:45:14)
25
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 5 of 21
Amanda Crater, a resident of Huntington Beach and former member of the Youth Board, was called to
speak and shared her opinions and solutions regarding positive ways to respond to racism. Mayor
Semeta asked her to complete a blue card for follow-up. (00:47:22)
Macey Lachman, a resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and shared her opinions and
solutions regarding effective ways to respond to homelessness. (00:50:42)
Rhonda Bolten, resident, business owner and parent in Huntington Beach, and member of the Human
Relations Task Force, was called to speak and stated her personal support for Councilmember Items
No. 24 (20-1714) to Reaffirm the City's Commitment to the Declaration of Human Dignity Policy, and
No. 25 (20-1715) City Council Resolution to Stand Together in Unity as oneHB. (00:53:23)
An anonymous speaker, a resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and shared her opinions
regarding protesters and support for ending racism. (00:55:20)
Kathryn Levassiur, a resident of Huntington Beach since 1959, was called to speak and stated support
for Councilmember Items No. 24 (20-1714) to Reaffirm the City's Commitment to the Declaration of
Human Dignity Policy, and No. 25 (20-1715) City Council Resolution to Stand Together in Unity as
oneHB. (00:56:38)
Brittany Baddon, a long-time resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and shared personal
racism she has experienced in Huntington Beach as a Black woman, and asked that City leadership
show and express support for Black lives. (00:59:19)
An anonymous speaker was called to speak and shared her opinions on changes needed to eliminate
the systemic racism found in police departments. (01:02:01)
An anonymous speaker was called to speak and shared concerns about the Huntington Beach police
refusing to report as a hate crime a racist incident he personally experienced. (01:04:47)
An anonymous speaker, a Marine who served overseas, was called to speak and shared his personal
opinions and experiences related to peaceful protesting in Huntington Beach, and the racial response
from the Huntington Beach Police Department. (01:08:00)
Miriam, a Huntington Beach homeowner, was called to speak and shared her opinions regarding
blatant racism disguised as patriotism in Huntington Beach, and asked for unity to move beyond the
current system of suppression. (01:11:28)
An anonymous speaker was called to speak and read a petition which defined situations of blatant
racism observed at Huntington Beach protests, and asked that City leadership condemn the vigilante
and white supremacy acts rather than condoning them through silence on the issue. (01:14:54)
Megan Fowler, a 10-year homeowner and local business owner, was called to speak and read
comments from a petition which stated that white supremacy is rampant in Huntington Beach, and
asked that City leaders denounce, not ignore, local acts of racism. (01:18:17)
Natalie Moser, a 40-year resident of Huntington Beach, a 2020 Candidate for Huntington Beach City
Council, and Human Relations Task Force Chair, was called to speak and shared personal experiences
26
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 6 of 21
related to hate and racist actions in Huntington Beach and asked that the Council lead the way to
necessary changes. (01:21:31)
Debbie Zuganelis, Property Manager for Robert Koury Properties, was called to speak and stated
opposition to Administrative Item No. 23 (20-1712) regarding a Pilot Program to close the Second Block
of Main Street to traffic, and asked for more planning time so that concerns such as security and
options for temporary expansion into the street or a back parking area are properly addressed.
(01:24:43)
Russell Neal, a resident of Huntington Beach, representing the Huntington Beach Republican Assembly
(HBRA), was called to speak and stated support for the way City leaders and the Police Department
handled recent Huntington Beach protests. (01:28:00)
Caller 458, Evan Miller, a resident and Huntington Beach small business owner, was invited to speak
and shared his personal experiences as a peaceful protester, and asked why the obvious white
supremacists are not identified as such by the Huntington Beach Police Department, and stated his
support for re-evaluating Police Department spending to increase community support efforts and
reduce Department weaponry. (01:30:11)
Megan Salazar was called to speak and shared her opinions on the recent protests and racism
exhibited in Huntington Beach. (01:32:57)
Caller 950, Mercedes Costello, a mental health professional serving Huntington Beach, was invited to
speak and stated her opinion that the two police officers on the Homeless Task Force should be
replaced with two social workers or mental health professionals. (01:36:06)
Caller 525, Jasmine Garner, a resident of Huntington Beach, was invited to speak and stated her
support for Councilmember Item No. 25 (20-1715) City Council Resolution to Stand Together in Unity
as oneHB, and requested that this resolution result in a plan of action. (01:37:47)
Caller 133, Amory Hanson, a 2020 Candidate for City Council, and member of the Historic Resources
Board, was invited to speak and stated his opinion that cancelling all deliberative meetings is illegal,
and requested that all Huntington Beach deliberative assemblies be allowed to resume by July 1, 2020.
(01:40:23)
Caller 406, Stephanie, a Huntington Beach resident, was invited to speak and stated her opinions
regarding the ineffectiveness of Huntington Beach police during the recent peaceful protests, and
encouraged Council to revise the budget to increase funding for social services to properly impact
public safety and equality issues. (01:42:27)
Caller 102, Shefrad, was invited to speak and described a hate crime observed at the beach, and her
frustrating experience of trying to dialogue with the City Council and the totally unsatisfactory response
she received. (01:44:51)
Caller 999, Mona Pritchard, was invited to speak and shared experiences of friends who were the
recipients of white supremacist actions during the recent Huntington Beach protests, expressed dismay
that her communication to Councilmembers has not been acknowledged, and stated her opinion that
counter-protesters appear to be protected in Huntington Beach. (01:46:10)
27
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 7 of 21
Caller 181, requesting to remain anonymous, was invited to speak and shared her opinions regarding
the rampant racism in Huntington Beach, and the apparent support for counter protesters and white
supremacists as evidenced by lack of any denouncement by City leaders. (01:49:32)
Caller 286, Laura Syer, a 50 plus-year resident of Huntington Beach, was invited to speak and stated
her support for Councilmember Item No. 24 (20-1714) to Reaffirm the City's Commitment to the
Declaration of Human Dignity Policy, and encouraged more than just words as the City tries to do
better. (01:52:48)
Caller 970, Jason Obert, owner of Easy Rider on Main Street for 17 years, was invited to speak and
stated opposition to Administrative Item No. 23 (20-1712) regarding a Pilot Program to close the
Second Block of Main Street to traffic, and asked for more planning time so that concerns such as
security and sanitizing options are properly addressed. (01:54:20)
COUNCIL COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS - LIAISON REPORTS, AB 1234 REPORTING, AND
OPENNESS IN NEGOTIATIONS DISCLOSURES
Councilmember Posey thanked Mayor Semeta for her support for his appointment to the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) which advises the County Board of Supervisors.
Councilmember Delgleize reported attending an Orange County Transportation Authority Board
meeting, meeting with the Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association (HBPOA), and attending the
Southern California Edison Governor Affairs committee to discuss preparations for the fire season.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
4. 20-1490 Ascon Landfill Site Update
Assistant City Manager Travis Hopkins presented a PowerPoint communication entitled Ascon Landfill
Site Update with slides titled: Current Status, Week of June 15th, How to Stay Informed, and Questions
or Concerns?
5. 20-1692 Update of the City COVID-19 Response Plan and Actions for Review and
Discussion
City Manager Chi presented a PowerPoint communication entitled City of Huntington Beach COVID-19
Response Update with slides titled: Situational Update U.S. Totals (2), Orange County (2), Huntington
Beach, HB EMS Response Statistics, Local Available Hospital Resources, Orange County
Hospitalizations / ICU Utilization Rates, Huntington Beach City Services Update (4), Opening Up the
California Economy, Huntington Beach Economic Recovery Task Force (2), Planning Efforts Underway,
and Questions?
Mayor Semeta commended staff members who have worked diligently to get the HBReady/Open
website operational as a resource for public questions related to allowed activities.
Councilmember Brenden shared that members of the community have commented to him about how
quickly City staff keep the websites updated, and suggested that with street sweeping starting up there
be a period of Courtesy Notifications before tickets are issued for parking violations.
28
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 8 of 21
Councilmember Posey and City Manager Chi discussed that for the last two weeks all parking lots have
been open.
6. 20-1711 Report on Protest and Related Activity in Huntington Beach
City Manager Chi stated that he is proud of the way Police Chief Rob Handy has handled the difficult
situations in the last few weeks, and he knows for certain that Chief Handy absolutely detests acts of
racism in any form and desires to work for a better Huntington Beach.
Police Chief Rob Handy shared that he has had personal and meaningful conversations with members
of the community to discuss their experiences at recent protests, and stated that he, nor members of
the Police Department, tolerate or protect racism. He clarified that the Police Department cannot control
people's speech, however, when it becomes a motive for a crime, then action is taken.
Chief Handy expressed his pride at how the men and women of the Police Department conducted
themselves on May 31 under very difficult circumstances. He explained the equipment they used was
for their own protection from the projectiles thrown by some protesters, and reviewed the plan of action
which he had approved.
Police Chief Handy presented a PowerPoint communication entitled: Update on Recent Protest Activity
in the Region and in Huntington Beach with slides titled: Background (2), May 31st Protest in HB, June
6th Protest in HB, Conclusion, and Questions?
Councilmember Posey complimented Chief Handy and department staff for their professional response
to the situations, and for their efforts to communicate with the community throughout the protests.
Councilmember Peterson and Chief Handy discussed the current body camera policy.
Councilmember Carr and Chief Handy discussed the items such as piles of rocks, bottles, and cinder
blocks with handles which were perceived by area residents and business owners as having been
positioned for possible protester use. They also discussed available routes for protesters to leave once
police declared an unlawful assembly and actively moved to disperse the crowd.
Councilmember Carr expressed her appreciation to Chief Handy for candidly responding to her
questions, and stated she believes the department did an amazing job of keeping peace and protecting
the protesters.
Mayor Semeta shared that Chief Handy has integrity and a passion to protect public safety, and from
personal interactions with him knows he truly is heartbroken hearing about experiences of racism within
the City.
Councilmember Delgleize expressed her support for Chief Handy and department staff, acknowledged
their integrity, and stated the need to openly discuss the racist situations which have happened, and the
planning needed to make changes. Chief Handy briefly described a recent meeting he had with
protesters from both sides of the issue to discuss tolerance, the right to protest, and reducing the fears,
as an example of changes being made in small groups. He stated there is still room to do better, but
progress is being made as the focus remains on keeping the community safe.
29
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 9 of 21
Councilmember Posey and Chief Handy discussed processes for protest arrests which will all be
reviewed by the City or County Prosecutor, or District Attorney.
Councilmember Brenden thanked Chief Handy for being strong through all of this, and keeping the
peace. Councilmember Brenden expressed gratitude for Chief Handy's ability to make changes and
adjustments as situations change, and appreciation for the opportunities Chief Handy provides to
communicate such things as use-of-force policies to the community at large.
Chief Handy closed his presentation by stating that two-thirds of those arrested were not from
Huntington Beach. He added that generally speaking, agencies in California are further ahead in
meeting the "Eight That Can't Wait" policies that are being advocated nationally, and stated a
commitment to remain responsive with the intent to improve.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. 20-1681 Approved and Adopted Minutes
A motion was made by Posey, second Brenden to approve and adopt the City Council/Public Financing
Authority regular meeting minutes dated May 18, 2020, as written and on file in the office of the City
Clerk; and, approve and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes
dated June 1, 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
8. 20-1678 Accepted Park Improvements and accepted a Guarantee and Warranty Bond for
the LeBard Redevelopment Project (Tract 17801) at 20461 Craimer Lane
A motion was made by Posey, second Brenden to accept park improvements for the LeBard
Redevelopment Project (Tract 17801), and instruct the City Clerk to record the Acceptance of Public
Park Improvements (Tract 17801) form (Attachment #2) with the Orange County Recorder; and, accept
Guarantee and Warranty Bond No. 36K012699 (Attachment #3); the security furnished for guarantee
and warranty of park improvements, and instruct the City Clerk to file the bond with the City Treasurer;
and, instruct the City Clerk to notify the developer, HB Homes Management, LLC, of this action, and the
City Treasurer to notify the Surety, the Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, of this action.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
9. 20-1504 ITEM WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION Adopt Resolution No. 2020-18
establishing Permit Parking District "Z" affecting residents along the Heil Avenue
frontage road between Goldenwest Street and Sabot Lane, and Sabot Lane
between Heil Avenue and Sunlight Drive
30
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 10 of 21
10. 20-1663 Adopted Resolution No. 2020-28 concerning the status and update of the City’s
Local Signal Synchronization Plan (LSSP) for the Measure M (M2) Program;
Adopted Resolution No. 2020-36 concerning the status and update of the
Pavement Management Plan (PMP) for the Measure M2 Program; and Adopted a 7-
Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the Fiscal Years 2020/21 through
2026/27 for compliance with renewed Measure M eligibility requirements
A motion was made by Posey, second Brenden to adopt Resolution No. 2020-28, "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Concerning the Update of the Local Signal
Synchronization Plan for the Measure M (M2) Program"; and, adopt Resolution No. 2020-36, "A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Concerning the Status and Update of the
Pavement Management Plan for the Measure M2 Program"; and, adopt the 7-Year Capital
Improvement Program (Fiscal Years 2020/21 through 2026/27) included as Attachment #3 for
compliance with renewed Measure M eligibility requirements.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
11. 20-1659 Adopted Resolution No. 2020-35 authorizing the adoption of Chapter 10 of the
California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Local Assistance Procedures
Manual
A motion was made by Posey, second Brenden to Adopt Resolution No. 2020-35, "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adopting Chapter 10 of the Local Assistance Procedures
Manual of the California Department of Transportation."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
12. 20-1660 Adopted Resolution No. 2020-38 approving Plans and Specifications for the
County of Orange East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel Project
A motion was made by Posey, second Brenden to adopt Resolution No. 2020-38, "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving Construction of the Improvements to the East
Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel (Facility C05) to be funded by the Orange County Flood Control
District."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
13. 20-1689 Adopted Resolution No. 2020-40 authorizing the deposit and investment of excess
funds with the Treasurer-Tax Collector of the County of Orange, California
31
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 11 of 21
A motion was made by Posey, second Brenden to adopt Resolution No. 2020-40, "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Authorizing the Deposit and Investment of Excess Funds
with the Treasurer-Tax Collector of the County of Orange, California."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
14. 20-1680 Adopted Resolution Nos. 2020-41 and 2020-42 that call for and consolidate with
the County of Orange to conduct the General Municipal Election for City Officers
(three Members of the City Council, a City Clerk, and a City Treasurer) to be held
on Tuesday, November 3, 2020
A motion was made by Posey, second Brenden to adopt Resolution No. 2020-41, "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, calling for the holding of a General Municipal
Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, for the election of certain officers as required by the
provisions of the City Charter;" and, adopt Resolution No. 2020-42, "A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Huntington Beach, California, requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange
to consolidate a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, with the
Statewide General Election to be held on the same date pursuant to § 10403 of the Elections Code."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
15. 20-1690 Adopted Resolution No. 2020-43 supporting the delay of the implementation of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.3 (Vehicle Miles
Traveled CEQA Analysis)
A motion was made by Posey, second Brenden to adopt Resolution No. 2020-43, "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Requesting that the Governor of California Delay
Implementation of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.3 (Vehicle Miles
Traveled - CEQA Analysis)."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
16. 20-1679 Approved and authorized execution of a three-year and six month Services
Agreement with the City of Newport Beach for Public Safety Helicopter Services
A motion was made by Posey, second Brenden to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute "Services Agreement for Public Safety Helicopter Support between the City of Huntington
Beach and the City of Newport Beach."
The motion carried by the following vote:
32
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 12 of 21
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
17. 20-1696 Approved and authorized execution of a 3-year License Agreement with 444
Unlimited for the use of the Servicemark/Trademark and Logos associated with
"oneHB" and approve appropriation
A motion was made by Posey, second Brenden to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute the "License Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and 444 Unlimited, LLC, for the
Use of the Servicemark/Trademark and Logos Associated With 'oneHB';" and, approve the budget
appropriation in the oneHB Business Support Fund as the City receives revenues from the sale of
"oneHB" items.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
18. 20-1702 Authorized and directed the Executive Director of the Housing Authority to
execute the following agreements by and between the Huntington Beach Housing
Authority and Five Points Senior LP: 1) First Amendment to Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, and 2) Second Amendment to Affordable
Housing Agreement
A motion was made by Posey, second Brenden to authorize and direct the Executive Director of the
Housing Authority to execute the "First Amendment to Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions," (Attachment #4); and authorize and direct the Executive Director of the Housing Authority
to execute the "Second Amendment to the Affordable Housing Agreement," (Attachment #5).
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
19. 20-1704 Approved the addition of Firefighter / Paramedic Trainee to the Temporary
Position Listing, and the Firefighter / Paramedic Trainee Employment Agreement
Form
A motion was made by Posey, second Brenden to approve the addition of Firefighter / Paramedic
Trainee to the "City of Huntington Beach Pay Schedule for Part-Time Non-Permanent and Non-
Classified Employees;" and, approve the attached Firefighter / Paramedic Trainee Employment
Agreement approved as to form by the City Attorney, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute the document.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
33
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 13 of 21
PUBLIC HEARING
20. 20-1599 ITEM CONTINUED WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO A SPECIAL MEETING O N
JUNE 29, 2020 — Consider Adopting Resolution No. 2020-39 to Adopt a Budget for
the City for Fiscal Year 2020/2021; Resolution No. 2020-32 establishing the Gann
Appropriation Limit and Financial Policies; and Resolution No. 2020-44 to Grant
another Designated Period for Two Years Additional Service Credit
City Clerk Estanislau announced that individuals wishing to provide a comment for a Public Hearing
Item could call 1+(699) 900-6833 and enter Webinar ID: 941 8390 5102, with the same guidelines used
for Public Comments.
Chief Financial Officer Dahle Bulosan and City Manager Oliver Chi jointly presented a PowerPoint
communication entitled FY 2020/21 Budget Review with slides titled: Proposed FY 2020/21 Budget,
RECAP: FY 2020/21 Budget Study Session Overview, Section 115 Retirement Trust, Proposal to Fund
$1M Section 115 Trust Contribution, Early Retirement Program / Workforce Reduction Analysis,
Workforce Reduction Plan Overview, Eligible Employee Census Information, Early Retirement Options:
Cal PERS Program vs. Self-Designed Program, One-Time Costs vs. Permanent Cost Savings, Early
Retirement Program Cost Savings Analysis - Miscellaneous, Early Retirement Program Cost Savings
Analysis - Safety (Sworn), Early Retirement Program Cost Savings Analysis - Safety (Management),
Cost Comparison Summary, Early Retirement Program Recommendation, FY 2020/21 Budget
Summary, City Council Approval Requested, and Questions?
Councilmember Peterson and staff discussed details for the CalPERS early retirement plan, and
Councilmember Peterson stated he will not support a golden parachute program, especially after just
approving raises. He added that he supports actions A through E, but cannot support action F
regarding the CalPERS early retirement program.
Councilmember Posey and staff discussed details regarding the CalPERS early retirement plan. There
was also discussion of ways that other cities are balancing their budget, and considerations if staff
reductions are managed on a department or Memorandum of Understanding negotiation basis.
Councilmember Posey stated he would like to consider options that wouldn't require an expensive
incentive, and City Manager Chi responded any other options would take longer and therefore delay the
cost reduction.
Mayor Pro Tem Hardy and City Manager Chi discussed that two potential choices for early retirement
were reviewed with each bargaining group, rather than through a survey, and City Manager Chi stated
that based on the review comments far fewer people would participate in a self -designed plan. Mayor
Pro Tem Hardy confirmed with City Manager Chi that all the costs for a self-designed plan would have
to be paid up front, whereas the CalPERS plan allows up to five (5) years for payment.
Councilmember Brenden and City Manager Chi discussed the cost of early retirement and the potential
bump in unfunded accrued liability, an amount which could be anywhere from $2M up to $6M,
depending upon the number of people who participate; a 90-day opt-in deadline; a possible cap on the
number of vacated positions that could be filled; and evaluating how lean the City should operate going
forward.
Mayor Semeta opened the Public Hearing.
34
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 14 of 21
City Clerk Robin Estanislau announced receipt of the following Supplemental Communications for this
item, and stated there were no public speakers:
#20. (20-1599)
1) A PowerPoint communication entitled City of Huntington Beach — FY 2020/21 Budget Review
submitted by Dahle Bulosan, Chief Financial Officer.
2) Email communications submitted by
Jackson Kerins
Sam Apodaca
Alix Quenneville
Julia A. Sienski
Alexia Simitian
Christina Gallup
Emily Thompson
Kirsten Shiner
Nicle Granados
Erica Granados
Tameri Bushra
Devyn Ellis
Heather Kim
Josh Guillermo
Alexa Sorenson (03:52:19)
With no one present to speak on the item, Mayor Semeta closed the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Hardy stated support for the CalPERS early retirement program and the opportunity it
presents for restructuring, however, she does not support replacement caps until there is a clearer
picture of the department(s) affected. She thanked staff for placing $1M in the Section 115 Trust.
Councilmember Carr also thanked staff for placing $1M in the Section 115 Trust, and expressed her
concern regarding losing institutional knowledge through an early retirement program. She asked City
Manager Chi for more details on restructuring.
City Manager Chi described the restructuring plan as evaluating how to make internal processes more
streamlined and easier so that the departments directly serving the community have less internal
bureaucracy to deal with, and developing ways to push the decision-making process lower in the
organization to ensure those employees trying to solve a customer issue have the authority to do so.
Councilmember Delgleize and City Manager Chi discussed that if no action is taken regarding early
retirement, there would be an immediate budget deficit of $6.2M, an amount which would most likely
increase moving into future years.
Councilmember Posey shared his concerns regarding the future costs of early retirement, and City
Manager Chi responded those costs would be offset by the reduction of salary and benefits for those
who take early retirement. City Manager Chi added that the ultimate purpose is to restructure the
organization to achieve long-term savings for a balanced operating budget while still providing
exemplary service to the community.
Councilmember Brenden stated his concern that an early retirement program will produce a long-term
impact when the real need is to solve a hopefully short-term issue caused primarily by COVID-19. He
added that his preference would be to consider allocating Reserves and possibly a hiring freeze for a
year to meet the projected $6.2M deficit, and then re-evaluate the situation in a year with a better
understanding of the accuracy of the current revenue forecast. City Manager Chi explained that
currently there is a lot of government stimulus funding which will not continue, and economic
projections expect the COVID-19 downturn to extend for at least 2 to 3 years.
Mayor Semeta stated her reservations for an early retirement program which could be a very expensive
option, and discussed with City Manager Chi the budget actions taken by other cities in Orange County
such as new sales tax, layoffs, early retirement incentives, and pay cuts.
35
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 15 of 21
Councilmember Delgleize expressed her opinion that staffing adjustments are needed, and an early
retirement program would allow for better staffing control for reorganizing.
Councilmember Brenden stated his opinion that there are so many options and too many unanswered
questions to make a decision now.
A motion was made by Brenden, second Posey, to continue to a Special Meeting on June 29, 2020 the
proposed FY 2020/2021 City budget appropriation of $358,975,051 as outlined in the Proposed Budget
document; and, adoption of Resolution No. 2020-39, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Adopting a Budget for the City for Fiscal Year 2020/21;" and, authorize the
Professional Services included in the FY 2020/2021 budget to be representative of the services
projected to be utilized by departments in FY 2020/2021; and, adoption Resolution No. 2020-32, "A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Establishing the Gann Appropriation
Limit for Fiscal Year 2020/2021" of $1,001,044,445; and, approve budget adjustments to the FY
2020/2021 Proposed Budget in the Funds and by the amounts contained in Attachment 2, Exhibit A-1;
and, adoption of Resolution No. 2020-44, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach to grant another designated period for two years additional service credit," authorizing t he
implementation of the CalPERS early retirement program, and authorizing the City Manager to take all
administrative and budgetary actions necessary to implement the CalPERS early retirement program.
Discussion ensued on approving all recommendations, with the exception of the early retirement
incentive. Councilmembers Brenden and Posey stated support for the motion as stated.
A substitute motion was made by Peterson, second Hardy to approve the proposed FY 2020/2021 City
budget appropriation of $358,975,051 as outlined in the Proposed Budget document; and, adopt
Resolution No. 2020-39, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adopting a
Budget for the City for Fiscal Year 2020/21;" and, authorize the Professional Services included in the
FY 2020/2021 budget to be representative of the services projected to be utilized by departments in FY
2020/2021; and, adopt Resolution No. 2020-32, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Establishing the Gann Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2020/2021" of
$1,001,044,445; and, approve budget adjustments to the FY 2020/2021 Proposed Budget in the Funds
and by the amounts contained in Attachment 2, Exhibit A-1.
Mayor Semeta and City Manager Chi clarified that if the Council approves budget items excluding the
CalPERS early retirement incentive, as presented in the substitute motion, then there will be a $6.2M
deficit that would be filled through reserves, and any additional cuts would impact actual service
delivery.
Mayor Pro Tem Hardy withdrew her second to Councilmember Peterson’s substitute motion.
The original motion made by Brenden, seconded by Posey, carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: Hardy
21. 20-1707 Public Hearing Held — Approved Amendment No. 2 (SUBSTANTIAL) to Fiscal Year
2019-20 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and
36
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 16 of 21
HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Programs, and Amendment to the 2015-
2019 Citizen Participation Plan
Community Development Director Ursula Luna-Reynosa presented a Power Point communication
entitled CDBG Annual Action Plan Amendment No 2 (Substantial) & 2015-2019 Citizen Participation
Plan Amendment with slides titled: Discussion Items, Amendment #2 to 2019-20 Annual Action Plan -
Substantial, Amendment to 2019-20 Annual Action Plan(2), 2015-19 Citizen Participation Plan
Amendment(2),and Questions?
Mayor Semeta opened the Public Hearing for this item.
City Clerk Robin Estanislau announced receipt of the following Supplemental Communications for this
item, and stated there were no public speakers:
#21. (20-1707)
A PowerPoint communication entitled CDBG Annual Action Plan Amendment No. 2 (SUBSTANTIAL) &
2015-2019 Citizen Participation Plan Amendment submitted by Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of
Community Development.
With no one signed up to speak, Mayor Semeta closed the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Posey, second Semeta to approve Amendment No. 2 (SUBSTANTIAL) to the
City of Huntington Beach Fiscal Year 2019-20 Annual Action Plan for the Community Development
Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Programs; and, approve an Amendment to the 2015-
2019 Citizen Participation Plan; and, authorize the City Manager to sign all necessary U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development documents and take all other administrative and budgetary actions
necessary to utilize the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act funds.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
At 10:52 PM, a motion was made by Posey, second Hardy, to allow the meeting to continue past
the hour of 11:00 PM. The motion carried by a 7-0 vote.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
22. 20-1697 Approved the COVID-19 Small Business Relief Program and Delegated to the City
Manager, with Approval as to Form by the City Attorney, the Authority to Execute
the Agreement with Orange County Small Business Development Center to
Administer the Program
Assistant to the City Manager Brittany Mello presented a Power Point communication entitled COVID-
19 Small Business Relief Program with slides titled: CARES Act Funding for Small Businesses,
Program Development, Huntington Beach Economic Recovery Task Force, COVID-19 Small Business
Relief Program, Eligibility Criteria(2), Program Administration, Program Timeline, Staff
Recommendations, and Questions?
37
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 17 of 21
Mayor Semeta stated that the meeting held with the Economic Recovery Task Force was very
productive and helpful in developing this program.
Mayor Pro Tem Hardy inquired, and staff confirmed that the fee waiver will be available to assist 7 to 15
additional businesses, and asked that City Councilmembers be included in all marketing efforts for this
program.
Councilmember Peterson thanked Mayor Semeta and the Economic Recovery Task Force for their
efforts to make this program a reality for the small businesses of Huntington Beach.
Councilmember Delgleize, Mayor Semeta and Councilmember Peterson discussed the effort to help as
many businesses as possible in determining award parameters, and Mayor Semeta explained that the
City's micro-grant program funds would be available once these funds are exhausted. Staff stated that
the oneHB website will have program details, and it is expected that 475 up to 950 businesses will
benefit from this program.
Councilmember Posey complimented Mayor Semeta for bringing this money in, and they discussed
how the formula was developed by the County to use population as the criteria for disbursing funds to
cities.
Councilmember Carr confirmed with staff that the lottery process will not take into consideration
business size, that the number of employees criteria means full-time employees, and that the lottery will
give priority (they will have two lottery entries rather than one) to businesses that have not received
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) or Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) funding.
Councilmember Brenden and Mayor Semeta discussed that only one of the four listed requirements
has to be met in order for a business to qualify. There was further conversation among staff and
Councilmembers to clarify Federal stipulations for these funds, and discussion on the extensive
marketing efforts to ensure all qualified businesses are aware of this program.
A motion was made by Peterson, second Semeta to approve the COVID-19 Small Business Relief
Program; and, delegate to the City Manager, with Approval as to Form by the City Attorney, the
authority to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Huntington Beach and the
Orange County Small Business Development Center to Administer the COVID-19 Small Business
Relief Program” and to allow the City Manager to take all administrative and budgetary actions to
execute the program. (Revised Recommended Action provided by Supplemental Communication)
The motion as amended carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
23. 20-1712 TABLED TO A SPECIAL MEETING ON JUNE 29, 2020 — Consideration of an
Agreement with Choura Events to create a Pilot Program to close the Second
Block of Main Street to traffic for outdoor commerce as a response to the COVID-
19 pandemic
38
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 18 of 21
A PowerPoint communication was presented by Community Development Director Ursula Luna-
Reynosa entitled Downtown Pilot Project with slides titled: Inspiration Parklets (2), Laguna Beach,
Public Art Opportunities, Messaging Opportunities, Project Description, Budget, and Thank You
Councilmember Delgleize and Director Luna-Reynosa discussed that using the outdoor parklet concept
might encourage people to return to the Downtown area who otherwise might choose to not enter into a
Downtown business. Director Luna-Reynosa explained that the funds to pay for this concept would
come from the CARES program for COVID-19 response. Councilmember Delgleize stated she is
interested in supporting Downtown businesses in a method they choose to draw people to that area,
but expressed concerns about how cleanliness and safety/security would be provided.
Mayor Pro Tem Hardy shared with staff her concerns about the BID and the vote, cleaning protocols,
who will ensure that space is available only to intended customers, signage matching the VisitHB style,
whether the Coastal Commission has any impact on this plan, how this plan might affect bringing back
SurfCity Nights, social distancing guidelines for ingress/egress, and the monitoring and enforcement of
agreements for sidewalk table placement. Mayor Pro Tem Hardy stated she sees this effort as an
opportunity to help everyone see what a closed Main Street could look like.
Director Luna-Reynosa stated that the BID survey was distributed to the entire membership and
received a 28% response, compared to the typical 5% response for any previous survey, and the vote
mentioned was a vote of the Board, not of the membership. She confirmed that procedures will be
implemented to ensure a sanitary environment and that the area does not become a sleeping area at
night. The Coastal Commission has granted permit waivers related to COVID-19 responses, and
requested to be kept up to date. Director Luna-Reynosa and Mayor Pro Tem Hardy discussed that this
plan is a temporary solution initially paid for by COVID-19 funds, however if it proves to be popular and
the BID has interest in using it long-term, then the BID should expect to fund it.
Councilmember Posey and City Manager Chi discussed possible uses, and restrictions, related to the
$1.7M received for COVID-19 related costs, including covering the 25% of FEMA unreimbursed
COVID-19 expenses, enhancing beach and park restroom cleanings, and pressure washing Downtown,
facilitating additional homeless response activities, and allowing for additional new COVID-19
responsibilities.
Councilmember Posey applauded staff for putting together such a comprehensive option, and
expressed his opinion that this plan could provide benefits for the greater Downtown area and not
necessarily only the businesses adjacent to the parklets. He asked what the down side could be for this
temporary plan, and the financial commitment from BID.
Director Luna-Reynosa responded the BID Board voted to provide $10,000 towards the hard costs for
setting up, and in-kind services for security and maintenance, and suggested there needs to be more
discussion with BID to fine-tune and finalize those details before an agreement is signed with Choura
Events.
Councilmember Carr expressed the need for a meeting or two with the businesses opposed and
supporting the concept, and to provide an opportunity to solve the issues being raised for real costs,
sanitation, and security, and suggested no decision be made at this time.
Councilmember Brenden stated he would like to have BID more involved in the planning and decision-
making, and encouraged the City to cover the initial costs. He also suggested that at minimum the
39
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 19 of 21
Surfing Museum parking lot be utilized for temporary service expansion, whether or not Main Street is
approved.
Director Luna-Reynosa clarified that staff did meet with BID in putting this plan together.
Councilmember Peterson stated one inexpensive test solution could be to allow the restaurants to
place some of their tables and chairs on the sidewalk, and/or close down the 2nd block of Main Street
during selected hours and days, which would also eliminate the after-hours security and table sanitation
concerns. He also suggested that the City's available CARES funding could then be used for increased
power washing in the parking structure, as well as for cleaning beach and park restroom s throughout
the City.
Mayor Semeta and Director Luna-Reynosa confirmed that VisitHB had suggested possible use of their
ambassadors, but no specific details were determined.
Mayor Semeta and Director Luna-Reynosa discussed possible options if there was a desire to keep the
parklets after the temporary use, and confirmed that the finishing touches for furniture and planters
have not been selected and will add to the costs presented for setting up.
Councilmember Posey and Director Luna-Reynosa summarized the details that Council needs
clarification on, including the BID consensus.
A motion was made by Carr, second Delgleize to table for another meeting with the Downtown
Business Improvement District (BID) to address issues raised by Council, and bring back at a special
meeting on June 29, 2020.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
COUNCILMEMBER ITEMS
24. 20-1714 Approved Item Submitted by Councilmember Carr — Reaffirmed the City’s
Commitment to the Declaration of Policy About Human Dignity
Councilmember Carr stated the Human Dignity Policy was last reaffirmed by City Council in 2017, and
suggested this Policy be reaffirmed again as the foundation for moving forward in addressing current
racial tensions.
Mayor Pro Tem Hardy thanked Councilmember Carr for bringing this item forward when the moment
called for it.
Councilmembers Peterson and Carr discussed that Huntington Beach is not a racist city, as many are
stating, and Councilmember Carr expressed that reaffirmation of the Human Dignity Policy is one way
to publicly respond to the false narrative.
40
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 20 of 21
A motion was made by Carr, second Hardy that “In an effort to unify the Huntington Beach community,
that the City Council vote to reaffirm the City's commitment to its Declaration of Policy About Human
Dignity.”
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
25. 20-1715 Approved Item Submitted by Councilmembers Delgleize and Carr — Resolution of
the City Council to Stand Together in Unity as oneHB
Councilmember Delgleize introduced this item by reading the amended resolution submitted via
Supplemental Communication, and moved to approve the resolution. Councilmember Carr seconded
the motion.
Discussion ensued on the proper procedure for passing resolutions, and clarification that the City
Charter reads that "the City Attorney shall have the power and may be required to … Prepare any and
all proposed ordinances and City Council resolutions and amendments thereto … " Councilmember
Delgleize stated that because this item references specific and current events, she requested it be
passed tonight because in her opinion a delay by bringing it back in two weeks would make it less
impactful.
As parliamentarian, City Attorney Michael Gates clarified his duty to clearly define two issues:
1) How Council wants to handle Councilmember Items, as it has already been agreed by Council in a
previous action, and embodied in the Council Manual, that Councilmember Items are presented and
voted on, then the actual formal item is brought back for the final vote at a subsequent meeting after
review by the City Attorney’s office. City Attorney Gates explained that circumventing that process
would not violate the Brown Act, or any Robert's Rules, and his previous email was only a reminder of
the Council-approved process.
2) Regarding the Charter requirement, historically ordinances and resolutions come through the City
Attorney's office, and no other officer is provided the authority, and City Attorney Gates added that the
Council could take any action it wanted.
Mayor Semeta expressed her interest in supporting this item because it doesn't require any specific
action by anyone, but also asked for the commitment of Councilmembers to be mindful of following
approved procedures going forward.
City Clerk Estanislau clarified with Mayor Semeta that this would be Resolution No. 2020-45.
The motion made by Delgleize, seconded Carr that the City Council adopt amended Resolution No.
2020-45 which resolves that the City of Huntington Beach stands together in unity against all forms of
intolerance, racism, and hate, as oneHB. carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: Peterson
41
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting and
Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2020, Page 21 of 21
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized)
Due to the lateness of the hour, Mayor Semeta requested to dispense with Councilmember Comments,
and adjourned the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT at 12:15 AM on June 16, 2020, to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the
Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority on Monday, July 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
42
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1722 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Dahle Bulosan, Chief Financial Officer
Subject:
Adopt Resolution No. 2020-31 authorizing the City to Levy the Annual Retirement Property Tax
for Fiscal Year 2020/21 to pay for Pre-1978 Employee Retirement Benefit Levels
Statement of Issue:
The retirement property tax has been levied each year since 1966. The retirement property tax is
collected on all real property in the City of Huntington Beach to recover costs related to pre-1978
public employee retirement benefit levels. On July 16, 2012, the City Council adopted Chapter 3.07
of the Municipal Code, the Retirement Tax Cap. The Retirement Tax Cap states that the tax rate
“shall be set at the rate adopted for Fiscal Year 2012/13, which is $0.01500 per $100 of assessed
valuation.”
Financial Impact:
Pursuant to Chapter 3.07 of the Municipal Code, the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2020/21
assumes the continuation of the Retirement Tax Cap of $0.01500 per $100 of assessed value. As of
the most recent audited financial statements, this tax rate resulted in $6.4 million in General Fund
revenue in Fiscal Year 2018/19. This recurring revenue source is included in the Proposed FY
2020/21 Budget; hence, any reductions in the tax rate would potentially result in proportionate
ongoing General Fund budget reductions.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 2020-31, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Levying a Retirement Property Tax for Fiscal Year 2020/2021 to Pay for Pre-1978 Employee
Retirement Benefits” of $0.01500 per $100 of assessed valuation. The tax rate of $0.01500 would
continue the tax rate included in the current Fiscal Year 2019/20 Adopted Budget.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the recommended action, and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
On July 16, 2012, the City Council adopted an ordinance to permanently cap the tax rate at $0.01500
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™43
File #:20-1722 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
per $100 of assessed valuation. Therefore, the requested tax levy for FY 2020/21 reflects the same
tax rate of $0.01500 per $100 of assessed valuation effective in FY 2012/13 pursuant to Chapter 3.07
of the Municipal Code. Fiscal Year 2020/21 will represent the ninth year of the application of the
permanent cap.
As background, on June 25, 2012, the Registrar of Voters of the County of Orange certified a
measure to be placed on the ballot to repeal the Employee Tax Override in its entirety. However, on
November 6, 2012, the ballot measure, known as Measure Z, was defeated by a majority of
Huntington Beach voters.
The current capped Employee Tax Override results in an approximate $75 annual tax levy for a
property assessed at $500,000. Revenue generated from this property tax helps the City fund
employee pension costs associated with pre-1978 retirement benefit levels. As such, the tax can
only pay for the estimated costs associated with the pension benefit formulas in place prior to the
enactment of Proposition 13 on July 1, 1978. Hence, the tax can only pay for retirement benefits for
all retired, current, and future City employees that were contracted for prior to July 1, 1978 (such as
the 2% at 50 benefit formula for Safety employees in place before enactment of Proposition 13).
Please note that even before the adoption of a permanent cap, this assessment has not been
increased since Fiscal Year 2009/10, and can now only be modified by a vote of the electorate, as
the adoption of the Retirement Tax Cap contained in Chapter 3.07 of the Municipal Code established
a permanent cap. Based on the most recent CalPERS actuarial valuations the cost of pre-1978
retirement benefit levels for Safety personnel total $26.9 million. As such, the proposed tax rate is
recouping only 23 percent of eligible Safety personnel retirement costs.
Due to the County of Orange’s timeline for approving the tax rate and the city’s budget cycle, the rate
must be set before the City Council takes action on its annual budget. The recommended
assessment rate would maintain essential services in the General Fund for Fiscal Year 2020/21.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Strengthen long-term financial and economic sustainability
Enhance and modernize public safety service delivery
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2020-31 “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Levying a Retirement Tax for Fiscal Year 2020/2021 to Pay for Pre-1978 Employee Retirement
Benefits.”
2. Ordinance No. 3954 “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington
Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 3.07 Relating to Capping the Retirement Property
Tax at Fiscal Year 2012/13 Rates.”
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™44
45
46
4/8/2019 PDF.js viewer
ecm.cohb.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=4984618&dbid=0&repo=COHB&searchid=73f7ccd4-9eef-4b21-b54a-54a5897c6639 6/7
47
4/8/2019 PDF.js viewer
ecm.cohb.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=4984618&dbid=0&repo=COHB&searchid=73f7ccd4-9eef-4b21-b54a-54a5897c6639 7/7
48
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1688 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Robert Handy, Chief of Police
Subject:
Approve ad authorize execution of a three-year contract with Waymakers in the amount of
$335,405 for the management of the Juvenile Diversion Program
Statement of Issue:
City Council action is requested to approve a three-year contract with Waymakers for the
management of the Juvenile Diversion Program. Approval of the attached contract will renew this
agreement and allow payment to Waymakers for all future services provided under this contract.
Financial Impact:
Sufficient appropriations are available to fund the first year of the Waymakers contract under the
proposed budget for Fiscal Year 20/21 in Business Unit 10070203.69365. Future years will be
budgeted accordingly. Full payments toward the fixed-fee schedules are set forth herein:
Management of the Juvenile Diversion Contract - Year 1: $108,090; Year 2: $111,730; Year 3:
$115,585.
Recommended Action:
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a “Professional Services Contract
Between the City of Huntington Beach and Waymakers for the Management of the Juvenile Diversion
Program.”
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the agreement, and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
Since 1992, the Huntington Beach Police Department has contracted with Waymakers [formerly
known as Community Service Programs, Inc. (CSP)] to manage the Juvenile Diversion Program.
The Juvenile Diversion Program provides an alternative to the traditional justice system for those who
have committed less serious offenses. Referrals to the program come primarily from the Police
Department after detentions or citations involving juvenile offenders. These first-time offenders are
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™49
File #:20-1688 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
put in contact with Waymakers, which facilitates counseling, legal awareness workshops, community
service, and restitution service for those who have committed relatively minor crimes.
A Request for Proposals was conducted by the Finance Department for this professional service.
Waymakers was the only bid submitted. Their submission was evaluated by the Police Department
and found to meet the requirements of the Juvenile Diversion Program.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and modernize public safety service delivery
Attachment(s):
1. Professional Services Contract for Management of the Juvenile Diversion Program
2. City of HB Certificate of Insurance
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1727 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Termination of Rent Abatement for Certain Tenants at City-owned Facilities effective August 1,
2020 and authorize City Manager to reinstate if necessary
Statement of Issue:
Authorize and direct the City Manager to terminate Rent Abatement, effective August 1, 2020, for
concessionaire tenants leasing City-owned property, which was put in place as a response to the
financial impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, Authorize the City Manager to reinstate
the Rent Abatement if future actions due to COVID-19 severely impact the tenants ability to operate.
Financial Impact:
The rent abatement went into effect in March 2020. The City will have foregone base rent revenue
for the months of March through July, totaling approximately $582,152. Should the City Council
direct the City Manager to terminate the rent abatement, the City expects to collect approximately
$120,994, in base rent only, for the month of August 2020 , and decreasing amounts for the following
months as the peak seasonal season comes to an end. Revenue collected will be deposited into
concessionaire lease accounts (10000100.43165; 10000100.43085; 10000100.43095;
10000100.43145; 10000100.43150; 10000100.43155).
Recommended Action:
A) Authorize and direct the City Manager, or his designee, to terminate Rent Abatement to
concessionaire tenants of various City-owned facilities, effective August 1, 2020. A list of the tenants
is outlined in Attachment No. 1; and,
B) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to reinstate the Rent Abatement if future COVID-
19 pandemic actions severely impact the tenants ability to operate.
Alternative Action(s):
Do no approve the termination of Rent Abatement, and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™74
File #:20-1727 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
On March 31, 2020, the City Council authorized and directed the City Manager to implement Rent
Abatement effective from the date of issuance of the State of California’s Proclamation of State of
Emergency on March 4, 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since that time, stay at home
orders and social distancing recommendations were implemented by County’s Health Officer, which
severely impacted concessionaire tenants’ ability to conduct business.
On May 26, 2020, Governor Newsom in conjunction with the County Health Officer transitioned
Orange County into Phase 2 of re-opening, which allowed limited restaurant dining and in-store
shopping with social distancing and other guidelines. In addition, the City re-opened the Huntington
Beach Pier on May 26, and allowed concessionaires to begin limited operations in accordance with
the County’s guidelines.
As the County is in the final phases of Stage 3 re-opening phase, the financial impacts of social
distancing and other recommendations have lessened. Many of the concessionaires have seen an
increase in customers and revenue. Therefore, staff is recommending the termination of Rent
Abatement effective August 1, 2020. Staff will continue to encourage that concessionaires abide by
the County’s guidelines.
Environmental Status:
The termination of the Rent Abatement impacts lease agreements and modifies payment terms ,
which will not result in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonable
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment as is therefore not a “project” per Section
15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Strengthen long-term financial and economic sustainability
Attachment(s):
1. Concessionaire Tenants on City-Owned Property
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™75
ATTACHMENT NO.1
Concessionaire Tenants on City-Owned Property
Tenant Name Type
March Base
Rent¹ April Base Rent
May-July Base
Rent
September
Base Rent
Small
Business Non-Profit
Huntington
Beach Based SoCal Based
Ruby's Diner Beach Concession $ 9,569.74 $ 10,987.48 $ 10,987.48 $ 10,987.48 x
Let's Go Fishing Beach Concession $ 827.42 $ 950.00 $ 950.00 $ 950.00 x x
Surf City Store Beach Concession $ 827.42 $ 950.00 $ 950.00 $ 950.00 x ` x
Surf City Store-Servicemark Beach Concession $ - $ - $ - $ - x x
Kite Connection Beach Concession $ 827.42 $ 950.00 $ 950.00 $ 950.00 x x
Duke's Beach Concession $ 31,219.84 $ 35,845.00 $ 35,845.00 $ 35,845.00
HB Visitor's Kiosk Beach Concession $ 177.05 $ 203.28 $ 203.28 $ 203.28 x x x
Zacks Pier Plaza Beach Concession $ - x x
Dwight's Beach Concession Beach Concession $ 735.97 $ 845.00 $ 1,700.93 $ 1,700.93 x x
Jack's Beach Concession Beach Concession $ 735.97 $ 845.00 $ 1,700.93 $ 1,700.93 x x
Kokomo's Surfside Grill Beach Concession $ 800.00 $ 1,601.00 $ 1,601.00 x x
Hilton Beach Cabana Beach Concession $ - x
Hyatt Beach Concession Beach Concession $ 906.15 $ 1,040.40 $ 1,040.00 $ 1,040.00 x
Zack's Too Beach Concession $ 728.14 $ 836.01 $ 1,672.03 $ 836.01 x x
National Link ATM $ - $ - $ -
Fare Share Enterprises Beach Tenant (Telescopes) $ - $ - $ - x
HB Emp. Credit Union City Hall Tenant $ 2,383.84 $ 2,737.00 $ 2,737.00 $ 2,737.00 x
Huntington Harbour Yacht Club City Hall Tenant $ 2,671.27 $ 3,067.01 $ 3,067.01 $ 3,067.01 x
Primo Nosh City Hall Tenant $ 65.32 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00
Braver Players Library Tenant $ - $ - $ - $ - x x
California Genealogical Societ Library Tenant $ 609.68 $ 700.00 $ 700.00 $ 700.00 x x
One Fine Blend Library Tenant $ 740.32 $ 850.00 $ 850.00 $ 850.00 x x
Kathy May's Restaurant Central Park Concession $ 1,633.06 $ 1,875.00 $ 1,875.00 $ 1,875.00 x x
Disc Sports Management Central Park Concession $ 870.97 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 x x
76
ATTACHMENT NO.1
Concessionaire Tenants on City-Owned Property
Tenant Name Type
March Base
Rent¹ April Base Rent
May-July Base
Rent
September
Base Rent
Small
Business Non-Profit
Huntington
Beach Based SoCal Based
Park Bench Cafe Central Park Concession $ - $ - $ - $ - x x
HCP Equestrian Center Central Park Concession $ 435.48 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 x
Primo Nosh Central Park Concession $ 1,088.71 $ 1,250.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 1,250.00 x x
Denny's Parking Lot $ 412.29 $ 473.37 $ 473.37 $ 473.37
Huntington Shorecliffs Parking Lot $ 870.97 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Surf City Nissan Parking Lot $ 2,612.90 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 x
Monroe Pacific Nursery Open Space Tenant $ 1,741.94 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 x x
Meadowlark G.C. - Arcis/Eagle Open Space Tenant $ 38,596.06 $ 44,314.00 $ 44,314.00 $ 44,314.00
Visit HB - Surf Museum Museum $ 435.48 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 x x
Oak View Rec Center Community Center $ 0.87 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 x x x
Vans Skate Park Skate Park $ 0.87 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 x
Total Monthly Rent $ 101,725.16 $ 117,595.55 $ 120,944.03 $ 120,108.01
$ 53,351.52 $ 53,351.52 $ 53,351.52 $ 53,351.52
$ 155,076.68 $ 170,947.07 $ 174,295.55 $ 173,459.53
Notes
1. March Base Rent is based on 27-day period (Governor Newsome's Proclamation of State of Emergency effective on March 4, 2020).
77
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1729 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager
Subject:
Approve the appointment of Sean Crumby to the position of Public Works Director and
authorize the City Manager to execute the Employment Agreement
Statement of Issue:
The City’s Public Works Director position has been vacant since May 2019. To fill this critical
leadership role, a national recruitment was conducted. Based on a thorough vetting process, which
included a screening interview, panel interview, interviews with the City Manager and Assistant City
Manager, and background and reference checks, the City Manager is recommending the
appointment of Sean Crumby to the position.
Financial Impact:
Funding for this position is included in the FY 2020/21 budget.
Recommended Action:
Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the “Employment Agreement Between the City of
Huntington Beach and Sean Crumby” for the position of Public Works Director.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the appointment of Sean Crumby to the position of Public Works Director, and direct
the City Manager to re-launch a national recruitment.
Analysis:
The position of Public Works Director has been vacant since May 2019, after the former Public Works
Director, Travis Hopkins, served as the Acting Assistant City Manager and in December 2019,
appointed as the Assistant City Manager. Since that time, City Engineer Tom Herbel has served as
the Acting Public Works Director.
In order to fill this department head vacancy, the City Manager authorized Human Resources to
launch the recruitment for the Public Works Director in April 2020. The City received 43 applications
for the position. Eight (8) individuals were selected form the applicant pool for an extensive
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™78
File #:20-1729 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
screening process and screening interview. The top five (5) candidates were invited to an interview
panel comprised of members of the City’s Executive (Department Head) team, which recommended
three (3) finalists.
The City Manager and Assistant City Manager conducted final interviews with each of the finalists.
After full and deliberate consideration, the City Manager recommends City Council approval to
appoint Sean Crumby to the position of Public Works Director, effective August 3, 2020.
Mr. Crumby has 25 years of both private and municipal public works and civil engineering
experience, spending the past two decades in local government. In the private sector, he worked as
a Civil Engineer in two consulting firms that partnered with a variety of government agencies on
public works projects. In the government sector, Mr. Crumby has experience working in four
Southern California cities.
Mr. Crumby has served in a variety of public works roles for the City of Long Beach since 2015. He
currently serves in dual roles as both the Deputy General Manager / Director of Engineering for the
Long Beach Water Department and the Bureau Manager of Engineering for the Long Beach Energy
Resources Department. In addition, Mr. Crumby also served Long Beach as Deputy Director of
Public Works / City Engineer.
Mr. Crumby previously served as the Public Works Director for the cities of Seal Beach and Stanton,
and also has experience working for the City of Newport Beach. He is a Registered Civil Engineer
and holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Nevada.
The contractual compensation is recommended at Non-Associated/Executive Management Pay
Grade NA 0010 at step E ($100.13 hourly). The annual salary is $208,270. All other benefits
provided are applicable for Non-Associated employees (department heads) hired after 12/27/1997,
as set forth in Huntington Beach City Council Resolution No. 2016-50.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain high quality City services
Enhance and maintain infrastructure
Attachment(s):
1. Public Works Director Recruitment Brochure
2. Sean Crumby Résumé
3. Employment Agreement
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™79
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Director of Public Works
80
THE COMMUNITY
The City of Huntington Beach is located in northwestern
Orange County 35 miles southeast of Los Angeles and 90
miles northwest of San Diego. The City encompasses 28
square miles of land and 26 square miles of water, making it
the 24th largest city in California. With a population of about
202,265 residents, Huntington Beach is the fourth largest
populous city in Orange County.
Known as “Surf City,” Huntington Beach features nearly 8.5
miles of spacious beaches. The City hosts an annual visitor
population of over 4 million people, especially during the
summer, and features numerous large-scale special events,
surf competitions and festivals. Even with its swell of visitors,
Huntington Beach has been listed for decades as among
the FBI’s safest cities in the nation. In 2019, WalletHub ranked
Huntington Beach as #5 in their “Top Ten Happiest Cities in
the US.”
Huntington Beach has one of the largest recreational piers
in the world and has the longest concrete pier in California.
The City is home to a thriving beach community and
is consistently named as one of the top ten beaches in
California. Running parallel to Pacific Coast Highway and
just steps from the ocean is an eight-mile strand perfect for
biking, inline skating, jogging, or a leisurely stroll.
Huntington Beach boasts a wide variety of municipal
amenities. It has a world-class Central Library with four
branch libraries. The City’s park system includes 76 public
parks (including a dog park), riding stables, and the largest
city-owned and operated regional park in Orange County —
the 356-acre Huntington Central Park. Residents enjoy five
recreation centers (including a senior center), three miles of
equestrian trails, two golf courses, 72 tennis courts, a marina,
and a protected wildlife preserve.
Huntington Beach draws some of the largest crowds in
the world for its popular events, including the U.S. Open of
Surfing, Van’s World Championship of Skateboarding, AVP Pro
Beach Volleyball, the Surf City Marathon, and the Great Pacific
Air Show. It’s also home to the International Surfing Museum,
the Surfing Walk of Fame, the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve,
and the Huntington Beach Art Center.
The community’s 35 elementary schools and five public high
schools frequently receive local, state, and federal awards
and honors, including recognition as California Distinguished
Schools and National Blue Ribbon Schools. Golden West
College, a community college, is also located in the City.
Orange Coast College; the University of California, Irvine; and
California State Universities at Long Beach and Fullerton also
provide convenient proximity to higher education.
Huntington Beach is an extremely diversified business
community. No single business or industry dominates
the local economy, which supports leading commercial,
industrial, and recreational industries with a diverse economic
base from tourism and leisure to aerospace, high technology,
and manufacturing.
To learn more about the City of Huntington Beach, please
visit www.huntingtonbeachca.gov.
CITY GOVERNMENT
Huntington Beach was incorporated as a Charter City in
1909 and operates under the Council/Manager form of
government. A seven-member City Council serves as the
governing body. Members are elected at-large to four-year
overlapping terms. City Council members are limited to two
consecutive terms. The City Attorney, City Clerk, and City
Treasurer are also elected and serve four-year terms. The
Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem roles are designated on a rotating
basis.
The City’s 12 major departments include the City Attorney,
City Clerk, City Treasurer, City Manager, Community
Development, Community Services, Finance, Fire, Information
Services, Library Services, Police, and Public Works. The City
is supported by 986.25 FTE and a General Fund budget of
$231.6 million (total budget $381 million). Huntington Beach
maintains a “AAA” credit rating.
One HB
One Team, One Focus, One Goal…
One Team
We are one team… working together to serve the
people of Huntington Beach exceptionally to inspire
pride in our community.
One Focus
We have one focus… to stay fanatical about achieving
municipal excellence by being active caretakers of our
unique, people-centric HB culture.
One Goal
We have one goal… to ensure that HB continually
improves its standing as a premier coastal community
as measured through the health of our people, our
organization, our infrastructure, and our community.
81
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Huntington Beach’s Public Works Department delivers a wide
range of vital services to the community as well as other
internal departments. With the assistance of 207 FTE, Public
Works is responsible for the planning, construction, operation,
and maintenance of City-owned infrastructure, including
buildings, streets, parks, landscaping, flood control, beach
facilities and utilities. The Department also operates and
maintains essential services such as water, sewer, drainage,
and traffic control systems 24 hours-a-day. The Director will
oversee an annual operating budget of $112.6 million and a
FY 2019-20 CIP of $46.6 million. The City Charter requires that
15% of General Fund revenues be spent on infrastructure
based on a five-year rolling average.
The Department currently consists of six divisions that are
each comprised of several sections:
• Administration Division: Provides general planning and
management, policy direction, and program evaluation for
the Department
• Engineering Division: Construction, Design, and
Development Engineering; Water and Sewage and Storm
Water Quality, Capital Project Section
• General Services Division: Code Enforcement, Fleet
Maintenance, Facility Maintenance
• Maintenance Operations Division: Maintenance
Administration, Landscape Maintenance, Tree
Maintenance, Street Maintenance, Beach Maintenance
• Transportation Division: Traffic Engineering, Signal and
Lighting Maintenance, Signs and Markings Maintenance
• Utilities Division: Water and Sewage Administration,
Water Production/Quality, Water Distribution/Meters,
Wastewater
THE IDEAL CANDIDATE
The City of Huntington Beach is seeking a future-focused
public works professional with a relentless passion for
excellence. The ideal candidate will be excited about the
opportunity to lead a multi-faceted department in one of
the nation’s most desirable, premier coastal communities.
Considered a visionary in the industry, this individual will have
a reputation for advancing activities that support a collective
vision and enhance community pride.
An inspiring and hardworking leader who has mastered the
art of helping others see what’s possible, the ideal candidate
will be of the highest integrity and considered a role model
in the profession. This person will have the ability to approach
day-to-day operations with an optimistic can-do attitude and
a constant eye toward results and continuous improvement.
Familiarity with technology and tools that support
contemporary business practices and maximum efficiency,
coupled with a track record that reflects data-driven decision
making and the delivery of exceptional outcomes, will be
expected. Proven success with modernizing systems and
processes and other significant change efforts will also be
considered favorably.
The individual selected will be a unifying mentor and team
builder who prioritizes people and the needs of the team
above personal ambitions. Known for being enthusiastic
about people and their work, this person will also be an
outstanding people manager capable of fostering an
inclusive culture that is also characterized by high standards,
accountability, and trust. The ideal candidate will be a highly
engaged and motivating manager who is generous with
recognition and feedback, and supportive of innovation and
problem solving at the lowest level. This person will know
how to foster healthy internal debates to arrive at the best
outcomes as one cohesive team.
Driven by an obsession for the delivery of exceptional
outcomes, the ideal candidate will convey a sophisticated
understanding of external as well as internal customer
needs and concerns. This individual will exhibit tremendous
initiative and have a history that demonstrates the ability
to address challenges with courage and confidence.
Department heads in Huntington Beach are expected to be
resilient problem solvers and have an admirable ability to
adapt while maintaining forward momentum.
Competitive candidates will possess at least five (5) years
of experience in public sector management, preferably in
public works, and a Bachelor’s degree in Public or Business
Administration, Engineering, or a related field.
82
An impressive and consistent performance record of capital
project management and delivery will also be expected.
Previous or current experience in a comparable organization
will be considered favorably. A combination of public and
private sector experience is acceptable.
COMPENSATION & BENEFITS
The salary range for the Director of Public Works is $168,105
- $208,270, and placement within this range is dependent
upon qualifications and experience. The City of Huntington
Beach also offers an attractive benefits package that includes:
Retirement – The City participates in the California Public
Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) under a 2.5% @ 55
Miscellaneous benefit formula for Classic Members; Members
contribute the 8% employee share. New Members are under
a 2% @ 62 miscellaneous benefit formula and contribute
a 6.25% employee share. The City does not pay into Social
Security; however, all employees pay 1.45% towards
Medicare.
Insurance – Health (medical/dental/vision), life, and disability
insurance is provided by the City. IRS Section 125 medical and
dependent care reimbursement plan (FSA) is available.
Deferred Compensation – Two voluntary deferred
compensation 457 plans available.
Group Life Insurance – The City offers $50,000 of life
insurance coverage, with employee option to purchase
additional life insurance.
General Leave – General leave with pay of 176 hours per
year is granted to regular employees. Additional general leave
hours are earned after four years of service, up to 256 hours
after fifteen years’ service.
Executive Leave – 80 hours per calendar year.
Holidays – Ten paid holidays are provided per calendar year.
Flexible Spending Accounts – Available where employees
use pre-tax salary to pay for regular childcare, adult
dependent care, and/or medical expenses.
APPLICATION & SELECTION PROCESS
The closing date for this recruitment is midnight on May 25,
2020. To be considered for this opportunity, upload cover
letter, resume, and list of six professional references using the
“Apply Now” feature at www.tbcrecruiting.com.
Tina White • 619.948.1786
Teri Black • 424.296.3111
TERI BLACK & COMPANY, LLC
www.tbcrecruiting.com
Following the closing date, resumes will be screened in
relation to the criteria articulated in this brochure. Applicants
with the most relevant qualifications will be granted
preliminary interviews by one of the consultants. Candidates
deemed to be the best qualified will be invited to interview
in Huntington Beach mid-June, and may be conducted
virtually, pending COVID-19 shelter in place restrictions.
The City Manager anticipates making an appointment shortly
thereafter, following the completion of thorough background
and reference checks. Please note that references will not
be contacted until the end of the process and, at that time,
will be done so in close coordination with the candidate
impacted. The City of Huntington Beach reserves the right
to alter the interview and selection process in response to the
evolving impacts of the COVID-19 virus.
83
84
85
Sean Crumby
Director of Public Works Employment Agreement
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND SEAN CRUMBY
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 6th day of July, 2020, between the City of
Huntington Beach, a California municipal corporation, hereinafter “City,” and Sean Crumby,
hereinafter “Crumby.”
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the City Manager has been empowered to appoint and remove department
heads; and
WHEREAS, the City, through the City Manager, desires to employ the services of Crumby
as the Director of the Public Works Department of the City of Huntington Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks to provide certain benefits, establish certain conditions of
employment, and to set working conditions of Crumby; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to:
(1) Secure, retain, and employ the services of Crumby; and
(2) Provide a means for terminating Crumby’s service; and
(3) Crumby accepts employment as the City’s Public Works Director;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the
parties agree as follows:
86
Sean Crumby – Director of Public Works Employment Agreement
July 6, 2020
Page 2 of 9
SECTION 1. DUTIES.
The City agrees to employ Crumby as Public Works Director of the City to perform the
functions and duties of that office as set forth in the Municipal Code of the City of Huntington
Beach and the City Charter, and to perform other duties and functions as the City Manager shall
from time to time assign. Crumby shall devote his full attention and effort to the office and perform
the mentioned duties and functions in a professional manner.
SECTION 2. STATUS AND TERM.
(a) Crumby shall serve for an indefinite term at the pleasure of the City Manager and
shall be considered an at-will employee of the City.
(b) Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right
of the City Manager to terminate the employment of Crumby at any time, subject only to the
provisions set forth in Section 6, subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this Agreement, and Section 401
of the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach.
(c) Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with the right
of Crumby to resign at any time from his position with the City, subject only to the provisions set
forth in Section 6, subparagraph (d), of this Agreement.
(d) Crumby agrees to remain in the exclusive employ of City for an indefinite period
of time and shall neither accept other employment nor become employed by any other employer
without the prior written approval of the City Manager until notice of Crumby’s resignation is
given. The term “employed” (and derivations of that term as used in the preceding paragraph)
shall include employment by another legal entity or self-employment, however, shall not be
construed to include occasional teaching, writing, consulting, or military reserve service performed
on Crumby’s time off, and with the advance approval of the City Manager.
87
Sean Crumby – Director of Public Works Employment Agreement
July 6, 2020
Page 3 of 9
SECTION 3. SALARY.
City agrees to pay Crumby for his services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at Range
NA0010, Step E ($100.13/hourly) of the City’s classification and compensation plan or
Resolutions or Ordinances from time to time enacted that govern such compensation.
SECTION 4. OTHER BENEFITS.
In addition to the foregoing benefits, Crumby shall also receive all such other benefits that
are generally applicable to non-associated employees (Department Heads) hired after 12/27/97, as
set forth in Huntington Beach City Council Resolution No. 2016-50, entitled “A Resolution Of The
City Council Of The City Of Huntington Beach Modifying Salary And Benefits For Non-
Represented Employees Including The Elected City Attorney, City Clerk, And City Treasurer,” a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference as fully set forth
herein. This includes the option of an assigned City vehicle or an auto allowance (auto allowance
is currently set at $230.77 paid bi-weekly), as stated in Exhibit “A”, along with reimbursement of
out-of-town travel at the approved mileage rates. Crumby shall also be eligible for a cell-phone
stipend (smartphone) in the amount of $50.00 per month, paid bi-weekly. The benefits provided
to Crumby pursuant to this Section may be modified by the City from time to time, upon adoption
of a successor Resolution.
SECTION 5. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.
The City Manager may place Crumby on Administrative Leave with full pay and benefits
at any time during the term of this Agreement.
88
Sean Crumby – Director of Public Works Employment Agreement
July 6, 2020
Page 4 of 9
SECTION 6. TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAY.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), in the event the City Manager terminates the
employment of Crumby, and during such time that Crumby is willing and able to perform his
duties under this Agreement, then City shall pay to Crumby a severance payment equal to salary
payments which Crumby would have been receiving over a twelve week period at Crumby’s
current rate of pay in effect on the day prior to the date of termination. In addition, for the lesser
of ninety (90) calendar days after the date of termination or the time Crumby secures health and
medical insurance through comparable employment, the City shall maintain and pay for health,
medical, disability, the continuation of retirement benefits and life insurance in such amounts and
on such terms as have been received by Crumby and Crumby’s dependents at the time of such
termination; however, no other or additional benefits shall accrue during this ninety (90) calendar-
day period.
(b) (1) Notwithstanding subsection (a) above, the following reasons shall
constitute grounds to terminate the employment of Crumby without severance pay:
(i) a willful breach of this agreement or the willful and repeated neglect
by Crumby to perform duties that he is required to perform;
(ii) conviction of any criminal act relating to employment with the City;
(iii) conviction of a felony.
(2) Prior to the time that the City Manager terminates Crumby without
severance pay for any of the reasons set forth in Section (b)(1) above, and only in that case, the
City Manager shall provide Crumby with written notice of proposed termination which will
include the reason and factual basis for termination. Within ten days of such notice, Crumby may
request an opportunity to respond to the reasons and factual basis provided by the City Manager.
If such a request to respond is made, the City Manager shall conduct a meeting, which may be
informal in nature, that Crumby may respond to the notice of proposed termination. At such
meeting, Crumby may be represented by an attorney of his choice and present evidence or
89
Sean Crumby – Director of Public Works Employment Agreement
July 6, 2020
Page 5 of 9
information relevant to the reasons and factual basis set forth in the notice of proposed termination.
Subsequently, the decision of the City Manager as to whether reasons set forth in Section (b)(1)
exist or do not exist shall be final as between the parties.
(c) In the event the City at any time during the term of this Agreement, reduces the
salary of Crumby from its current level, except as part of an across-the-board reduction for all
Directors of City, or in the event City refuses, following written notice, to extend to Crumby any
non-salary benefit customarily available to all Directors, or in the event Crumby resigns following
a suggestion, whether formal or informal, by the City Manager that he resign, then, Crumby may,
at his option, be deemed to be “terminated.” The termination date will occur then at the date of
reduction or refusal to extend or such suggestion of resignation within the meaning and context of
the severance pay provision in subparagraph (a) above; provided that the option to be deemed
terminated is exercised by written notice from Crumby and delivered to the City Manager within
ten (10) working days of notification of such reduction, refusal to extend, or suggestion of
resignation. In that event, the severance payment shall be calculated from the date Crumby
exercises the option to be deemed terminated.
(d) In the event Crumby voluntarily resigns his position, Crumby shall give City
written notice at least thirty (30) days prior to the last workday, unless the City Manager and
Crumby otherwise agree.
(e) It is understood that after notice of termination in any form, Crumby and the City
will cooperate to provide for an orderly transition. Specific responsibilities during such transition
may be specified in a written separation agreement.
90
Sean Crumby – Director of Public Works Employment Agreement
July 6, 2020
Page 6 of 9
SECTION 7. DISABILITY.
If Crumby is medically, physically disabled or otherwise unable to perform his duties
because of sickness, accident, injury, mental incapacity or ill health, and has provided proof of the
same from a medical professional, he shall be eligible for Disability Leave upon exhausting all
accrued sick leave, general leave and executive leave, and duty injury leave if applicable.
Disability Leave shall be unpaid and shall be approved by the City Manager for a time period of
up to three (3) months. The length of such time period of the Disability Leave shall be dependent
upon the length of the disability as demonstrated by Crumby. If Crumby is unable to return to
work at that time, the City shall have the option to terminate the employment of Crumby, subject
to the requirements imposed on City by Section 6, paragraph (a).
SECTION 8. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.
The City Manager shall review and evaluate in writing the performance of Crumby at least
once annually. That review and evaluation shall be in accordance with specific criteria developed
in consultation with Crumby and the City Manager. Those criteria may be added to or subtracted
from as the City Manager may from time to time determine, in consultation with Crumby.
SECTION 9. GENERAL AND EXECUTIVE LEAVE
(a) Crumby shall accrue General Leave in accordance with the General Leave accrual
provisions applicable to Department Heads of the City as contained in the Non-Associated
Resolution (Exhibit “A”). Crumby shall be credited for his years of service at other CalPERS
agencies in determining his annual general leave accrual allowance. Upon executing this
agreement, Crumby shall be credited with an initial allocation of 160 hours that will be added to
Crumby’s General Leave accrual bank. Crumby shall be credited 80 hours of Executive Leave on
January 1 of each calendar year, and shall be provided with an initial allocation of 40 Executive
Leave hours upon his first day of employment for his initial calendar year with the City.
91
Sean Crumby – Director of Public Works Employment Agreement
July 6, 2020
Page 7 of 9
(b) Executive Leave must be used in the same calendar year it is credited, and unused
Executive Leave may not be carried forward to the next calendar year or cashed out at any time.
General Leave shall be accrued in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Non-
Associated Resolution (Exhibit “A”). Crumby shall provide the City Manager with reasonable
notice prior to taking two (2) or more General Leave or Executive Leave days off.
SECTION 10. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
The City agrees to budget and pay for Crumby’s professional memberships as normally
accorded to Department Heads. Crumby shall also receive paid leave, plus registration, travel and
reasonable expenses for short courses, conferences and seminars that are necessary for professional
/ personal development and, in the judgment of the City Manager, for the good of the City, and
subject to budget limitations and to established travel policies and procedures.
SECTION 11. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.
Crumby shall report to the City Manager any ownership interest in real property within the
County of Orange, excluding personal residence. Crumby shall also complete and file annually,
Financial Disclosure 700 Forms. Also, Crumby shall report to the City Manager any financial
interest greater than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) in value in a firm doing work for City or
from which City intends to make a purchase. Such reporting shall be made in writing by Crumby
to the City Manager within ten (10) calendar days of the execution of this agreement and within
ten (10) calendar days of acquisition of that interest in real property. Additionally, Crumby shall
report in writing to the City Manager any financial interest greater than Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000) in value in a firm doing work for the City or from whom the City intends to make a
purchase immediately upon notice of the intended work or purchase.
92
Sean Crumby – Director of Public Works Employment Agreement
July 6, 2020
Page 8 of 9
SECTION 12. INDEMNIFICATION.
The City shall defend and indemnify Crumby against actions, including but not limited to any:
tort, professional liability claim or demand, or other non-criminal legal, equitable or administrative
action, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of Crumby during the
discharge of his duties as an employee / officer of the City, other than an action brought by the City
against Crumby, or an action filed against the City by Crumby. The City shall pay the reasonable
expenses for the travel, lodging, meals, and lost work time of Crumby should Crumby be subject to
such, should an action be pending after termination of Crumby. The City shall be responsible for and
have authority to compromise and settle any action, with prior consultation with Crumby, and pay the
amount of any settlement or judgment rendered on that action. Crumby shall cooperate fully with the
City in the settlement, compromise, preparation of the defense, or trial of any such action.
SECTION 13. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
(a) The text herein shall constitute the entire Agreement between the parties.
(b) This Agreement shall become effective commencing August 3, 2020.
(c) If any provision, or any portion of any provision, contained in this Agreement is
held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement,
or any portion of it, shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected and shall
remain in full force and effect.
(d) No amendment of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by
both parties.
93
94
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1717 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Approve for Introduction Ordinance Nos. 4214, 4212, 4215, 4216, and 4213, approving Zoning
Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 19-005 and Municipal Code Amendment adding Chapter 5.110
(Group Homes)
Statement of Issue:
Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005 would modify four chapters of the Huntington Beach Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), and create a new chapter of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code
(HBMC) that,in combination, would establish a set of regulations for Group Homes, Sober Living
Homes, and Residential Care Facilities affecting Residential Districts Citywide. The four chapters of
the HBZSO to be amended are Chapter 203 (Definitions), Chapter 204 (Use Classifications), Chapter
210 (Residential Districts), and Chapter 230 (Site Standards) - Section 230.28 Group Homes. The
chapter of the HBMC to be added is Chapter 5.110 Group Homes. The Planning Commission and
staff recommend approval of the request.
Financial Impact:
Should the City Council vote to adopt ZTA No. 19-005 and amendment to the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code adding Chapter 5.110 (Group Homes), the proposed regulations will require the
development of application forms and review and approval processes to accommodate the
dispensation of Special Use Permits by the Community Development Department and Operator’s
Permits by the Finance Department.
Recommended Action:
A) Find that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) (General
Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
amendment to the HBZSO will have a significant effect on the environment (Attachment No. 1); and ,
B) Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005 with findings (Attachment No. 1), approve
amendment to Huntington Beach Municipal Code adding Chapter 5.110 (Group Homes), and
approve for introduction:
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 10
powered by Legistar™95
File #:20-1717 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Ordinance No. 4214, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending
Chapter 203 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled Definitions
(Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005);” and,
Ordinance No. 4212, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending
Chapter 204 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled Use
Classifications (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005);” and,
Ordinance No. 4215, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending
Chapter 210 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled R Residential
Districts (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005);” and,
Ordinance No. 4216, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending
Chapter 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled Site Standards
(Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005);” and,
Ordinance No. 4213, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending
Title 5 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Titled Business Licenses and
Regulations;” (Attachment Nos. 2 - 6).
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s):
A) Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005 and Municipal Code Amendment (Chapter 5.110 -
Group Homes); or
B) Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005 and Municipal Code Amendment (Chapter
5.110 - Group Homes), and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
A.PROJECT PROPOSAL
Applicant: City of Huntington Beach
Property Owner: Multiple Various Residential Property Owners
Location: Residential Zoning Districts Citywide
The Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) proposes to amend four chapters of the Huntington Beach Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), and create a new chapter of the Huntington Beach Municipal
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 2 of 10
powered by Legistar™96
File #:20-1717 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), and create a new chapter of the Huntington Beach Municipal
Code (HBMC) that, in combination, establish a set of regulations for Group Homes, Sober Living
Homes, and Residential Care Facilities affecting Residential Districts Citywide. The four chapters of
the HBZSO to be amended are Chapter 203 (Definitions), Chapter 204 (Use Classifications), Chapter
210 (Residential Districts), and Chapter 230 (Site Standards) - Section 230.28 Group Homes. The
chapter of the HBMC to be added is Chapter 5.110 Group Homes.
Background:
At the September 16, 2019, City Council meeting by a vote of 7-0, the City Council directed the City Attorney
to return to Council with one or more Ordinance(s) that regulate “Group Homes and Sober Living Homes,”
with an appropriate balance between the interests of the City and its residents to preserve residential
neighborhood character and the need to provide reasonable accommodation for the disabled, including those
recovering from chemical addiction, to reside in normalized residential environments.
Like many California cities, the City of Huntington Beach has experienced a rise in the number of Group
Homes within single-family residential neighborhoods. A type of Group Home, commonly referred to as Sober
Living Homes, are single-family homes where many occupants reside while recovering from alcohol and drug
addiction. These Sober Living Homes provide a place to live in “a residential setting” between detox and the
resident’s future housing. These homes are not required to be licensed by the State, and are not allowed to
provide services that State licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities provide.
The proliferation of Sober Living Homes in Huntington Beach has resulted in a substantial increase in
complaints generated by neighbors and community members regarding the operation of these uses. Reported
impacts of sober living homes include excessive amounts of noise, loitering, second-hand smoke, trash and
debris, and increased parking demands within residential neighborhoods. Of particular concern are complaints
regarding the over-concentration of sober living homes, and when in close proximity to one another, these uses
may change the character of a residential neighborhood to a more institutional environment.
The proposed amendments are intended to preserve the residential character of single-family residential
neighborhoods and to further the purposes of State law, by, among other things: (1) ensuring that Group Homes
are actually entitled to the special accommodation and/or additional accommodation provided under the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code and not simply skirting the City’s land use regulations; (2) limiting the
secondary impacts of Group Homes by reducing noise and traffic, preserving safety and providing adequate on-
street parking; (3) providing an accommodation for the disabled that is reasonable and actually bears some
resemblance to the opportunities afforded non-disabled individuals to use and enjoy a dwelling unit in a single-
family neighborhood; and (4) to provide comfortable living environments that will enhance the opportunity for
the disabled and for recovering addicts to be successful in their programs. The proposed regulations will require
Group Homes, including Sober Living Homes, to obtain a ministerial permit to operate in a manner consistent
with the nature of the single-family residential neighborhoods in which they are located.
The Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and California Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA), prohibits cities
from enforcing zoning laws that have the effect of discriminating against the disabled with regard to housing
opportunities. A disabled person is defined by The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as one that has: 1) A
physical or mental impairment that affects one or more major life activities; 2) A history of recovery from
alcoholism or illegal use of drugs; or 3) Has been regarded as having such impairment. The ADA protects
persons in recovery from chemical addiction, even if they are no longer engaged in the illegal use of drugs and
otherwise meet the definitions in the statute.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 3 of 10
powered by Legistar™97
File #:20-1717 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Additionally, pursuant to the California Government and Welfare and Institutions Codes, and the Lanterman
Developmental Disabilities and Services Act (Lanterman Act), people with developmental disabilities have the
right to obtain the services and support they need to live like people without disabilities. A core purpose of this
State law is to provide a broader range of housing options to the disabled, and to free the disabled to the extent
possible from institutional style living. As such, a disabled person is afforded an equal opportunity to use and
enjoy a residential dwelling. Likewise, pursuant to the California FEHA, individuals with physical and mental
disabilities have the right under State law to rent, lease, or buy housing accommodations free from
discrimination due to a disability.
State law requires cities to treat certain state-licensed residential care facilities that provide care, services,
and/or treatment serving six or fewer disabled tenants as a single-family residential use. (As such, and
consistent with State law, the existing HBZSO provides that both “Residential Alcohol Recovery, Limited” and
“Residential Care, Limited” uses that house six (6) or fewer individuals are permitted by right in the City’s
Residential districts.)
The Health and Safety Code does not regulate supportive living facilities that provide no treatment, and the
HBZSO does not currently classify such a use specifically, which has encumbered the City’s ability to
effectively mitigate impacts from such uses.
Finally, the California Constitution and Huntington Beach Charter grants broad police powers to Huntington
Beach to preserve the residential characteristics or its various types of residential zones.
It is the intent of the City Council to develop an Ordinance that strikes an appropriate balance between the
interests of the City and its residents to preserve residential neighborhood character, and the need to provide
housing accommodations to disabled persons, including those in recovery from chemical addiction to reside in
normalized residential environments that promote effective recovery. State and Federal laws require the City to
make reasonable accommodations in its zoning laws when such accommodation is reasonably necessary to
afford the disabled the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The proposed Ordinance will apply to all
districts Citywide, but affect only residential districts.
B.PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on ZTA No. 19-005 on June 9, 2020. There were five
public comments received regarding the proposed ZSO and HBMC amendments. The Planning
Commission asked some questions for clarification regarding the definitions of Boarding House and
Single Housekeeping Unit, current group home enforcement, permit transferability, and the proposed
buffer requirements.Staff also provided an update regarding the status of the City of Costa Mesa’s
Group Homes Ordinance.
Planning Commission Action on June 9, 2020:
The motion was made by Kalmick, seconded by Scandura, to find and determine that the project is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, recommend approval of ZTA No. 19-005, and
forward to the City Council for consideration carried by the following vote:
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 4 of 10
powered by Legistar™98
File #:20-1717 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
AYES: Ray, Garcia, Kalmick, Mandic, Perkins, Scandura
NOES: None
ABSENT: Grant
ABSTAIN: None
C.STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
Zoning Compliance:
The following provides a review of the proposed amendments organized by each Chapter.
1.CHAPTER 203 DEFINITIONS
To provide context to the scope of changes in this ZTA, several new definitions must be established in Chapter
203 Definitions, identified below.
-Modify existing definition of Boarding House
-Add Disabled
-Add Fair Housing Laws
-Add Household
-Add Integral Facilities
-Add Integral Uses
-Add Operator
-Add Single Housekeeping Unit
These definitions work in concert with the other elements of the proposed ZTA to more clearly define specific
uses as they pertain to the regulation of Group Homes in Huntington Beach.
2.CHAPTER 204 USE CLASSIFICATIONS
To provide for the regulation of Group Homes, including Sober Living Homes, this ZTA will establish four new
use classifications in Chapter 204 Use Classifications. Staff is summarizing them below in order to introduce
and differentiate each classification.
Group Home
A residential unit utilized as a supportive living environment for people meeting the legal definition of
disabled.
·Provides housing only for a classified group of people. No medical care, services, or treatment
can take place in a Group Home
o Only State licensed facilities can provide care, services, or treatment under State law (see
Residential Care Facilities)
Sober Living Home
Sober Living Homes are also Group Homes, but specifically for people recovering from a chemical
addiction that meet the legal definition of disabled.
·Provides housing only that is primarily meant for people who have just come out of rehab and
need a place to live that is structured and supportive for those in recovery.
·For the purposes of the Ordinance, a Sober Living Home is not state licensed.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 5 of 10
powered by Legistar™99
File #:20-1717 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
·No medical care, services, or treatment can occur in a Sober Living Home
o Only State licensed facilities can provide care, services, or treatment under State law (see
Residential Care Facilities)
Residential Care Facilities (RCF)
A State Licensed residential facility where care, services, or treatment are provided to persons living in
a community residential setting.
·Provide housing and care/treatment for the elderly, developmentally disabled, chronically ill, and
chemical addiction treatment facilities, among others.
·RCFs that specifically provide drug and or alcohol abuse treatment are licensed by the
Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and are known as alcoholism or drug abuse recovery
or treatment facilities.
o Homes are required to be licensed by the DHCS when at least one of the following
services is provided: detoxification, group counseling sessions, individual counseling
sessions, educational sessions, or alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment planning.
Referral Facility
Either a Residential Care Facility, Group Home, or Sober Living Home where one or more person’s
residency is per a court order or similar directive. Referral facilities must follow the permit procedure
according to the base use classification, and are not permitted in the RL zone.
3.CHAPTER 210 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
In addition to establishing the new Definitions and Use Classifications identified above, this ZTA will also
amend Chapter 210 Residential Districts to provide reference to land use controls and new requirements for
Group Homes in Residential Districts (Legislative Drafts attached for reference). These changes are
summarized below.
a.Add “Group Homes Including Sober Living Homes” to Land Use Controls matrix and create
Additional Provision L-8:
o A Group Home (GH) or Sober Living Home (SLH) with six (6) or fewer residents
§In all Residential districts, requires a ministerial Special Use Permit (SUP) from the
Community Development Director; and
§Any SLH shall be one thousand (1000) feet from any other property that contains a GH,
SLH, or RCF pursuant to Chapter 230.28
o A GH or SLH with seven (7) or more residents
§Not permitted in the RL zone
§In all other Residential Districts, requires a CUP from the Planning Commission; and
·An Operator’s Permit that complies with Huntington Beach Municipal Code
(HBMC) Section 5.110; and
·The GH or SLH (with 7 or more residents) shall be one thousand (1000) feet
from any other property that contains a GH or SLH.
o An applicant for a GH or SLH may seek relief from strict application of the requirements of
Additional Provision L-8 by applying for reasonable accommodation pursuant to HBMC 17.77.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 6 of 10
powered by Legistar™100
File #:20-1717 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
b. Add “Referral Facility” to the Land Use Controls matrix and create Additional Provision L-9:
o Referral Facilities are not permitted in the RL zone; and
§No Referral Facility may be located:
·Within five hundred (500) feet of property that is zoned either RL or Specific
Plan Residential Low Density, or
·Within five hundred (500) feet of a school, park, place of worship, or licensed
day care facility.
o Referral Facilities must have an on-site manager 24/7
o Referral Facilities may not admit a resident convicted of specific crimes
c.Add “Residential Care Facility” to the Land Use Controls Matrix and create Additional
Provision (T).
o Certain Residential Care Facilities are Permitted (P), and certain Residential Care Facilities
require a CUP from the Planning Commission. The “P/PC” listing refers to this differentiation.
o Additional Provision (T)
§Identify that unlicensed Residential Care Facilities are not permitted in any R district
§State licensed Residential Care Facilities serving six (6) or fewer residents are permitted
in all R districts
§State licensed Residential Care Facilities serving seven (7) or more residents in all R
districts require a CUP from the Planning Commission
4.CHAPTER 230.28 GROUP HOMES
This ZTA will also add a new section to Chapter 230 Site Standards, Article I. Residential Districts. Titled
Chapter 230.28 Group Homes, the appropriate placement for new regulations that will be applicable to Group
Homes in Residential Districts.
Special Use Permit (SUP)
Chapter 230.28 will identify that a Group Home that may otherwise be considered an unpermitted use may
locate in a Residential District subject to the approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) by the Community
Development Director, provided that the Group Home is in compliance with applicable regulations. Should the
Ordinance be adopted, all existing Group Homes as well as any new proposed Group Home will be required to
obtain a SUP. The SUP is ministerial and may be granted when a complete application is submitted to the
Community Development Director that provides the following:
a.The name, address, phone number, and driver’s license number of the owner, operator, and
house manager;
b.A copy of the Group Home rules and regulations;
c.Written intake procedures;
d.The relapse policy (if applicable, depending on the type of Group Home);
e.An affirmation by the owner/operator that only residents (other than the house manager) who are
disabled as defined by State and Federal law shall reside at the Group Home;
f.Blank copies of all forms that residents and potential residents are required to complete; and
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 7 of 10
powered by Legistar™101
File #:20-1717 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
g.A fee for the cost of processing the application as set by resolution by the City Council.
Only basic information will be required to submit an application for a SUP, and the internal procedures and
forms will be provided to applicants. Compliance with the application requirements should not present any
significant hardship, since the requirements are in line with the routine capabilities expected from a
professionally operated Group Home.
In general, the operational requirements to maintain a SUP include the following: no more than seven (7)
tenants may reside in a Group Home, one of which must be a house manager. If the dwelling unit has a
secondary accessory unit, occupants of both units will be combined to determine whether or not the limit of six
(6) occupants has been exceeded. A Group Home shall not be located in an accessory secondary unit unless the
primary dwelling unit is used for the same purpose. The SUP also requires garage and driveway spaces to be
available and used for parking of vehicles and limits each tenant to one vehicle, which must be operable and
used as a primary form of transportation.
In addition to the requirements for Group Homes outlined above, Chapter 230.28 will also identify that the
following shall specifically apply to Sober Living Homes:
a.Sober Living Homes are prohibited from locating within one thousand (1000) feet of each other.
b.All occupants, other than the house manager, must be actively participating in legitimate
recovery programs with supporting documentation required.
c.The Sober Living Home’s rules and regulations must prohibit the use of any alcohol or non-
prescribed drugs at the Sober Living Home or by any recovering addict either on or off site.
Violation of the no drug policies are grounds for eviction for 90 days for the first offense. Any
second violation of this rule shall result in permanent eviction.
d.The number of sex offenders in any group home shall be no more than one, pursuant to the
applicable provisions of the Penal Code.
e.Each Sober Living Home shall have a written visitation policy that precludes any visitors who
are under the influence of any drug or alcohol.
f.The Sober Living Home shall have a good neighbor policy that shall direct the occupants to be
considerate of neighbors, including refraining from engaging in excessively loud, profane, or
obnoxious behavior that would unduly interfere with a neighbor’s use and enjoyment of their
dwelling unit. The good neighbor policy shall establish a written protocol for the house
manager/operator to follow when a neighbor complaint is received.
g.The Sober Living Home shall not provide any of the following services as they are defined by
the California Code of Regulations: detoxification; educational counseling; individual or group
counseling sessions; and treatment or recovery planning.
Chapter 230.28 will also provide provisions for requests for reasonable accommodation, cause for denial or
revocation of a Special Use Permit, and compliance with the proposed regulations. If the Zoning Text
Amendment is adopted by Ordinance, existing Group Homes, including Sober Living Homes, will have 90
days to apply for a Special Use Permit. Group Homes will have one year from the effective date of the
Ordinance to comply with its provisions, provided that any existing group home, which is serving more than six
(6) residents, must first comply with the six (6) resident maximum.
Conditional Use Permit
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 8 of 10
powered by Legistar™102
File #:20-1717 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Finally, Chapter 230.28 will require a Conditional Use Permit to permit the operation of a Group Home,
including Sober Living Homes, or Residential Care Facility with seven (7) or more occupants in the RM, RMH,
RH, RMP, Specific Plan Residential and Specific Plan Mixed Use zones. This CUP requirement will be
processed to the Planning Commission. A Group Home or Residential Care Facility will be prohibited in the RL
zone and these stipulations are reflected in the Land Use Controls matrix of Chapter 210.
In addition to the Conditional Use Permit requirement, Group Homes or Residential Care Facilities with seven
(7) or more occupants are subject to the following requirements:
a.The Group Home or Sober Living Home shall be at least one thousand (1000) feet from any
other property that contains a Group Home, Sober Living Home, or State-licensed Residential Care
Facility; and
b.An application for an Operator’s Permit that complies with Chapter 5.110 of the Huntington
Beach Municipal Code (HBMC).
OPERATOR’S PERMIT
This ZTA will amend the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 5.110 Group Homes to add a requirement
that a Group Home obtain an Operator’s Permit. Since Group Homes with more than seven (7) residents will be
expressly prohibited in the RL zone, the Operator’s Permit requirement applies to Group Homes with seven (7)
or more residents in the RM, RMH, RH, RMP, Specific Plan Residential or Specific Plan Mixed Use zones.
The Operator’s Permit requirement does not apply to:
a.A Group Home that has six (6) or fewer occupants, not counting a house manager, that is in
compliance with Chapter 230.28 of the HBZSO;
b.A state-licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility; or
c.A state-licensed residential care facility.
An application for an Operator’s Permit will be submitted to the Chief Financial Officer and must include
similar information to that of a Special Use Permit. A Group Home subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.110
that is in existence as of the effective date of the Ordinance will have 120 days to comply with the provisions.
D.SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005 with
findings and Municipal Code Amendment adding Chapter 5.110 (Group Homes) based on the
following:
·Codifies new use classifications that modernize the HBZSO
·Provides appropriate regulations and permit processes to reduce operational impacts of
existing and future group homes, sober living homes, and residential care facilities
·Provides housing accommodations to disabled persons to reside in normalized
residential environments
·Promotes effective recovery for persons suffering from the effects of alcoholism or
illegal use of drugs
·Preserves residential neighborhood character
·Consistent with General Plan goals and policies
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 9 of 10
powered by Legistar™103
File #:20-1717 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Environmental Status:
ZTA No. 19-005 is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments to the HBZSO and HBMC will have a
significant effect on the environment.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain high quality City services
Attachment(s):
1. Suggested Findings of Approval - Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005
2. Draft Ordinance 4214 and Legislative Draft - Chapter 203
3. Draft Ordinance 4212 and Legislative Draft - Chapter 204
4. Draft Ordinance 4215 and Legislative Draft - Chapter 210
5. Draft Ordinance 4216 and Legislative Draft - Chapter 230
6. Draft Ordinance 4213 and Legislative Draft - HBMC Chapter 5.110
7. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 9, 2020
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 10 of 10
powered by Legistar™104
Attachment No. 1.1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 19-005
FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA:
The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) (General Rule) of the CEQA
Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendment to
the HBZSO will have a significant effect on the environment.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 19-005:
1. Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 19-005 to amend Chapter 203 (Definitions), Chapter 204
(Use Classifications), Chapter 210 (Residential Districts), and Chapter 230 (Site Standards) –
Section 230.28 Group Homes of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
(HBZSO), and create Chapter 5.110 Group Homes of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code
(HBMC) that together establish a set of regulations for Group Homes, Sober Living Homes,
and Residential Care Facilities in Residential Districts Citywide, is consistent with the
objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan including:
Land Use Element
Policy LU-2 (D): Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding encroachment of
incompatible land uses.
Goal LU-4: A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic, physical, and
social needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood character and residences
are well maintained and protected.
Policy LU-4 (A): Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate peopl e with diverse
housing needs.
Housing Element
Goal H-1: Maintain and enhance the quality and affordability of existing housing in Huntington
Beach.
Policy H-1.1: Preserve the character, scale, and quality of established residential
neighborhoods.
Policy H-5.1: Continue to enforce fair housing laws prohibiting arbitrary discrimination in the
building, financing, sales, or rental of housing on the basis of race, religion, family status,
national origin, physically (sic) disability or other factors.
105
Attachment No. 1.2
Policy H-5.3: Support the provision of permanent, affordable, and accessible housing that
allows persons with disabilities to live independent lives. Provide assistance to residents
making accessibility improvements to their homes.
The ZTA will provide the City appropriate regulations to reduce impacts of existing and future
group homes, sober living homes, and residential care facilities thereby preserving the
residential neighborhood character of the communities in which they operate. Further, the ZTA
promotes effective recovery for disabled persons, including those suffering from the effects of
alcoholism or illegal use of drugs, by providing housing accommodations in normalized
residential environments.
2. In the case of a general land use provision, ZTA No. 19-005 is compatible with the uses
authorized in, and the standards prescribed for the zoning district for which it is propose d
because the proposed amendment will provide the regulatory framework to limit the number
of people in a group home and to prevent the overconcentration of sober living homes in single-
family residential neighborhoods. The regulation establishes a Special Use Permit application
for group homes operating in single-family neighborhoods, and establishes reasonable
operating standards on these uses to ensure tha t they do not generate the type of secondary
impact that would be out of character for the neighborhood, while still furthering the purpose
of the Fair Employment and House Act, Fair Housing Act, and Lanterman Act.
3. A community need is demonstrated for the changes proposed in that the City of Huntington
Beach has experienced a rise in the number of Group Homes within single family residential
neighborhoods and a rate of increase in the number of Sober Living Homes far greater when
compared to other types of Group Homes. The proliferation of Sober Living Homes in the City
has resulted in a substantial increase in complaints received by neighbors and community
members regarding the operation of these uses. The proposed ZTA No. 19-005 seeks to strike
an appropriate balance between the interests of the City and its residents to preserve
residential neighborhood character, and the need to provide housing accommodations to
disabled persons, including those in recovery, to reside in normalized residential environments
that promote effective recovery.
4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning
practice because ZTA No. 19-005 ensures the HBZSO is clear, current, consistently adapting
to the City’s obligation to make reasonable accommodation in its zoning laws when such
accommodation is reasonably necessary to afford the disabled the opportunity to use and
enjoy a dwelling. The ZTA is also reflective of the City’s ongoing effort to preserve the quality
of its residential neighborhoods.
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1677 MEETING DATE:6/9/2020
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director
BY:Hayden Beckman, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 19-005 (GROUP HOMES)
REQUEST:
To amend four chapters of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance (HBZSO), and create a new chapter of the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code (HBMC) that together establish a set of regulations for Group
Homes, Sober Living Homes, and Residential Care Facilities affecting
Residential Districts Citywide. The four chapters of the HBZSO to be amended
are Chapter 203 (Definitions), Chapter 204 (Use Classifications), Chapter 210
(Residential Districts), and Chapter 230 (Site Standards) - Section 230.28 Group
Homes. The chapter of the HBMC to be added is Chapter 5.110 Group Homes.
LOCATION:
Residential Zoning Districts Citywide
APPLICANT:
City of Huntington Beach
PROPERTY
OWNER:
Multiple Various Residential Property Owners
BUSINESS
OWNER:
Multiple Various Business Owners
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Currently, the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) does not adequately
identify or regulate group homes in all areas of the City. It is the intent of the City Council to develop
an Ordinance that strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of the City and its residents
to preserve residential neighborhood character, and the need to provide housing accommodations to
disabled persons, including those in recovery from chemical addiction to reside in normalized
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/9/2020Page 1 of 11
powered by Legistar™165
File #:20-1677 MEETING DATE:6/9/2020
residential environments.
The Planning Commission shall consider the following:
1. Does the project satisfy all the findings required for approving a Zoning Text Amendment?
2. Has the appropriate level of environmental analysis been determined?
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
A) Finds and determines that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment
and is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061
(b)(3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the amendment to the HBZSO will have a significant effect on the environment
(Attachment No. 1).
B) Forward Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005 to City Council for consideration with a
recommendation of approval (Attachment No. 1).
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
A) Do not recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-005 to the City Council.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Background:
At the September 16, 2019 City Council meeting by a vote of 7-0, the City Council directed the City
Attorney to return to Council with one or more Ordinance(s) that regulates “Group Homes and Sober
Living Homes” with an appropriate balance between the interests of the City and its residents to
preserve residential neighborhood character and the need to provide reasonable accommodation for
the disabled, including those recovering from chemical addiction, to reside in normalized residential
environments.
Like many California cities, the City of Huntington Beach has experienced a rise in the number of
Group Homes within single family residential neighborhoods. A type of Group Home, commonly
referred to as Sober Living Homes, are single family homes where many occupants reside while
recovering from alcohol and drug addiction. These Sober Living Homes provide a place to live in “a
residential setting” between detox and the resident’s future housing. These homes are not required to
be licensed by the State and are not allowed to provide services that State licensed alcoholism or
drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities provide.
The proliferation of Sober Living Homes in Huntington Beach has resulted in a substantial increase in
complaints generated by neighbors and community members regarding the operation of these uses.
Reported impacts of sober living homes include excessive amounts of noise, loitering, second-hand
smoke, trash and debris, and increased parking demands within residential neighborhoods. Of
particular concern are complaints regarding the over-concentration of sober living homes, and when
in close proximity to one another, these uses may change the character of a residential neighborhood
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/9/2020Page 2 of 11
powered by Legistar™166
File #:20-1677 MEETING DATE:6/9/2020
in close proximity to one another, these uses may change the character of a residential neighborhood
to a more institutional environment.
The proposed amendments are intended to preserve the residential character of single-family
residential neighborhoods and to further the purposes of State law, by, among other things: (1)
ensuring that Group Homes are actually entitled to the special accommodation and/or additional
accommodation provided under the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and not simply skirting the
City’s land use regulations; (2) limiting the secondary impacts of Group Homes by reducing noise and
traffic, preserving safety and providing adequate on street parking; (3) providing an accommodation
for the disabled that is reasonable and actually bears some resemblance to the opportunities
afforded non-disabled individuals to use and enjoy a dwelling unit in a single-family neighborhood;
and (4) to provide comfortable living environments that will enhance the opportunity for the disabled
and for recovering addicts to be successful in their programs. The proposed regulations will require
Group Homes, including Sober Living Homes, to obtain a ministerial permit to operate in a manner
consistent with the nature of the single-family residential neighborhoods in which they are located.
The Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and California Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA), prohibits
cities from enforcing zoning laws that have the effect of discriminating against the disabled with
regard to housing opportunities. A disabled person is defined by The Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) as one that has: 1. A physical or mental impairment that affects one or more major life
activities; 2. A history of recovery from alcoholism or illegal use of drugs; or 3. Has been regarded as
having such impairment. The ADA protects persons in recovery from chemical addiction, even if they
are no longer engaged in the illegal use of drugs and otherwise meet the definitions in the statute.
Additionally, pursuant to the California Government and Welfare and Institutions Codes, and The
Lanterman Developmental Disabilities and Services Act (Lanterman Act), people with developmental
disabilities have the right to obtain the services and support they need to live like people without
disabilities. A core purpose of this State law is to provide a broader range of housing options to the
disabled, and to free the disabled to the extent possible from institutional style living. As such, a
disabled person is afforded an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a residential dwelling. Likewise,
pursuant to the California FEHA, individuals with physical and mental disabilities have the right under
State law to rent, lease, or buy housing accommodations free from discrimination due to a disability.
State law requires cities to treat certain state-licensed residential care facilities that provide care,
services, and/or treatment serving six or fewer disabled tenants as a single family residential use. (As
such, and consistent with State law, the existing HBZSO provides that both “Residential Alcohol
Recovery, Limited” and “Residential Care, Limited” uses that house six (6) or fewer individuals are
permitted by right in the City’s Residential districts.)
The Health and Safety Code does not regulate supportive living facilities that provide no treatment,
and the HBZSO does not currently classify such a use specifically, which has encumbered the City’s
ability to effectively mitigate impacts from such uses.
Finally, the California Constitution and Huntington Beach Charter grants broad police powers to
Huntington Beach to preserve the residential characteristics or its various types of residential zones.
It is the intent of the City Council to develop an Ordinance that strikes an appropriate balance
between the interests of the City and its residents to preserve residential neighborhood character,
and the need to provide housing accommodations to disabled persons, including those in recoveryCity of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/9/2020Page 3 of 11
powered by Legistar™167
File #:20-1677 MEETING DATE:6/9/2020
and the need to provide housing accommodations to disabled persons, including those in recovery
from chemical addiction to reside in normalized residential environments that promote effective
recovery. State and Federal laws require the City to make reasonable accommodations in its zoning
laws when such accommodation is reasonably necessary to afford the disabled the opportunity to
use and enjoy a dwelling. The proposed Ordinance will apply to all districts Citywide, but affect only
residential districts.
Study Session:
The Planning Commission held a study session for ZTA No. 19-005 on May 26, 2020.
In addition to minor text adjustments, the Commission asked staff to return with information regarding
the following items:
·HBZSO Chapter 230.28 (B)(1)(k)(ii) - What is the final option for an operator who is in the
process of evicting a tenant if that operator cannot find a facility or agency willing to accept
them?
Staff added “If the operator cannot find accommodation, the occupant must continue to house
on premises until such accommodation can be found for the occupant” to Chapter 230.28 (B)
(1)(k)(ii).
·Clarify definition of Boarding House. Can we add language to Use Classification to Group
Residential to exclude Single Housekeeping Units?
Upon further consideration, the proposed definition of Boarding House was revised. However,
the distinctions of the proposed definitions of both Boarding House and Group Residential are
of legal significance and staff does not recommend further modification.
·Can the requirements include a blanket buffer for GH/SLH to also be minimum 1000 feet from
any City boundary to avoid cross-jurisdictional overconcentration?
A buffer requirement from City boundaries has not been legally tested by the Courts and is
therefore not recommended. The proposed 1000’ buffer is in excess of the 650’ buffer that has
been tested and any additional deviations could be a future issue.
·How does a Referral Facility become a Referral Facility? Does an applicant have to declare
that upon application to the City?
The operator of any existing or future Group Home, Sober Living Home, or Residential Care
Facility may choose to accept residents as ordered from a court or similar directive, thus
classifying their operation as a Referral Facility. As such, the operator is responsible for
identifying this element of operation to the City and staff will build into the applications for a
Special Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit a statement requiring that the operator identify
whether they intend to operate as a Referral Facility.
·Can the City tie the revocation of an Operator’s Permit to a corresponding Conditional Use
Permit for the same property and operator?
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/9/2020Page 4 of 11
powered by Legistar™168
File #:20-1677 MEETING DATE:6/9/2020
A recommended condition of approval will be included with the Planning Commission’s review
of any Group Home Conditional Use Permit Home that will require a valid Operator’s Permit
for the duration of the operation of said Group Home. The condition will identify that should an
Operator’s Permit be revoked by the Finance Director, a hearing shall be held to formally
revoke the corresponding Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
·Are there any recent relevant legislative updates?
The City of Costa Mesa is in various stages of litigation concerning their Group Home
Ordinance. The litigation spans from the earliest which is an administrative appeal of a denial
of a SUP to a pending case before a trial court to a case appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeal.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
General Plan Conformance:
The proposed ZTA is consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan including:
Land Use Element
Policy LU-2 (D): Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding encroachment of
incompatible land uses.
Goal LU-4: A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic, physical, and social
needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood character and residences are well
maintained and protected.
Policy LU-4 (A): Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with diverse housing
needs.
Housing Element
Goal H-1: Maintain and enhance the quality and affordability of existing housing in Huntington
Beach.
Policy H-1.1: Preserve the character, scale, and quality of established residential neighborhoods.
Policy H-5.1: Continue to enforce fair housing laws prohibiting arbitrary discrimination in the building,
financing, sales, or rental of housing on the basis of race, religion, family status, national origin,
physically (sic) disability or other factors.
Policy H-5.3: Support the provision of permanent, affordable, and accessible housing that allows
persons with disabilities to live independent lives. Provide assistance to residents making
accessibility improvements to their homes.
The ZTA will provide the City appropriate regulations to reduce impacts of existing and future group
homes, sober living homes, and residential care facilities thereby preserving the residential
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/9/2020Page 5 of 11
powered by Legistar™169
File #:20-1677 MEETING DATE:6/9/2020
homes, sober living homes, and residential care facilities thereby preserving the residential
neighborhood character of the communities in which they operate. Further, the ZTA promotes
effective recovery for disabled persons, including those suffering from the effects of alcoholism or
illegal use of drugs, by providing housing accommodations in normalized residential environments.
Zoning Compliance:
The following provides a review of the proposed amendments organized by each Chapter.
A. CHAPTER 203 DEFINITIONS
To provide context to the scope of changes in this ZTA, several new definitions must be established
in Chapter 203 Definitions, identified below.
- Modify existing definition of Boarding House
- Add Disabled
- Add Fair Housing Laws
- Add Household
- Add Integral Facilities
- Add Integral Uses
- Add Operator
- Add Single Housekeeping Unit
These definitions work in concert with the other elements of the proposed ZTA to more clearly define
specific uses as they pertain to the regulation of Group Homes in Huntington Beach.
B.CHAPTER 204 USE CLASSIFICATIONS
To provide for the regulation of Group Homes, including Sober Living Homes, this ZTA will establish
four new use classifications in Chapter 204 Use Classifications. Staff is summarizing them below in
order to introduce and differentiate each classification.
Group Home
A residential unit utilized as a supportive living environment for people meeting the legal
definition of disabled.
·Provides housing only for a classified group of people. No medical care, services, or
treatment can take place in a Group Home
o Only State licensed facilities can provide care, services, or treatment under State
law (see Residential Care Facilities)
Sober Living Home
Sober Living Homes are also Group Homes, but specifically for people recovering from a
chemical addiction that meet the legal definition of disabled.
·Provides housing only that is primarily meant for people who have just come out of
rehab and need a place to live that is structured and supportive for those in recovery.
·For the purposes of the Ordinance, a Sober Living Home is not state licensed.
·No medical care, services, or treatment can occur in a Sober Living Home
o Only State licensed facilities can provide care, services, or treatment under State
law (see Residential Care Facilities)
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/9/2020Page 6 of 11
powered by Legistar™170
File #:20-1677 MEETING DATE:6/9/2020
Residential Care Facilities (RCF)
A State Licensed residential facility where care, services, or treatment are provided to persons
living in a community residential setting.
·Provide housing and care/treatment for the elderly, developmentally disabled,
chronically ill, and chemical addiction treatment facilities, among others.
·RCFs that specifically provide drug and or alcohol abuse treatment are licensed by the
Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and are known as alcoholism or drug abuse
recovery or treatment facilities.
o Homes are required to be licensed by the DHCS when at least one of the
following services is provided: detoxification, group counseling sessions, individual
counseling sessions, educational sessions, or alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or
treatment planning.
Referral Facility
Either a Residential Care Facility, Group Home, or Sober Living Home where one or more
person’s residency is per a court order or similar directive. Referral facilities must follow the
permit procedure according to the base use classification, and are not permitted in the RL
zone.
C.CHAPTER 210 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
In addition to establishing the new Definitions and Use Classifications identified above, this ZTA will
also amend Chapter 210 Residential Districts to provide reference to land use controls and new
requirements for Group Homes in Residential Districts (Legislative Drafts attached for reference).
These changes are summarized below.
1. Add “Group Homes Including Sober Living Homes” to Land Use Controls matrix and create
Additional Provision L-8:
o A Group Home (GH) or Sober Living Home (SLH) with six (6) or fewer residents
§In all Residential districts, requires a ministerial Special Use Permit (SUP) from
the Community Development Director; and
§Any SLH shall be one thousand (1000) feet from any other property that contains
a GH, SLH, or RCF pursuant to Chapter 230.28
o A GH or SLH with seven (7) or more residents
§Not permitted in the RL zone
§In all other Residential Districts, requires a CUP from the Planning Commission;
and
·An Operator’s Permit that complies with Huntington Beach Municipal
Code (HBMC) Section 5.110; and
·The GH or SLH (with 7 or more residents) shall be one thousand (1000)
feet from any other property that contains a GH or SLH.
o An applicant for a GH or SLH may seek relief from strict application of the requirements
of Additional Provision L-8 by applying for reasonable accommodation pursuant to
HBMC 17.77.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/9/2020Page 7 of 11
powered by Legistar™171
File #:20-1677 MEETING DATE:6/9/2020
2. Add “Referral Facility” to the Land Use Controls matrix and create Additional Provision L-9:
o Referral Facilities are not permitted in the RL zone; and
§No Referral Facility may be located:
·Within five hundred (500) feet of property that is zoned either RL or
Specific Plan Residential Low Density, or
·Within five hundred (500) feet of a school, park, place of worship, or
licensed day care facility.
o Referral Facilities must have an on-site manager 24/7
o Referral Facilities may not admit a resident convicted of specific crimes
3. Add “Residential Care Facility” to the Land Use Controls Matrix and create Additional
Provision (T).
o Certain Residential Care Facilities are Permitted (P), and certain Residential Care
Facilities require a CUP from the Planning Commission. The “P/PC” listing refers to this
differentiation.
o Additional Provision (T)
§Identify that unlicensed Residential Care Facilities are not permitted in any R
district
§State licensed Residential Care Facilities serving six (6) or fewer residents are
permitted in all R districts
§State licensed Residential Care Facilities serving seven (7) or more residents in
all R districts require a CUP from the Planning Commission
D.CHAPTER 230.28 GROUP HOMES
Finally, this ZTA will add a new section to Chapter 230 Site Standards, Article I. Residential Districts.
Titled Chapter 230.28 Group Homes, this section represents the appropriate placement for new
regulations that will be applicable to Group Homes in Residential Districts.
Special Use Permit (SUP)
Chapter 230.28 will identify that a Group Home that may otherwise be considered an unpermitted
use may locate in a Residential District subject to the approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) by the
Community Development Director, provided that the Group Home is in compliance with applicable
regulations. Should the Ordinance be adopted, all existing Group Homes as well as any new
proposed Group Home will be required to obtain a SUP. The SUP is ministerial and may be granted
when a complete application is submitted to the Community Development Director that provides the
following:
1. The name, address, phone number, and driver’s license number of the owner, operator, and
house manager;
2. A copy of the Group Home rules and regulations;
3. Written intake procedures;
4. The relapse policy (if applicable, depending on the type of Group Home);
5. An affirmation by the owner/operator that only residents (other than the house manager) who
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/9/2020Page 8 of 11
powered by Legistar™172
File #:20-1677 MEETING DATE:6/9/2020
5. An affirmation by the owner/operator that only residents (other than the house manager) who
are disabled as defined by State and Federal law shall reside at the Group Home;
6. Blank copies of all forms that residents and potential residents are required to complete; and
7. A fee for the cost of processing the application as set by resolution by the City Council.
Only basic information will be required to submit an application for a SUP, and the internal
procedures and forms will be provided to applicants. Compliance with the application requirements
should not present any significant hardship, since the requirements are in line with the routine
capabilities expected from a professionally operated Group Home.
In general, the operational requirements to maintain a SUP include the following: no more than seven
(7) tenants may reside in a Group Home, one of which must be a house manager. If the dwelling unit
has a secondary accessory unit, occupants of both units will be combined to determine whether or
not the limit of six (6) occupants has been exceeded. A Group Home shall not be located in an
accessory secondary unit unless the primary dwelling unit is used for the same purpose. The SUP
also requires garage and driveway spaces to be available and used for parking of vehicles and limits
each tenant to one vehicle, which must be operable and used as a primary form of transportation.
In addition to the requirements for Group Homes outlined above, Chapter 230.28 will also identify
that the following shall specifically apply to Sober Living Homes:
1. Sober Living Homes are prohibited from locating within one thousand (1000) feet of each
other.
2. All occupants, other than the house manager, must be actively participating in legitimate
recovery programs with supporting documentation required.
3. The Sober Living Home’s rules and regulations must prohibit the use of any alcohol or non-
prescribed drugs at the Sober Living Home or by any recovering addict either on or off site.
Violation of the no drug policies are grounds for eviction for 90 days for the first offense. Any
second violation of this rule shall result in permanent eviction.
4. The number of sex offenders in any group home shall be no more than one, pursuant to the
applicable provisions of the Penal Code.
5. Each Sober Living Home shall have a written visitation policy that precludes any visitors who
are under the influence of any drug or alcohol.
6. The Sober Living Home shall have a good neighbor policy that shall direct the occupants to be
considerate of neighbors, including refraining from engaging in excessively loud, profane, or
obnoxious behavior that would unduly interfere with a neighbor’s use and enjoyment of their
dwelling unit. The good neighbor policy shall establish a written protocol for the house
manager/operator to follow when a neighbor complaint is received.
7. The Sober Living Home shall not provide any of the following services as they are defined by
the California Code of Regulations: detoxification; educational counseling; individual or group
counseling sessions; and treatment or recovery planning.
Chapter 230.28 will also provide provisions for requests for reasonable accommodation, cause for
denial or revocation of a Special Use Permit, and compliance with the proposed regulations. If the
Zoning Text Amendment is adopted by Ordinance, existing Group Homes, including Sober Living
Homes, will have 90 days to apply for a Special Use Permit. Group Homes will have one year from
the effective date of the Ordinance to comply with its provisions, provided that any existing group
home, which is serving more than six (6) residents, must first comply with the six (6) resident
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/9/2020Page 9 of 11
powered by Legistar™173
File #:20-1677 MEETING DATE:6/9/2020
maximum.
Conditional Use Permit
Finally, Chapter 230.28 will require a Conditional Use Permit to permit the operation of a Group
Home, including Sober Living Homes, or Residential Care Facility with seven (7) or more occupants
in the RM, RMH, RH, RMP, Specific Plan Residential and Specific Plan Mixed Use zones. This CUP
requirement will be processed to the Planning Commission. A Group Home or Residential Care
Facility will be prohibited in the RL zone and these stipulations are reflected in the Land Use Controls
matrix of Chapter 210.
In addition to the Conditional Use Permit requirement, Group Homes or Residential Care Facilities
with seven (7) or more occupants are subject to the following requirements:
1. The Group Home or Sober Living Home shall be at least one thousand (1000) feet from any
other property that contains a Group Home, Sober Living Home, or State-licensed Residential
Care Facility; and
2. An application for an Operator’s Permit that complies with Chapter 5.110 of the Huntington
Beach Municipal Code (HBMC).
OPERATOR’S PERMIT
In addition to the ZTA, the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 5.110 Group Homes will be
amended to add a requirement that a Group Home obtain an Operator’s Permit. Since Group Homes
with more than seven (7) residents will be expressly prohibited in the RL zone, the Operator’s Permit
requirement applies to Group Homes with seven (7) or more residents in the RM, RMH, RH, RMP,
Specific Plan Residential or Specific Plan Mixed Use zones.
The Operator’s Permit requirement does not apply to:
1. A Group Home that has six (6) or fewer occupants, not counting a house manager, that is in
compliance with Chapter 230.28 of the HBZSO;
2. A state-licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility; or
3. A state-licensed residential care facility.
An application for an Operator’s Permit will be submitted to the Finance Director and must include
similar information to that of a Special Use Permit. A Group Home subject to the provisions of
Chapter 5.110 that is in existence as of the effective date of the Ordinance will have 120 days to
comply with the provisions.
Urban Design Guidelines Conformance:
Not Applicable.
Environmental Status:
ZTA No. 19-005 is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
Section 15061 (b)(3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the amendment to the HBZSO will have a significant effect on the
environment.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/9/2020Page 10 of 11
powered by Legistar™174
File #:20-1677 MEETING DATE:6/9/2020
Coastal Status:
The proposed amendment will be forwarded to the California Coastal Commission as a minor Local
Coastal Program Amendment for certification.
Design Review Board:
Not Applicable.
Subdivision Committee:
Not Applicable.
Other Departments Concerns and Requirements:
Should ZTA 19-005 be adopted by the City Council, the proposed regulations will require the
development of application forms and review and approval processes to accommodate the
dispensation of Special Use Permits by the Community Development and Operator’s Permits by the
Finance Department.
Public Notification:
Legal notice was published in the Orange County Register on May 28, 2020 and notices were sent to
individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Division’s Notification Matrix). As of June
3, no communications regarding the request have been received
Application Processing Dates:
DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S):
Not applicable Legislative Action - Not applicable
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment
No. 19-005 with findings and forward to the City Council based on the following:
·Codifies new use classifications that modernize the HBZSO
·Provides appropriate regulations and permit processes to reduce operational impacts of
existing and future group homes, sober living homes, and residential care facilities
·Provides housing accommodations to disabled persons to reside in normalized residential
environments
·Promotes effective recovery for persons suffering from the effects of alcoholism or illegal use
of drugs
·Preserves residential neighborhood character
·Consistent with General Plan goals and policies
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Suggested Findings of Approval - ZTA No. 19-005
2. Section 203 Definitions Legislative Draft
3. Section 204 Use Classifications Legislative Draft
4. Section 210 Residential Districts Legislative Draft
5. Section 230.28 Group Homes Legislative Draft
6. Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 5.110 Group Homes Legislative Draft (Reference
Only)
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/9/2020Page 11 of 11
powered by Legistar™175
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1728 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Approve FY 2020/2021-2024/2025 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Plan,
FY 2020/2021 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME
Investment Partnership (HOME) Programs, FY 2020/2021-2024/2025 Citizen Participation Plan,
and FY 2020/2021-2024/2025 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Statement of Issue:
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that the City, per the
citizen participation requirement, conduct a Public Hearing to approve the 2020/2021-2024/2025
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Plan, 2020/2021 Annual Action Plan for
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME)
Programs, 2020/2021-2024/2025 Citizen Participation Plan, and 2020/2025-2024/2025 Regional
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing. Also per HUD, the City is required to conduct a 30-day
public comment period,which commenced on June 5, 2020,and concludes with the public hearing
scheduled and noticed for July 6, 2020. The draft documents were posted on the City’s website and
hard copies were made available to the public on an appointment basis.
Financial Impact:
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund. The City was awarded to receive $1,237,224 in CDBG
funds and $619,677 in HOME funds for the 2020-21 Fiscal Year. Additional funds from program
income and prior-year resources total $2,020,717 in CDBG and $3,454,800 in HOME funds.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the following in compliance with the
Consolidated Plan Procedures of 24 CFR Part 91:
A) Approve the 2020/2021-2024/2025 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Plan;
and,
B) Approve the 2021/2021 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and
HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Programs; and,
C) Approve the 2020/2021-2024/2025 Citizen Participation Plan; and,
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™176
File #:20-1728 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
D) Approve the 2020/2021-2024/2025 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing; and,
E) Authorize the City Manager to sign all necessary documents.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the plans, and direct staff as necessary.
Analysis:
A study session was held before the City Council on March 2, 2020, regarding the actions related to
the above-referenced draft documents and associated timelines. These four draft documents were
presented to the City Council on April 6, 2020. Per HUD’s 30-day public comment requirement, these
documents were made available to the public by posting them on the City’s website and placing them
at the Office of Business Development’s public counter to review by appointment.
CONSOLIDATED PLAN
The Consolidated Plan functions as a strategic plan prepared through a comprehensive planning process that
incorporates local needs, priorities, specific objectives and strategies. Along with the Five-Year Consolidated
Plan, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires an Annual Action Plan
outlining the City’s uses of the federal grant funds for one year. HUD allocates federal grants including
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME) funds to
eligible jurisdictions on a formula basis. For the 5-year Consolidated Plan period, Huntington Beach’s
estimated budget is $7.8 million in CDBG funds and $6.2 million in unallocated HOME funds, a total of
approximately $14 million. The City’s Consolidated Plan has identified the following priorities as having the
greatest need in the community:
·Sustain and strengthen neighborhoods
·Preserve existing and create new affordable housing
·Support efforts to address homelessness
·Support agencies that assist special needs populations
·Increase access to community services to low- and moderate-income persons
·Preserve existing and create new public facilities
·Provide needed infrastructure improvements
·Planning for housing and community development
A variety of public outreach and citizen participation strategies were used to develop the Consolidated Plan.
The 2019 Housing and Community Development survey was used to help establish priorities throughout the
City by gathering feedback on the level of need for housing and community development categories. A public
meeting was held prior to the release of the draft plan to garner feedback on preliminary findings.
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
Each year, the City prepares an Annual Action Plan in connection with the Five-Year Consolidated Plan which
details how the City will spend HUD federal funds, specifically CDBG and HOME. The Annual Action Plan
has two principal purposes: 1) The Annual Action Plan identifies the projects and programs to be undertaken
during the upcoming fiscal year, and the proposed objectives and outcomes to be achieved within the overall
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™177
File #:20-1728 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
during the upcoming fiscal year, and the proposed objectives and outcomes to be achieved within the overall
context of the Five-Year Consolidated Plan; and 2) The Annual Action Plan acts as the City’s application
process for federal formula grants, principally comprised of as the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs. For FY 2020/21 specifically, Huntington
Beach’s estimated budget is $2,020,717 million in CDBG and $3,454,800 million in estimated HOME funds
(inclusive of program income and unallocated carryover). Funds are designed to assist the City in providing
decent and affordable housing; provide community and supportive services; improve public facilities and
infrastructure; and expand economic opportunities and anti-poverty activities for primarily low-and-moderate
income persons. The City is proposing to allocate CDBG and HOME funds in the FY 2020/21 Annual Action
Plan as follows:
CPAB recommendation 2020/21 CDBG
Allocation
CDBG Projects
City of HB--CDBG Program Administration $231,139 $257,445
Fair Housing Foundation--Fair Housing Program $30,000 $30,000
City of HB--Housing Rehab Loan Administration $65,000 $65,000
City of HB--Owner-Occupied Residential Rehab Grant Program $100,000 $100,000
City of HB--Owner-Occupied Residential Rehab Loan Program $90,000 $90,000
City of HB--Special Code Enforcement $190,000 $240,000
City of HB--Homeless Outreach $85,000 $85,000
City of HB--Senior Services Care Management $44,000 $44,000
City of HB--Children's Bureau $60,637 $80,000
City of HB--Oak View Family Literacy Program $10,000 $10,000
Robyne's Nest-Housing for Homeless Youth $10,000 $10,000
StandUp for Kids--OC $15,000 $15,000
City of HB--ADA Curb Cuts--Maintenance Zone 3 $400,000 $393,732
City of HB--Central Library Lower Level ADA Restroom Improvements $286,000 $286,000
Unallocated Funds for Back-Up Projects-- Cameron Lane Navigation
Center Facility Improvements
N/A $314,540
TOTAL =$1,616,776 $2,020,717
HOME Projects
HOME Program Administration $69,468 $154,919
Affordable Housing Projects $1,304,348 $2,399,881
Tenant Based Rental Assistance $550,000 $900,000
TOTAL =$1,923,816 $3,454,800
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
The regulations implementing the Consolidated Plan submission requires the City of Huntington
Beach to adopt a Citizen Participation Plan for the consolidated planning, application, and reporting
processes. Part of the Consolidated Plan process entails the grantee to certify that it is in full
compliance and is following a detailed Citizen Participation Plan consistent with the requirements of
24 CFR 91.105. The City’s Citizen Participation Plan is designed to ensure equitable representation
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™178
File #:20-1728 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
24 CFR 91.105. The City’s Citizen Participation Plan is designed to ensure equitable representation
of all segments of the population and to aid communication between the City and its residents on
matters pertaining to the use of all federal funding from HUD.
Due to the National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) declared in March
2020, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has made available
temporary guidelines for citizen participation relative to the public comment period, reasonable
notice, and opportunity to comment for substantial amendments. HUD recognizes the efforts to
contain COVID-19 require limiting public gatherings, such as those often used to obtain citizen
participation, and that there is a need to respond quickly to the growing spread and effects of COVID-
19. Therefore, on April 24, 2020, HUD waived these requirements and allowed the City to shorten its
public comment period to 5-days, and to determine what constitutes reasonable notice and
opportunity to comment. The Amended Citizen Participation Plan for 2015-2019 outlines steps the
City will take during the national emergency to support communication and encourage involvement
between the City and its residents on matters pertaining to the use of all federal funding from HUD,
particularly those funds that will be used to prevent, prepare, and respond to the Novel Coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic. These temporary guidelines will apply to Community Development Block
Grant funding under FY 2019/20, FY 2020/21, and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act funds, as well as Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME) funds under FY
2019/20 and FY 2020/21, unless otherwise extended due to a longer period of national emergency.
The Amended Citizen Participation Plan may be administratively amended further from time to time to
include additional or revised procedures issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development in response to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
Updates to the Citizen Participation Plan were done administratively.
REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS
Since 1968, the Fair Housing Act has required that federal agencies and federal grantees affirmatively further
fair housing. Accordingly, jurisdictions that receive funds from federal sources, such as the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), are
required to, every five years, prepare an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and an action
plan to address those impediments that are within their ability to control or influence. In Orange County, cities
have taken a collaborative approach to identifying and addressing impediments by agreeing to review these
issues on a regional basis.
For the current 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
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™179
File #:20-1728 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
likely to be lower-income and to experience homelessness.
5.Expand access to opportunity for protected classes.
Staff recommends approval of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, Citizen Participation Plan,
and Regional Analysis of Impediment.
Environmental Status:
The proposed requests are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), which exempts
projects where it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question has no possibility of causing a
substantial adverse impact on the environment. Furthermore, the proposed action does not
constitute a final funding commitment to any of the identified activities, as the grant sub-recipients of
the activities would be required to enter into contractual agreements. Appropriate environmental
review of each funded activity will take place prior to commencement of any activity.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Strengthen long-term financial and economic sustainability
Attachment(s):
1. 2020/2021-2024/2025 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Plan
2. 2020/2021 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBF) and HOME
Investment Partnership (HOME) Programs
3. 2020/2021-2024/2025 Citizen Participation Plan
4. 2020/2021-2024/2025 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™180
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
JULY 1, 2020 - JUNE 30, 2025
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
June 5 – July 6, 2020
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
OFFICE OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
2000 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648
181
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) 1
THE PROCESS 5
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b) 5
PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) 6
PR-15 Citizen Participation 14
NEEDS ASSESSMENT 18
NA-05 Overview 18
NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c) 19
NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) 36
NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) 39
NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2) 42
NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2) 43
NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b) 45
NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c) 49
NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b,d) 53
NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) 59
HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS 62
MA-05 Overview 62
MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2) 62
MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) 70
MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a) 81
MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b) 88
MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c) 89
MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d) 91
MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e) 93
MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f) 94
MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion 107
MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households -
91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2) 119
MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3) 120
STRATEGIC PLAN 121
SP-05 Overview 121
182
SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1) 123
SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2) 127
SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b) 132
SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2) 133
SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k) 136
SP-45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a)(4) 141
SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c) 147
SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.215(h) 148
SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d) 150
SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.215(i) 153
SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j) 154
SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230 155
2020 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN UNDER SEPARATE COVER
183
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.
Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment Overview
The goals of the CDBG and HOME programs are to provide decent housing, a suitable living
environment for the Area’s low- and moderate-income residents, and economic opportunities for low-
moderate income residents. The City strives to accomplish these goals by maximizing and effectively
utilizing all available funding resources to conduct housing and community development activities.
These goals are further explained as follows:
• Providing decent housing means helping homeless persons obtain appropriate housing and
assisting those at risk of homelessness; preserving the affordable housing stock; increasing availability
of permanent housing that is affordable to low and moderate-income persons without discrimination;
and increasing the supply of supportive housing.
184
Executive Summary Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 2 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
• 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
185
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
186
Executive Summary Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 4 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
To the extent possible, based upon the availability of funds and a project’s viability, HOME
funds will be used to assist affordable housing developers in the acquisition, construction
and/or rehabilitation of low-income rental and/or owner housing units, and in the provision of
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA).
Support Efforts to Address Homelessness
Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to homeless service providers.
Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations
Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to various social service
agencies that provide community and public services to special needs households in the City.
Provide Needed Community Services to LMI Persons
Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to various social service
agencies for programs for youth, fair housing, anti-crime, and general public services.
Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities
Using CDBG funds, the City will provide financial assistance to improve public facilities and
parks.
Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements
Using CDBG funds, the City will provide financial assistance to improve public infrastructure.
Support Community Development Programs
The City will conduct the following administration/planning activities: (1) General
Administration of CDBG and HOME Program, including preparation of budget, applications,
certifications and agreements, (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.
187
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 5 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 fo r
administration of each grant program and funding source
The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those
responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.
Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator Huntington Beach Office of Business Development
HOME Administrator Huntington Beach Office of Business Development
Table 1 – Responsible Agencies
Narrative
The Lead Agency for 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is the City of Huntington Beach, Office of Business
Development.
Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
Ursula Luna-Reynosa
Community Development Director
Office of Business Development
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 5th Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
188
The Process Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 6 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.
189
The Process Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 7 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
6. Reducing chronic homelessness in Orange County and addressing the needs of homeless
families and individuals using motels to meet their housing needs.
Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in
determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate
outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS
The City of Huntington Beach does not receive ESG funds.
Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and
describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other
entities
Table 2 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated
1 Agency/Group/Organization Orange County Housing Authority
Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing
PHA
Other government - City
What section of the Plan was addressed by
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
190
The Process Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 8 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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
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
191
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
7 Agency/Group/Organization Collette's Children's Home
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Homeless
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
192
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
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
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 - Literacy
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
193
The Process Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 11 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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.
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
194
The Process Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 12 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
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
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
195
The Process Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 13 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
The City was inclusive in its outreach efforts.
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.
196
The Process Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 14 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
197
The Process Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 15 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.
198
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)
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.
199
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)
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
7/6/20. The public
notice was published
on 6/5/20.
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
7/6/20.
See Huntington Beach
Citizen Participation
Comments in Appendix.
All comments
received were
accepted.
N/A
Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach
200
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 18 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.
201
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 19 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%
202
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 20 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%
203
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 21 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%
204
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 22 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
The rate of poverty for Huntington Beach is shown in Table NA-10.7. In 2017, there were an estimated
17,839 persons living in poverty. This represented an 8.9 percent poverty rate, compared to 6.6
percent poverty in 2000. Most notable in this table is the growing number of seniors living in poverty
since 2000, which could indicate a need for additional public services and housing to support them. In
2000, 6.8 percent of seniors were living in poverty compared to 11.7 percent in 2017. Working age
persons (18-64) living in poverty remained relatively stable since 2000.
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
205
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 23 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
206
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 24 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
207
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 25 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
208
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 26 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.
209
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 27 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
210
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 28 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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
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.
211
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 29 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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.
212
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 30 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
213
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 31 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Map NA-10.1
2017 Persons with Disabilities
Huntington Beach
2017 ACS, Tigerline
214
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 32 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
215
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 33 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
216
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 34 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
rate of cost burdens overall, for renter households, at 68.5 percent. As seen with owner households,
lower income large family and small family renter households experience cost burdens at the highest
rate. Small families between 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
217
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 35 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.
218
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 36 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
219
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 37 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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
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
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%
220
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 38 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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:
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
221
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 39 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%
222
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 40 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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
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%
223
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 41 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.
224
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 42 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.
225
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 43 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.
226
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 44 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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
227
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)
228
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 46 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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
# 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)
229
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 47 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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)
230
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 48 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.
231
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 49 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.
232
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 50 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
233
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 51 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.
234
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 52 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.
235
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 53 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.
236
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 54 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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%
237
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 55 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Map NA-45.1
Elderly Population
City of Huntington Beach
2017 ACD, Tigerline
238
Needs Assessment Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 56 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
239
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 57
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
240
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 58
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
241
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 59
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.
242
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 60
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.
243
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 61
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.
244
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 62
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
245
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 63
Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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%
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%
246
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 64
Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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.
247
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 65
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.
248
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 66
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.
249
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 67
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
250
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 68 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Map MA-10.1
Expiring Section 8 Contracts
Huntington Beach
2018 HUD, Tigerline
251
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 69 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
252
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 70 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 $1,558.
253
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 71 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Table MA-15.1
Building Permits and Valuation
Huntington Beach
Census Bureau Data, 1980–2018
Year
Authorized Construction in Permit Issuing Areas Per Unit Valuation,
(Real 2017$)
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
254
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 72 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
255
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 73 Draft Report for Public Review: 02/11/2020
Map MA-15.1
2017 Homeowner Households
Huntington Beach
2017 ACS, Tigerline
256
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 74 Draft Report for Public Review: 02/11/2020
Map MA-15.2
2017 Renter Households
Huntington Beach
2017 ACS, Tigerline
257
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 75 Draft Report for Public Review: 02/11/2020
258
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 76 Draft Report for Public Review: 02/11/2020
Map MA-15.3
2017 Median Home Value
Huntington Beach
2017 ACS, Tigerline
259
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 77 Draft Report for Public Review: 02/11/2020
Map MA-15.4
2017 Median Contract Rent
Huntington Beach
2017 ACS, Tigerline
260
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 78 Draft Report for Public Review: 02/11/2020
261
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 79 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.
262
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 80 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.
263
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 81 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
264
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 82 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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.
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.
265
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 83 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.
266
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 84 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Map MA-20.1
2017 Vacant for Rent
Huntington Beach
2017 ACS, Tigerline
267
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 85 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Map MA-20.2
2017 Vacant for Sale
Huntington Beach
2017 ACS, Tigerline
268
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 86 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Map MA-20.3
2017 “Other” Vacant
Huntington Beach
2010 Census, Tigerline
269
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 87 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
270
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 88 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.
271
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 89 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
6 http://www.occommunityservices.org/hcd/homeless/coordinated_entry_system
272
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 90 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
• equitable resource distribution
• regional service planning area prioritization
The Coordinated Entry System lead agency, Orange County, is empowered by the Continuum of Care
(CoC) to manage the process of determining and updating the prioritization for all CoC funded
permanent supportive housing (PSH) and CoC and ESG funded rapid rehousing (RRH) as well as any
other housing resources that voluntarily participate in the Coordinated Entry System.
The Coordinated Entry System is for anyone experiencing homelessness in Orange County including
young adults, single adults, couples, families, veterans and seniors. If you or someone you know are
experiencing homelessness, talk to your service provider or call 2-1-1 to be connected to a service
provider participating in the Coordinated Entry System.
List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless persons, particularly
chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their
families, and unaccompanied youth. If the services and facilities are listed on screen SP -40
Institutional Delivery Structure or screen MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services,
describe how these facilities and services specifically address the needs of these
populations.
There are numerous homeless service providers in Orange County and as part of the Orange County
CoC. These service providers, listed below, offer a range of services that extend beyond housing and
shelter services. These include employment training, counseling, financial literacy, legal aid, childcare,
and transportation services.
Table 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
273
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 91 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.
274
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 92 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
City Health Care Agency determines when and to where clients diagnosed with serious and persistent
mental illnesses are discharged from either inpatient stays or outpatient services. The City contracts
with a number of inpatient providers and contracts with them to follow the mandates of state laws in
regard to “anti-dumping” policies. Patients leaving inpatient settings are assessed for level and type
of residential setting. They might be placed in Adult Residential Facilities or Residential Facilities for
the Elderly if 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.
275
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 93 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
276
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 94 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)
277
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 95 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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
278
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 96 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%
279
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 97 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.
280
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 98 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
281
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 99 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
282
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 100 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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
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
283
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 101 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.
284
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 102 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
285
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 103 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.
286
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 104 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.
287
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 105 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
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
288
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 106 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
• Service Corps of Retired Executives - SCORE, as it is more commonly known, is a national
nonprofit dedicated to helping small businesses get off the ground, grow and achieve their
goals through education and mentorship. SCORE's is supported by the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA), and delivers most services at no charge or at very low cost.
• Small Business Development Center (SBDC) - The Orange County SBDC stimulates economic
growth in Orange County by providing small businesses and entrepreneurs with expert
consulting, effective training and access to resources. The Orange County/Inland Empire
Regional SBDC is funded in part through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) and California State University, Fullerton.
• Orange County Business Council - Orange County Business Council (OCBC) works to enhance
Orange County’s economic development and prosperity to preserve a high quality of life by
leading a high profile, proactive advocacy program for business interests throughout California
and the nation, focusing on four core initiatives of infrastructure, workforce development,
economic development and workforce housing.
Discussion
The economy in Huntington Beach showed an unemployment rate at 2.9 percent in 2018, compared
to the statewide unemployment rate of 4.2 percent in 2018. The average earning per job had grown
in recent years but ended up below the state average. In 2017, some 16.8 percent of the population
had a high school diploma or equivalent, another 36.0 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.
289
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 107 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?
290
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 108 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
These areas are adjacent to a variety of amenities in these areas, including access to city schools and
parks, community centers, libraries, as well as grocery stores, and service providers.
Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas?
Areas with high concentrations of low income and poverty level households may present an
opportunity for investment through services and public facility funding. The City could also promote
economic development in these areas or fund housing development or rehabilitation.
291
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 109 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Map MA-50.1
Housing Problems
Huntington Beach
2015 CHAS, Tigerline
292
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 110 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
293
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 111 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Map MA-50.2
Asian Housing Problems
Huntington Beach
2015 CHAS, Tigerline
294
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 112 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Map MA-50.3
Black Housing Problems
Huntington Beach
2015 CHAS, Tigerline
295
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 113 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Map MA-50.4
Hispanic Housing Problems
Huntington Beach
2015 CHAS, Tigerline
296
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 114 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
297
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 115 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Map MA-50.5
2017 Asian Households
Huntington Beach
2017 ACS, Tigerline
298
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 116 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Map MA-50.6
2017 Hispanic Households
Huntington Beach
2017 ACS, Tigerline
299
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 117 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Map MA-50.7
2017 Poverty
Huntington Beach
2017 ACS, Tigerline
300
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 118 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
301
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 119 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
302
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 120 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
303
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 121 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
304
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 122 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Using CDBG funds, the City will sustain and strengthen neighborhoods by eliminating unsafe
conditions and blight while improving the quality of life for residents within the community.
Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing
To the extent possible, based upon the availability of funds and a project’s viability, HOME
funds will be used to assist affordable housing developers in the acquisition, construction
and/or rehabilitation of low-income rental and/or owner housing units, and in the provision of
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA).
Support Efforts to Address Homelessness
Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to homeless service providers.
Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations
Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to various social service
agencies that provide community and public services to special needs households in the City.
Provide Needed Community Services to LMI Persons
Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to various social service
agencies for programs for youth, anti-crime, and general public services.
Preserve Existing and Create New Community and Public Facilities
Using CDBG funds, the City will provide financial assistance to improve public facilities and
parks.
Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements
Using CDBG funds, the City will provide financial assistance to improve public infrastructure.
Support Community Development Programs
The City will conduct the following administration/planning activities: (1) General
Administration of CDBG and HOME Program, including preparation of budget, applications,
certifications and agreements, (2) Coordination of CDBG-funded capital improvement
projects, (3) Coordination of Public Service Subrecipients, (4) Coordination of HOME-funded
housing projects, (5) Monitoring of CDBG and HOME projects/programs to ensure compliance
with federal regulations, (6) Preparation of Annual Action Plan, (7) Preparation of the CAPER,
and (8) Fair Housing Foundation counseling, education and enforcement (CDBG funded). Up
to 20% of the annual CDBG entitlement and up to 10% of the HOME entitlement is allowed for
administration activities.
305
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 123 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. However, the
majority of CDBG-funded infrastructure and facility projects are targeted to the most-needy
neighborhoods: those census tracts where 51% or more of the residents are low- or moderate-income,
as seen in Map SP-10.1.
Specifically, for Code Enforcement, after establishing the general definition for purposes of code
enforcement, the City conducted a visual (windshield) survey of CDBG eligible areas for properties,
businesses, parkways, alleys, and structures that met the definition. Based on the visual (windshield)
survey, the City determined that low and moderate income areas within the area bound by Bolsa Chica
Street to the west, Bolsa Avenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the east, and Atlanta Avenue to
the south contained the most properties with deterioration. In some cases, some s tructures had
multiple violations per parcel. This target area is known as “Special Code Enforcement Target Area .”
Inclusive of the following census tracts, the Special Code Enforcement Target Area is comprised of
46,650 persons, 32,395, or 69.44%, of which are of low-moderate income.
306
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 124 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
SPECIAL CODE ENFORCEMENT TARGET AREA
TOTAL POPULATION V. LOW AND MODERATE-INCOME POPULATION
2011-2015 HUD LOW MOD INCOME SUMMARY DATA
Effective April 1, 2019
Census Tract Total Persons Total LMI Persons Percentage
0992121 1,255 810 64.54%
0992123 1,495 1,030 68.90%
0992124 1,180 655 55.51%
0992144 765 425 55.56%
0992352 715 515 72.03%
0992353 2,190 1,245 56.85%
0992422 1,930 1,185 61.40%
0992442 1,645 1,145 69.60%
0992463 815 490 60.12%
0993051 1,710 1,450 84.80%
0993053 2,020 1,330 65.84%
0993055 1,080 935 86.57%
0993056 1,025 560 54.63%
0993061 1,485 760 51.18%
0993093 1,775 915 51.55%
0993103 1,170 690 58.97%
0994021 2,755 2,300 83.48%
0994022 2,720 2,235 82.17%
0994023 575 330 57.39%
0994024 3,375 3,150 93.33%
0994053 1,755 1,070 60.97%
0994103 2,605 1,935 74.28%
0994112 2,180 1,890 86.70%
0994113 1,300 855 65.77%
0994114 880 655 74.43%
0994121 1,810 980 54.14%
0994134 1,360 1,240 91.18%
0996031 3,080 1,615 52.44%
TOTAL 46,650 32,395 69.44%
307
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 125 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Map SP-10.1
LMI Areas
Huntington Beach
2017 ACS, Tiglerline
308
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 126 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
309
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 127 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
310
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 128 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
311
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 129 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
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.
312
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 130 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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
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
313
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 131 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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.
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.
314
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 132 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
315
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 133 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.
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 $583,493 $2,020,717 $5,748,896
Entitlement fund allocation
plus estimated program
income plus prior-year
resources.
316
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 134 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 $2,760,123 $3,454,800 $2,778,708
Entitlement funds allocation
plus estimated program
income plus prior-year
resources.
Table 49 - Anticipated Resources
317
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 135 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.
Due to the National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, HUD has
waived the City’s HOME Match requirement for all expenditures beginning October 1, 2019 and will
continue to do so through September 30, 2021. The City received this waiver on April 24, 2020.
If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that
may be used to address the needs identified in the plan
The City 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.
318
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 136 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.
319
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 137 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
In addition to the City’s internal network, through its federal entitlement and other resources,
Huntington Beach interacts with various non-profit agencies and public service groups in the delivery
of programs. These agencies are assisted by City staff in planning programs and projects, ensuring
activity eligibility and costs, complying with federal regulations and requirements, and monitoring the
timely expenditure of annually allocated program funds. The City requires agencies to submit quarterly
and annual reports to meet federal requirements, and periodically conducts sub-recipient audits and
on-site reviews.
Furthermore, the City of Huntington Beach performs project monitoring of all rent restricted
affordable units assisted with HOME, CDBG, and former Redevelopment Agency housing funds.
• Annually, audits are performed to ensure compliance with regulatory agreements and
affordability covenants; and
• Periodic, on-site visits are conducted, which will include a property inspection and an in-depth
review of the rent restricted affordable unit files assisted with HOME, CDBG, and the former
Redevelopment Agency. As part of the Consolidated Plan process, the City received input from
numerous housing and public service agencies through a combination of consultation
workshops, interviews and a Needs Assessment Survey. These agencies provided valuable
input into the identification of needs and gaps in service, and in development of the City’s five
year Strategic Plan.
Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream
services
Homelessness Prevention
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
320
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 138 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Supportive Services
Healthcare X X
HIV/AIDS X X
Life Skills X X
Mental Health Counseling X X
Transportation X X
Other
Table 51 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary
Describe how the service delivery system including, but not limited to, the services listed
above meet the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals
and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth)
There are a variety of homeless and supportive services in the City that provide a range of care for
homeless and at-risk households. These services work together, within the framework of the larger
Continuum of Care to meet the needs of households. The homeless services include:
• Project Self-Sufficiency - Supports single-parents to gain economic independence.
• Interval House – This six-unit transitional housing facility provides safe housing for women and
children recovering from domestic violence. Interval House also assists the City with
implementing a tenant based rental assistance program.
• Collette Children's Home – The eight-unit Colette’s Children’s Home provides transitional
housing for battered/homeless mothers with children and chronically homeless women.
• Seniors Outreach Center – Provides services that assist with their physical, emotional and
nutritional needs.
• Oak View Community Center – The Children’s Bureau provides a variety of family support and
youth development services at the Oakview Community Center.
• Families First – Provides programs to treat at-risk, severely disturbed youth who are
experiencing behavioral and emotional issues in their homes or school and may be in jeopardy
of being removed from their current placement.
• Mercy House – Provides housing and comprehensive supportive services for a variety of
homeless populations which includes families, adult men and women, mothers and their
children, persons living with HIV/AIDS, individuals overcoming substance addictions, and some
who are physically and mentally disabled.
• HB Police Department – Provides Homeless Outreach Services.
• SteppingUP – Helps to transition extremely low-income families towards greater self-
sufficiency by assisting them with housing and education.
• Stand Up for Kids OC – Supports homeless youth to self-sufficiency and preventing at-risk
youth from gang involvement, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, and dropping out of high
school.
321
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 139 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
Supportive Services
• Community Service Program Huntington Beach Youth Shelter – The Youth Shelter offers a
short-term crisis intervention residential program with the goal of family reunification.
• Beach Cities Interfaith Services (BCIS) – Coordinates the provision of a variety of financial and
human services for the homeless and persons at-risk of homelessness.
• American Family Housing (AFH) – Provides a continuum of services including emergency
shelter in coordination with local churches; transitional housing in scattered site locations; and
permanent affordable rental housing.
• Build Futures – The Agency's mission is to get youth (ages 18 to 24) off the street and provide
stable and safe housing and services.
• Salvation Army Family Service Office – Operates an Emergency Family Services Office in
Huntington Beach.
• Huntington Beach Community Clinic – Provides primary, preventative and chronic medical care
services.
• Mental Health Association of Orange County – Provides mental health clinics, recovery
clubhouses, a homeless multi-service center, a youth mentoring program and referral services.
Outreach Services
• Police Officer Liaison Program – The City's Police Department homelessness teams provide
street outreach twice monthly.
• AltaMed Mobile Unit – The new AltaMed Medical and Dental Mobile Unit provides
preventative health care, and services Beach Cities Interfaith Services (BCIS) on a weekly basis.
• Straight Talk Inc., Start House / H.O.M.E., Inc. – Offers housing assistance to persons with
HIV/AIDS.
• Veterans First – Offers permanent and transitional housing beds for disabled veterans, female
veterans, and families of at-risk or deployed vets.
• SteppingUP – Helps to transition extremely low-income families towards greater self-
sufficiency by assisting them with housing and education.
• Stand Up for Kids OC – Supports homeless youth to self-sufficiency and preventing at-risk
youth from gang involvement, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, and dropping out of high
school.
Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population
and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed
above
Coordination between public agencies providing housing resources, assisted housing providers,
private and governmental health, mental health and human service agencies are critical to the delivery
of viable products/services. In an effort to enhance coordination, the City is a member of the Orange
County Commission to End Homelessness.
322
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 140 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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.
323
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 141 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)
324
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 142 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
$4,175,718
(HOME)
$1,625,000
(HOME)
Rental Units Constructed –
20 Household Housing Units
(TBD Acq/Rehab/New
Construction)
Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance -
100 Households
(Various Service Providers)
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)
325
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 143 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
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)
5 Increase Access to
Community Services to
LMI Persons
2020 2024 Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Citywide Priority Community
Services
$280,000
(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
$1,461,662
(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
$1,569,394
(CDBG)
Public Facility or
Infrastructure Activities other
than Low/Mod Income
Housing Benefit –
2,000 Persons Assisted
(Various Infrastructure
Improvement Projects)
326
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 144 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
8 Planning for Housing
and Community
Development
2020 2024 Homeless
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide Other Housing and
Community
Development Needs
$432,790
(HOME)
$1,437,224
(CDBG)
Other –
Not Applicable
(HOME Administration; CDBG
Administration; Fair Housing
Foundation)
Table 52 – Goals Summary
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 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; 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)
327
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 145 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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)
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. Note, in 2020/21, HUD has allowed, via waiver, the increase of the HOME
Administration allocation to a maximum of 25% instead of 10%. (Projects: HOME Administration, CDBG Administration,
Fair Housing Foundation)
328
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 146 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 $4 million available HOME funds to provide gap financing for the
development of affordable housing. With a federal investment of $4 million, the City
anticipates that 20 units can be developed and HOME-restricted.
• Tenant Based Rental Assistance: The City will continue implementing Tenant Based Rental
Assistance Programs with qualified and experienced providers and have a goal to assist a total
of 100 households with short and medium-term rental assistance as well as housing relocation
and stabilization services.
329
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 147 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.
330
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 148 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
331
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 149 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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
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.
332
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 150 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
333
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 151 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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 $1.5 million of federal CDBG and CARES Act funds to help offset costs
associated operating the homeless shelter facility at the project site. The need for such a facility has
increased in recent months due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Orange County’s Safer at Home Order.
The Navigation Center will bring homeless service providers on-site to help persons experiencing
homelessness “navigate” eligible social services, medical services and benefits to stabilize them with
the ultimate goal of transitioning them to more permanent housing.
Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families
with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to
permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that
individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless
individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families
who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again.
In an ongoing effort to continue to address the needs of the homeless and those at risk of
homelessness, the City will focus on the development of sustainable and effective programming,
including: applying for short and long-term available funding; partnerships with experienced service
providers capable of leveraging other funding; the ability to create or secure affordable housing;
perform homeless case management; and engage the homeless through a street outreach component
in order to better connect them to available services. The City’s goal is to expand on current homeless
programs and activities to assist with their successful transition toward self-sufficiency.
In FY 2020/21, the City will continue its dedication to assisting families in Huntington Beach with much
needed rental assistance. In May 2020, a NOFA/RFP was solicited to qualified agencies with experience
with administering HOME-funded TBRA programs, and a selection is expected in June 2020. With an
investment of $900,000 towards this effort, the City anticipates that approximately 60 households
could be served over a two-year period. Households that qualify for assistance include those that are
of low and moderate income, as well as households who are currently housed, but are at risk of losing
their housing due to COVID-19.
Help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely
low-income individuals and families who are likely to become homeless after being
discharged from a publicly funded institution or system of care, or who are receiving
assistance from public and private agencies that address housing, health, social services,
employment, education or youth needs
To help prevent homelessness and protect at-risk populations, Huntington Beach will continue to
participate in the Orange County Continuum of Care System to provide assistance to persons at risk of
334
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 152 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
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.
335
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 153 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.
336
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 154 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.
337
Housing Market Analysis Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 155 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.
338
Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan
City of Huntington Beach Consolidated Plan 156 Draft Report for Public Review: 03/11/2020
2020 Annual Action Plan
Under Separate Cover
339
Action Plan
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
JULY 1, 2020 - JUNE 30, 2021
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
June 5 – July 6, 2020
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
OFFICE OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
2000 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648
340
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2020/21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary (AP-05) ......................................................................................... 1
Lead & Responsible Agencies (PR-05) ........................................................................ 9
Consultation (AP-10) ................................................................................................... 10
Citizen Participation (AP-12) ....................................................................................... 16
Expected Resources (AP-15) ....................................................................................... 21
Annual Goals and Objectives (AP-20) ........................................................................ 23
Projects (AP-35)........................................................................................................... 31
Project Summary (AP-38) .......................................................................................... 34
Geographic Distribution (AP-50) ................................................................................ 53
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
341
342
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 $5.5 million. The following Annual Action Plan describes
resources, programs, activities and actions Huntington Beach will use in the coming 2020/21
fiscal year to implement its strategic plan and ultimately achieve its Consolidated Plan goals
and objectives, summarized in the table on the following page.
343
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
▪ Tenant Based Rental Assistance
Program
10 Housing Units
60 Households
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
▪ Central Library Lower Level
Restrooms ADA Improvement
Project
▪ Back-up Project: Cameron Lane
Facility Improvement Project
14,180 Persons
200 Persons
SL-3
SL-1
Provide Needed
Infrastructure
Improvements in LMI
Neighborhoods
▪ 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
2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Priorities, Implementing Programs, and FY 2020/21 Goals
2. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan
See Table above.
3. Evaluation of past performance
344
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
3
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
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.
345
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
4
• 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
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
346
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
5
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.
• In April 2020, the City was awarded $727,819 in supplemental CDBG funds under the
CARES Act which was signed into law to help grantees across America to prevent,
prepare, and respond to the Novel Coronavirus pandemic. By substantial amendment,
the City allocated these funds, along with $772,181 in unallocated CDBG funds to the
operations of a new emergency homeless shelter to be located at 17631 Cameron Lane.
The property is in the process of being purchased by the City and will be leased to the
347
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
6
County to operate a homeless facility during the Orange County Safer at Home order
as a response to COVID-19. When the order is lifted, the City plans to continue
operating the site as a homeless facility to protect the City’s homeless population
when additional outbreaks of COVID-19 occur.
Economic Opportunity
• During 2015/16, City staff worked closely with two grassroots groups established in the
Oak View community, one of the most impacted areas of the City, and one in which
many resources have been concentrated in recent years. These efforts included
increased outreach to property owners and residents of the area and expansion of the
number of materials provided in Spanish. These efforts resulted in a bilingual Code
Enforcement officer being specifically hired to serve the Oak View community. Staff
has continued to connect the Fair Housing Foundation to the Oak View community,
and they are now non-voting partners of the Oak View Collaborative, which will give
them increased access to the clientele in need being served out of the Oak View Family
Resource Center.
• While not funded with federal CDBG funds, the City in 2014, prepared a comprehensive
Economic Development Strategy. The purpose of the Strategy was to identify the
highest priority economic development objectives in Huntington Beach, and to set
goals, policies and recommended actions for short term (0-2 years), mid-term (3-5
years), and long-term economic decisions.
4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process
The City developed its 2020/21 Annual Action Plan through extensive consultation and
coordination with housing, social service and healthcare providers; public agencies; and the
local public housing agency as presented below. As a means of gaining input from the public,
the City conducted public hearings and invited comments on the draft Action Plan.
The City followed its Citizen Participation Plan and 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 (June 5 – July 6, 2020). A City Council public hearing will be held on
July 6, 2020, providing residents and interested parties a final opportunity to comment on the
Consolidated Plan prior to adoption and submittal to HUD.
348
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
7
5. Summary of public comments
See Huntington Beach Citizen Participation Comments in Appendix.
6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting
them
The City of Huntington Beach responded to all relevant comments.
7. Summary
The Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, which has been guided by the Housing and
Community Development Survey and public input, identified seven priority needs. These are
described below.
• Households with housing problems: The need for affordable housing options in the
City continue to be high, based on the proportion of households in the City
experiencing cost burdens. Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing as
well as Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods.
• Homelessness: Homelessness continues to be growing and pressing issue in
Huntington Beach and regionally. The City will continue to fund and support efforts
that address homelessness and serve persons experiencing homelessness.
• Special Needs Populations: There are a number of special needs populations in the City
that need continued services and support. These include, but aren’t limited to persons
with severe mental illness, veterans, persons with substance abuse addictions, and
seniors.
• Priority Community Services: There are a number of vital community services in the
City that need continued funding and support. These community services serve low to
moderate income households and include activities such as youth and senior services.
• Priority Community and Public Facilities: The City recognizes the high need for public
improvement activities throughout the City in order to provide for and maintain a safe
and decent environment for its citizens. Identified priority needs include, but are not
limited to, homeless shelters, parks and recreational centers, youth centers, and
healthcare facilities.
• Priority Infrastructure Improvements: The City recognizes the high need for public
improvement activities throughout the City in order to provide for and maintain a safe
and decent environment for its citizens. Identified priority needs include, but are not
349
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
8
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.
350
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
9
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 1 – 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
Ursula Luna-Reynosa
Community Development Director
City of Huntington Beach
Office of Business Development
2000 Main Street, 5th Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Phone: (714) 374-5186
Email: ursula.luna-reynosa@surfcity-hb.org
351
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
10
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.
352
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
11
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.
353
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?
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
354
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?
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 - Literacy
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
355
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
14
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 2 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated
Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting
The City of Huntington Beach developed its Consolidated Plan through consultation with
housing, social and health service providers; local agencies/governments; and the Orange
County Housing Authority. The City is unaware of any Agency types relevant to the
Consolidated Plan that were not consulted.
356
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
15
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 3 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts
357
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
16
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 June 5, 2020 and
concluding on July 6, 2020. A public hearing was held on July 6, 2020 providing residents and
interested parties a final opportunity to comment on the Plans prior to adoption and submittal
to HUD.
358
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)
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.
359
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)
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
360
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 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
361
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
20
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
7/6/20. The
public notice
was published
on 6/5/20.
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
7/6/20.
See
Huntington
Beach Citizen
Participation
Comments in
Appendix.
All comments
received were
accepted.
N/A
Table 4 - Citizen Participation Outreach
362
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
21
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 $583,493 $2,020,717 $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 $2,760,123 $3,454,800 $2,778,708 Entitlement
allocation
plus
estimated
program
income and
prior-year
resources.
Table 5 - Expected Resources – Priority Table
363
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
22
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.
Due to the National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, HUD
has waived the City’s HOME Match requirement for all expenditures beginning October 1, 2019
and will continue to do so through September 30, 2021. The City received this waiver on April
24, 2020.
If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that
may be used to address the needs identified in the plan
The City Council recently authorized acquisition of property located at 17631 Cameron Lane
that is being considered for development as an emergency homeless shelter to help meet the
needs of the ever-growing homeless population, a priority need as described in the 2020/21-
2024/25 Consolidated Plan.
364
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
23
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)
365
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
24
2 Preserve Existing and Create
New Affordable Housing 2020 2021 Affordable
Housing Citywide
Households with
Housing
Problems
$2,399,881
(HOME)
$900,000
(HOME)
Rental Units
Constructed –
10 Household
Housing Units
(TBD Acq/Rehab/New
Construction)
Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance
60 Households
(TBRA Program)
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)
366
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
$80,000
(CDBG)
Public service
activities other than
Low/Mod Income
Housing Benefit –
400 Persons Assisted
(Children’s Bureau)
367
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
26
6
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
$286,000
(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 –
100 Persons Assisted
(Back-Up Project:
2019 Cameron Lane
Navigation Center)
7 Provide Needed Infrastructure
Improvements 2020 2021
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide
Low- and
Moderate-
Income Areas
Priority
Infrastructure
Improvements
$393,732
(CDBG)
Public Facility or
Infrastructure
Activities other than
Low/Mod Income
Housing Benefit –
1,939 Persons
Assisted
(ADA Curb Cuts in
Maintenance Zone 3)
6 Planning for Housing and
Community Development 2020 2021 Other:
Administration
Not
Applicable
Other Housing
and Community
Development
Needs
$154,919
(HOME)
$287,445
(CDBG)
Other –
Not Applicable
(HOME
Administration; CDBG
Administration; Fair
Housing Foundation)
368
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
27
Unallocated Funds 2020 2021 N/A N/A N/A
$314,540
(CDBG)
$0
(HOME)
N/A
(Unallocated Funds)
Table 6 – Goals Summary
369
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
28
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; 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. (Central Library Lower Level Restrooms ADA
Improvement Project; Back-Up 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. (ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3 Project)
370
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
29
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 25% of the HOME entitlement is allowed for
administration activities. The HOME Administration cap was increased to 25%
for 2020/21 via a HOME waiver granted to the city on April 24, 2020.) (Projects:
HOME Administration, CDBG Administration, Fair Housing Foundation)
Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families
to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.215(b)
As presented above, the City’s one-year goal is to provide affordable housing opportunities
to 76 extremely low, low, and moderate-income households through the following activities:
• Owner-Occupied SF, Condo, and Mobile Home Grant Program: The City offers a one-
time grant not to exceed $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 $2.4 million available HOME funds to provide gap financing in the
development of affordable housing. While a project is yet to be determined, the City
will likely fund a project(s) that meets the needs of the HB community as determined
371
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
30
by the City’s 5-Year Consolidated Plan (Con Plan). The Con Plan has demonstrated a
need for housing for homeless persons, low- and moderate-income households, and
large families. With a federal investment of $2.4 million, the City anticipates that 10
units will be HOME-restricted.
• Tenant Based Rental Assistance: The City will continue working with TBD service
providers to provide a total of 60 households with short and medium-term rental
assistance as well as housing relocation and stabilization services.
372
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
31
Projects
AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d)
The City plans to undertake the following CDBG and HOME funded activities during Fiscal Year
2020/21 to address its priority housing and community development needs. All proposed
activities are eligible and meet program service targets. Additionally, the City of Huntington
Beach has not exceeded any of its maximum allocations for CDBG public services, CDBG
administration, or HOME administration. With a CDBG allocation of $1,237,224, the City of
Huntington Beach allocated $244,000 for public services, representing nearly 20% of the CDBG
entitlement. The 15% public service cap was waived for FY 2020/21 in order to respond to
COVID-19. This Annual Action Plan proposes to allocate the following to public services:
Homeless Outreach Program ($85,000); Senior Services Care Management ($44,000);
Children’s Bureau ($80,000); StandUp for Kids Street Outreach ($15,000); Oakview Family
Literacy Program ($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, under a HOME waiver that
was given to the City, a maximum of 25% of the annual HOME entitlement, $154,919, was
allocated to HOME Program Administration in FY 2020/21.
Consistent with the City’s Citizen Participation Plan for 2020/21-2024/25, the Annual Action
Plan may contain a list of “back-up” projects to be activated during the given program year
due to one or more of the following circumstances:
• Additional funding becomes available during the program year from the close out of
current projects that were completed under budget.
• More program income becomes available than originally estimated and budgeted in
the Annual Action Plan.
• If, during the development of the Annual Action Plan, the City of Huntington Beach
has not definitively decided which public facility or infrastructure improvement
project to fund, the City may opt to categorize each option as a “back-up” project until
further project and budget planning is performed. Initiation and funding of one or
more of the “back-up” projects would not constitute a substantial amendment as
defined in the Citizen Participation Plan. Preferential consideration will be given to
those projects that demonstrate the ability to spend CDBG funds in a timely manner,
consistent with the City’s goal to meet CDBG timeliness rules, as well as those projects
373
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
32
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 Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program
7 Homeless Outreach Program
8 StandUp for Kids Street Outreach Program
9 Robyne’s Nest Housing for Homeless High Schoolers
10 Senior Services – Care Management
11 Oak View Family Literacy Program
12 Oak View Community Center – Children’s Bureau
13 Central Library Lower Level Restrooms ADA Improvement Project
14 ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3
15 HOME Administration
16 CDBG Administration
17 Fair Housing Foundation
18 Unallocated CDBG Funds
19 Unallocated CDBG Funds
Back-Up Project: 2019 Cameron Lane Navigation Center
Table 8 - Project Information
Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved
needs
The Housing and Homeless Needs Assessment of the Consolidated Plan discusses housing
need by income category. Income levels identified are 1) extremely low-income; 2) very low-
income, and; 3) low- and moderate-income households. Based on HUD recommendations,
general relative priorities for funding will be as follows:
HIGH PRIORITY: Activities to address this need will be funded during the five-year period.
MEDIUM PRIORITY: If funds are available, activities to address this need may be funded by
the City during the five-year period. The City may also use other sources of funds and take
actions to locate other sources of funds.
374
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
33
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.
375
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
34
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.
376
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
35
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.
377
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
36
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.
378
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
37
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.
379
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
38
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: $2,399,881
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 92.205(a)(1) -
Acquisition/Rehabilitation/New Construction
National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) -
Low Mod Housing Benefit
The City has approximately $2.4 million in FY 2020/21
to provide gap financing for the development of
affordable housing. The City must use a portion of
these funds on developing affordable housing with
a local community housing development
organization (CHDO).
Target Date June 30, 2021
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
Approximately 10 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.
380
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
39
6 Project Name 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: $900,000
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 TBRA service
providers to provide 60 households with short and
medium-term rental assistance as well as housing
relocation and stabilization services. Households
affected by the COVID-19 pandemic are also eligible
for the TBRA Program.
Target Date 06/30/2022
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
60 households
Location Description Citywide.
Planned Activities Same as description.
381
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
40
7 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.
382
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
41
8 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.
383
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
42
9 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.
384
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
43
10 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.
385
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
44
11 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.
386
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
45
12
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: $80,000
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.
387
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
46
13 Project Name 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: $286,000
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201(c) - Public
Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements/Other
National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) -
Low Mod Limited Clientele Benefit
The Central Library, located at 7111 Talbert Avenue,
was originally constructed in the early 1970's and
opened in 1975. The restrooms on the lower level
appear to be original to the 1970's and do not
meet current ADA accessibility standards. The
lower level restrooms serve adjacent meeting
rooms, the new Maker's Space, and coffee kiosk.
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.
388
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
47
14 Project Name ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Provide Needed Infrastructure Improvements
Needs Addressed Priority Infrastructure Improvements
Funding CDBG: $393,732
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201(c) - Public
Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements/Other
National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) -
Low Mod Limited Clientele Benefit
Residents and visitors with disabilities utilize ADA
ramps to access street intersections when
traveling on city sidewalks. CDBG funds will be
used to construct approximately 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.
389
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
48
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: $154,919
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 92.207(a) - General
Management, Oversight and Coordination
National Objective Citation: Not Applicable
The City of Huntington Beach Office of Business
Development is responsible for administering the
HOME program. Up to 25 percent of the HOME
allocation will be used to provide for staffing and
other program administration costs associated
with the HOME program, including planning,
reporting, monitoring, and IDIS setup and
maintenance. The 25% is above the statutory limit of
10% and is authorized based on a HOME waiver
received from HUD on April 24, 2020.
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.
390
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
49
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.
391
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
50
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.
392
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
51
19 Project Name Unallocated CDBG Funds
Target Area Not applicable
Goals Supported Not applicable
Needs Addressed Not applicable
Funding CDBG: $314,540
Description Unallocated CDBG Funds
Target Date Not applicable
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
Not applicable
Location Description Not applicable
Planned Activities Not applicable
393
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
52
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.
394
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
53
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 Code Enforcement, after establishing the general definition for purposes of
code enforcement, the City conducted a visual (windshield) survey of CDBG eligible areas for
properties, businesses, parkways, alleys, and structures that met the definition. Based on the
visual (windshield) survey, the City determined that low and moderate income areas within
the area bound by Bolsa Chica Street to the west, Bolsa Avenue to the north, Brookhurst
Street to the east, and Atlanta Avenue to the south contained the most properties with
deterioration. In some cases, some structures had multiple violations per parcel. This target
area is known as “Special Code Enforcement Target Area.” Inclusive of the following census
tracts, the Special Code Enforcement Target Area is comprised of 46,650 persons, 32,395, or
69.44%, of which are of low-moderate income.
395
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
54
SPECIAL CODE ENFORCEMENT TARGET AREA
TOTAL POPULATION V. LOW AND MODERATE-INCOME POPULATION
2011-2015 HUD LOW MOD INCOME SUMMARY DATA
Effective April 1, 2019
Census Tract Total Persons Total LMI Persons Percentage
0992121 1,255 810 64.54%
0992123 1,495 1,030 68.90%
0992124 1,180 655 55.51%
0992144 765 425 55.56%
0992352 715 515 72.03%
0992353 2,190 1,245 56.85%
0992422 1,930 1,185 61.40%
0992442 1,645 1,145 69.60%
0992463 815 490 60.12%
0993051 1,710 1,450 84.80%
0993053 2,020 1,330 65.84%
0993055 1,080 935 86.57%
0993056 1,025 560 54.63%
0993061 1,485 760 51.18%
0993093 1,775 915 51.55%
0993103 1,170 690 58.97%
0994021 2,755 2,300 83.48%
0994022 2,720 2,235 82.17%
0994023 575 330 57.39%
0994024 3,375 3,150 93.33%
0994053 1,755 1,070 60.97%
0994103 2,605 1,935 74.28%
0994112 2,180 1,890 86.70%
0994113 1,300 855 65.77%
0994114 880 655 74.43%
0994121 1,810 980 54.14%
0994134 1,360 1,240 91.18%
0996031 3,080 1,615 52.44%
TOTAL 46,650 32,395 69.44%
396
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
55
Geographic Distribution
Target Area Percentage of Funds
Low/Mod Income Areas
Special Code Enforcement Target Areas 4%
Citywide 96%
Table 10 - Geographic Distribution
Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically
All public service programs, ADA improvement projects, and housing projects funded with
CDBG or HOME will be available citywide to eligible persons. The City will also allocate CDBG
funds for special code enforcement and preservation activities in Special Code Enforcement
Target Area that have been identified as deteriorated based on the observance of violations
of the Uniform Housing Code. This area is bound by Bolsa Chica Street to the west, Bolsa
Avenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the east, and Atlanta Avenue to the south. Public
facility and public infrastructure projects will be targeted to neighborhoods where 51% or
more of residents are low and moderate income, unless they serve a specific limited clientele
in which case they may be located anywhere in the city.
397
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 20
Special-Needs
Total 80
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 10
Rehab of Existing Units 10
Acquisition of Existing Units
Total 80
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 $2.4 million available HOME funds to provide gap financing in the
development of affordable housing. While a project is yet to be determined, the City will likely
fund a project(s) that meets the needs of the HB community as determined by the City’s 5 -
Year Consolidated Plan, which has demonstrated a housing for homeless persons, low- and
moderate-income households, and large families. With a federal investment of $2.4 million,
398
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
57
the City anticipates that 10 units will be HOME-restricted.
Finally, the City allocate $900,000 in HOME to fund a tenant based rental assistance (TBRA)
program. The City released a Notice of Available Funding (NOFA) and a Request for Proposals
(RFP) to qualified agencies with experience administering such a program. It is anticipated
that approximately 60 households can be assisted with short and medium-term rental
assistance as well as housing relocation and stabilization services.
399
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.
400
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
401
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
402
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 $1.5 million of federal CDBG and CARES Act funds
to help offset costs associated operating the homeless shelter facility at the project site. The
need for such a facility has increased in recent months due to the COVID-19 pandemic and
Orange County’s Safer at Home Order. The Navigation Center will bring homeless service
providers on-site to help persons experiencing homelessness “navigate” eligible social
services, medical services and benefits to stabilize them with the ultimate goal of transitioning
them to more permanent housing.
Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families
with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to
permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that
individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless
individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families
who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again
In an ongoing effort to continue to address the needs of the homeless and those at risk of
homelessness, the City will focus on the development of sustainable and effective
programming, including: applying for short and long-term available funding; partnerships with
experienced service providers capable of leveraging other funding; the ability to create or
secure affordable housing; perform homeless case management; and engage the homeless
through a street outreach component in order to better connect them to available
services. The City’s goal is to expand on current homeless programs and activities to assist
with their successful transition toward self-sufficiency.
In FY 2020/21, the City will continue its dedication to assisting families in Huntington Beach
with much needed rental assistance. In May 2020, a NOFA/RFP was solicited to qualified
agencies with experience with administering HOME-funded TBRA programs, and a selection
is expected in June 2020. With an investment of $900,000 towards this effort, the City
anticipates that approximately 60 households could be served over a two-year period.
Households that qualify for assistance include those that are of low and moderate income, as
well as households who are currently housed, but are at risk of losing their housing due to
403
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
62
COVID-19.
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.
404
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 residentiall y 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
405
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.
406
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 tenant based rental assistance programs in
Huntington Beach. In FY 2020/21 alone, $900,000 in HOME funding will be allocated to this
effort. Over the next two years, the City is proposing to provide assistance to 60 households
through this program.
The City will also have approximately $2.4 million available HOME funds for the development
of new affordable housing. The City plans to partner with a community housing development
organization, or CHDO, to develop an affordable housing project for low- and moderate-
income Huntington Beach households. With $2.4 million, the City hopes to develop
407
Huntington Beach 2020/21 Annual Action Plan
66
approximately 10 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
408
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
409
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
410
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.
411
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.
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
$0
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 $0
Other CDBG Requirements
1. The amount of urgent need activities $0
412
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).
413
2020/21 -2024/25
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
(with Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan)
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
(June 5, 2020 – July 6, 2020)
For Council Consideration on
July 6, 2020
414
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………1
OBJECTIVES …………………………………………………………………………………...1
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
415
Minimize Displacement ………………………………………………………………..13
Relocation Assistance to Displaced Persons ………………………………………….14
One-for-One Replacement of Lower-Income Dwelling Units ……………………….14
Disclosure and Reporting Requirements ……………………………………………..15
Replacement not Required Based on Unit Availability ...……………………………16
DEFINITIONS …………………………………………...…………………………………….17
ADDENDUM: Citizen Participation Procedures Under National Emergency Concerning
Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic………………………………………...…………18
416
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.
417
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.
418
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 Board
The Citizen Participation Advisory Board (CPAB) was established in October 1996. It is
comprised of seven members appointed by each of the individual City Council members. The
CPAB strives to represent the diverse views on the socioeconomic issues related to low/moderate
income individuals. To that end, low-income residents and members of minority groups are
encouraged to apply to the City for appointment to the CPAB when vacancies arise, so that
members of minority groups can be substantially represented.
The purpose of the Citizen Participation Advisory Board (CPAB) is to provide citizen participation
and coordination in the City’s planning processes for HUD formula grants, principally the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the Home Investment Partnership Act
(HOME) Programs. Along with staff, the Board shall assess the needs of the community
particularly that of low and moderate income households, evaluate and prioritize projects
pertaining to the required plans and provide recommendations to City Council on such plans and
projects, and consider alternative public involvement techniques and quantitative ways to measure
efforts that encourage citizen participation.
It is the responsibility of the CPAB to review grant proposals and make recommendations to the
City Council concerning federal funding. Committee meetings are open to the public and are held
regularly during the CDBG application and deliberation period. The CPAB establishes its meeting
dates by consensus. All meetings are open to the public and special meetings may be called in
conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. The Board will hold public hearings to obtain citizen
input on community needs, plans or proposals. The CPAB is encouraged to hold public meetings
in areas where there is a significant concentration of low to moderate-income persons. To ensure
that all City residents have sufficient opportunity to take notice of all scheduled public hearings,
all public hearing notices will include the date, time and location of the City Council Chambers
located at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach and notification that meeting locations are
accessible to the disabled. To maximize community participation by individuals served through
419
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
420
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 Pl an 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
421
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.
422
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:
423
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 Agreeme nts), 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.
424
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.
Consolidate d 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
425
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.
426
11 | P a g e
ACCESS TO INFORMATION 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
427
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 INTEREST
It shall be forbidden for any member of boards, commissions, and committees having a material
interest in the outcome of decisions to participate in the review of, discussion regarding or voting
upon any application on or in any way attempt to influence other members of the respective body.
According to direction from the Los Angeles area office of HUD, any 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.
428
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.
RESIDENTIAL ANTI -DISPLACEMENT AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PLAN
This Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan (RARAP) is prepared by the
City of Huntington Beach (City) in accordance with the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974, as amended; and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations
at 24 CFR 42.325 and is applicable to the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG),
including the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, and HOME Investment Partnerships Act
(HOME)-assisted projects.
Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (HCD Act),
and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program regulations provide that, as a condition for receiving assistance, as a
grantee, the City must certify that it is following a Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation
Assistance Plan (RARAP), which contains two major components:
1. A requirement to replace all occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate-income
dwelling units that are demolished or converted to a use other than low -moderate-income
housing in connection with an activity assisted under the HCD Act and 24 CFR
570.606(c)(1)); and
2. A requirement to provide certain relocation assistance to any lower income person
displaced as a direct result of (1) the demolition of any dwelling unit or (2) the conversion
of a low/moderate-income dwelling unit to a use other than a low/moderate-income
dwelling in connection with an assisted activity.
Minimize Displacement
Consistent with the goals and objectives of activities assisted under the Act, Huntington Beach
will take the following steps to minimize the direct and indirect displacement of persons from their
homes:
• Coordinate code enforcement with rehabilitation and housing assistance programs.
• Stage rehabilitation of apartment units to allow tenants to remain in the building complex
during and after the rehabilitation, working with empty units first.
• Where feasible, give priority to rehabilitation of housing in lieu of demolition to minimize
displacement.
429
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 Replacement of Lower -Income Dwelling Units
In accordance with section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended (HCD Act) (Pub. L. 93-383, 42 U.S. C. 5301 et seq) and the implementing regulations
at 24 CFR 42.375, the City will fulfill its obligation of providing one-for-one replacement housing
by replacing all occupied and vacant occupiable lower-income dwelling 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.
430
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).
431
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.
432
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.
433
18 | P a g e
ADDENDUM
2020-2024 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES UNDER
NATIONAL EMERGENCY CONCERNING NOVEL
CORONAVIRUS (COVID -19) PANDEMIC
Due to the National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) declared in
March 2020, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has made available
temporary guidelines for citizen participation relative to the public comment period, reasonable
notice, and opportunity to comment for substantial amendments. This addendum outlines steps the
City will take during the national emergency to support communication and encourage
involvement between the City and its residents on matters pertaining to the use of all federal
funding from HUD, particularly those funds that will be used to prevent, prepare, and respond to
the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. These temporary guidelines will therefore apply
to Community Development Block Grant funding under FY 2019/20, FY 2020/21, and the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funds, as well as Home Investment
Partnership Act (HOME) funds under FY 2019/20 and FY 2020/21, unless otherwise extended
due to a longer period of national emergency. This Citizen Participation Plan may also be amended
from time to time to include additional or revised procedures issued by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development in response to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR
CONSOLIDATED PLAN SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS DURING COVID -19
PANDEMIC
The City of Huntington Beach may amend an approved consolidated plan in accordance with 24
CFR 91.505. Substantial amendments to the consolidated plan are subject to the citizen
participation process which usually requires a 30-day public comment period to allow interested
citizens a period of time by which they have an opportunity to comment on any proposed changes
to the Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan. Given the need to expedite actions to respond to
COVID-19, HUD waives the 30-day public comment period, in order to balance the need to
respond quickly to the growing spread and effects of COVID-19 with the statutory requirement to
provide reasonable notice and opportunity for citizens to comment on substantial amendments
concerning the proposed uses of CDBG and HOME funds.
Temporary Public Comment Period: This 30-day minimum for the required public comment
period is waived for substantial amendments, provided that no less than 5 days are provided for
public comments on each substantial amendment. The waiver is available through the end of
Huntington Beach’s 2020/21 program year (June 30, 2021).
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REAS ONABLE NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO
COMMENT DURING COVID -19 PANDEMIC
434
19 | P a g e
Regulations at 24 CFR 91.105 (for local governments) set forth the citizen participation plan
requirements for the City of Huntington Beach. For substantial amendments to the consolidated
plan, the regulations require the City to follow its citizen participation plan to provide citizens with
reasonable notice and opportunity to comment. The citizen participation plan must state how
reasonable notice and opportunity to comment will be given. HUD recognizes the efforts to contain
COVID-19 require limiting public gatherings, such as those often used to obtain citizen
participation, and that there is a need to respond quickly to the growing spread and effects of
COVID-19. Therefore, HUD waives this requirement to allow the City to determine what
constitutes reasonable notice and opportunity to comment given their circumstances. The waiver
is available through the end of Huntington Beach’s 2020/21 program year (June 30, 2021).
Temporary Reasonable Notice and Opportunity to Comment: In the event that an amendment to
the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan qualifies as a substantial change, citizens will be
given an opportunity to participate in the planning process. This opportunity will be afforded to
the citizens by following these steps:
1. The City will publish a notice describing the contents and purpose of the proposed
substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan on the City’s
website at www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/business/economic-development/cdbg/ in lieu of
a newspaper of general circulation. Along with the public notice, the City will post the
subject Amended Consolidated Plan and/or Amended Annual Action Plan for public
review. The Amendments can also be delivered to persons wishing to review it via U.S.
mail or via email upon request by calling the City’s Office of Business Development at
(714) 536-5582 or by emailing Robert.Ramirez@surfcity-hb.org .
2. The publication of the notice will commence a 5-day public comment period, during which
citizens will have the opportunity to examine the proposed Amended Consolidated Plan
and/or Amended Annual Action Plan and submit comments regarding the draft document
to the City’s Office of Business Development via the following methods:
• By calling the City of Huntington Beach, Office of Business Development at (714)
536-5582
• Via email at Robert.Ramirez@surfcity-hb.org
• Via U.S. mail addressed to: City of Huntington Beach, Office of Business
Development, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648.
3. After the close of the 5-day public comment period, the City Council will consider
approving the Substantial Amendment to the City’s Consolidated Plan and/or Annual
Action Plan. To follow recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and
the President’s Coronavirus Guidelines for America, which include avoiding social
gatherings and implementing social distancing, the City Council will not hold in -person
public hearings, however the City may opt to hold virtual public hearings, which will be
described in advance in the public notice. All substantial amendments to the Consolidated
Plan and/or Annual Action Plan and all amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan will
be reviewed and approved by the City Council. A summary of comments or views along
with a summary of any comment or view not accepted and the reasons, therefore, will be
attached to the final Amended Consolidated Plan and/or Amended Annual Action Plan.
435
ORANGE COUNTY ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE
Prepared by the Orange County Jurisdictions and the Lawyers’ Committee for
Civil Rights Under Law
May 27, 2020
436
2
Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Table of Contents
I. Cover Sheet
II. Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………...3
III. Community Participation Process……………………………………………………….20
IV. Assessment of Past Goals and Actions…………………………………………………....21
V. Fair Housing Analysis
A. Demographic Summary……………………………………………………………43
B. General Issues
i. Segregation/Integration…………………………………………….……....118
ii. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) ....…159
iii. Disparities in Access to Opportunity……………………………….……167
iv. Disproportionate Housing Needs………………………...………………198
C. Publicly Supported Housing Analysis………...…………………………………239
D. Disability and Access Analysis………………………………………….………..266
E. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Analysis….…291
VI. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities…………………………………………………...…297
VII. Contributing Factors Appendix…………………………………….……....................316
VIII. Publicly Supported Housing Appendix…………….………………………….……...337
IX. Glossary …....………………………………………………………….…………………355
437
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 federal 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 jurisdictions 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 following information was reviewed and analyzed:
Data from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2013-2017 and other
sources about the demographic, housing, economic, and educational landscape of the
County, nearby communities, and the broader Region;
Various County and city planning documents and ordinances;
Data reflecting housing discrimination complaints;
The input of a broad range of stakeholders that deal with the realities of the housing
market and the lives of members of protected classes in Orange County.
As required by federal regulations, the AI draws from the sources listed above to conduct an
anal ysis of fair housing issues such as patterns of integration and segregation of members of
protected classes, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty regionally, disparities in
access to opportunity for protected classes, and disproportionate housing needs. The analysis also
examines publicly supported housing in the County as well as fair housing issues for persons with
disabilities. Private and public fair housing enforcement, outreach capacity, and resources are
evaluated as well. The 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 has changed considerably from
1990 to present day. The population has grown from just over 2.4 million in 1990 to nearly 3.2
million people today. The demographics of the County have undergone even more dramatic shifts
over this time period: the white population has gone from 76.2% in 1990 to 57.8% in the 2010
Census, with corresponding increases in Hispanic (from 13.5% to 21.2%) and Asian (from 8.6%
to 18.3%) populations in that same time period. These trends represent accelerations of the broader
Los-Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area (the Region). In the Region,
438
4
white population percentage has declined from 45.9% percent to under 31.6%, with substantial
increases in the percentages of Hispanic (from 34.7% to 44.4%) and Asian (from 10.2% to 16%)
from the 1990 to 2010 Censuses.
There are numerous ethnic enclaves of Hispanic, Vietnamese, Chinese and other groups
throughout Orange County. These enclaves provide a sense of community and a social network
that may help newcomers preserve their cultural identities. However, these active choices should
not obscure the significant impact of structural barriers to fair housing choice and discrimination.
Within both Orange County and the broader Region, most racial or ethnic minority groups
experience higher rates of housing problems, including but not limited to severe housing cost
burden, with monthly housing costs exceeding 50 percent of monthly income, than do non-
Hispanic White households. In Orange County, Hispanic households are most likely to experience
severe housing cost burden; in the Region, it is Black households.
There are 194,569 households in Orange County experiencing housing cost burden, with monthly
housing costs exceeding 30 percent of monthl y income. 104,196 of these households are families.
However, Orange County has only 429 Project-Based Section 8 units and 33 Other Multifamily
units with more than one bedroom capable of housing these families. Housing Choice Vouchers
are the most utilized form of publicly supported housing for families, with 2,286 multi-bedroom
units accessed. Large family households are also disproportionately affected by housing problems
as compared with non-family households. Some focus groups have communicated that regulations
and cost issues can make Orange County too expensive for families. The high percentage of 0-1-
bedroom units in publicly supported housing and the low percentage of households with children
in publicly supported housing support this observation.
The federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act provide
Orange County residents with some protections from displacement and work to increase the supply
of affordable housing. In addition, jurisdictions throughout Orange County have worked diligently
to provide access to fair housing through anti-housing discrimination work, creating housing
opportunities designed to enhance resident mobility, providing zoning flexibility where necessary,
and working to reduce hate crimes. Even so, these protections and incentives are not enough to
stem the loss of affordable housing and meet the housing needs of low- and moderate-income
residents.
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues
The AI 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
439
5
7. Availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation
8. Community opposition
9. Deteriorated and abandoned properties
10. Displacement of and/or lack of housing support for victims of domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, and stalking
11. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
12. Impediments to mobility
13. Inaccessible public or private infrastructure
14. Inaccessible government facilities or services
15. Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs
16. Lack of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes
17. Lack of affordable in-home or community-based supportive services
18. Lack of affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive services
19. Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications
20. Lack of assistance for transitioning from institutional settings to integrated housing
21. Lack of community revitalization strategies
22. Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement
23. Lack of local public fair housing enforcement
24. Lack of local or regional cooperation
25. Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency
26. Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods
27. Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities
28. Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations
29. Lack of state or local fair housing laws
30. Land use and zoning laws
31. Lending discrimination
32. Location of accessible housing
33. Location of employers
34. Location of environmental health hazards
35. Location of proficient schools and school assignment policies
36. Location and type of affordable housing
37. Loss of affordable housing
38. Occupancy codes and restrictions
39. Private discrimination
40. Quality of affordable housing information programs
41. Regulatory barriers to providing housing and supportive services for persons with
disabilities
42. Siting selection policies, practices, and decisions for publicly supported housing,
including discretionary aspects of Qualified Allocation Plans and other programs
43. Source of income discrimination
44. State or local laws, policies, or practices that discourage individuals with disabilities from
living in apartments, family homes, supportive housing and other integrated settings
45. Unresolved violations of fair housing or civil rights law.
440
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.1
Strategies:
1. Explore the creation of a new countywide source of affordable housing.
2. Using best practices from other jurisdictions, explore policies and programs that increase
the supply affordable housing, such as linkage fees, housing bonds, inclusionary housing,
public land set-aside, community land trusts, transit-oriented development, and expedited
permitting and review.
3. Explore providing low-interest loans to single-family homeowners and grants to
homeowners with household incomes of up to 80% of the Area Median Income to develop
accessory dwelling units with affordability restriction on their property.
4. Review existing zoning policies and explore zoning changes to facilitate the development
of affordable housing.
5. Align zoning codes to conform to recent California affordable housing legislation.
Goal 2: Prevent displacement of low- and moderate-income residents with protected
characteristics, including Hispanic residents, Vietnamese residents, other seniors, and people with
disabilities.
Strategies:
1. Explore piloting a Right to Counsel Program to ensure legal representation for tenant s in
landlord-tenant proceedings, including those involving the application of new laws like
A.B. 1482.
Goal 3: Increase community integration for persons with disabilities.
Strategies:
1. Conduct targeted outreach and provide tenant application assistance and support to persons
with disabilities, including individuals transitioning from institutional settings and
individuals who are at risk of institutionalization. As part of that assistance, maintain a
database of housing that is accessible to persons with disabilities.
2. Consider adopting the accessibility standards adopted by the City of Los Angeles, which
require at least 15 percent of all new units in city-supported Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC) projects to be ADA-accessible with at least 4 percent of total units to be
accessible for persons with hearing and/or vision disabilities.
1 The term “high opportunity areas” generally means locations where there are economic and social factors and
amenities that provide a positive impact on a person’s life outcome. This is described in more detail in Section iii,
Disparities in Access to Opportunity.
441
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 exploring eliminating application fees for
voucher holders and encouraging landlords to follow HUD’s guidance on the use of
criminal backgrounds in screening tenants.
2. Consider incorporating a fair housing equity analysis into the review of significant
rezoning proposals and specific plans.
Goal 5: Expand access to opportunity for protected classes.
Strategies:
1. Explore the voluntary adoption of Small Area Fair Market Rents or ex ception payment
standards in order to increase access to higher opportunity areas for Housing Choice
Voucher holders.
2. Continue implementing a mobility counseling program that informs Housing Choice
Voucher holders about their residential options in higher opportunity areas and provides
holistic supports to voucher holders seeking to move to higher opportunity areas.
3. Study and make recommendations to improve and expand Orange County’s public
transportation to ensure that members of protected classes can access jobs in employment
centers in Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine.
4. Increase support for fair housing enforcement, education, and outreach.
Individual Jurisdictions’ Proposed Goals and Strategies
City of Aliso Viejo
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of
information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing
Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of
multi-lingual fair housing literature.
442
8
City of Anaheim
1. Increase the supply of affordable housing through the following strategies:
a. Explore creative land use and zoning policies that facilitate the development of
affordable housing, examples include a housing overlay zone or religious institutions
amendment.
b. Review Anaheim’s current Density Bonus and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
Ordinances to ensure compliance with state requirements.
c. Support legislation that removes CEQA requirements for affordable housing.
d. Identify and explore allocating city-owned sites that may be well suited for housing for
which there are no other development plans.
e. Continue to support tenant based rental assistance programs that facilitates additional
affordable housing for homeless and low-income individuals.
2. Preserve the existing stock of affordable rental housing and rent stabilized housing through
the following strategies:
a. Strengthen and expand education and outreach of tenants and owner of affordable rental
housing at risk of conversion to market rents.
b. Extend affordability restrictions through loan extensions, workouts and buy-downs of
affordability.
c. Preserve at-risk housing through the issuance of Tax-Exempt Bond financing.
d. Explore the development of a rental rehabilitation loan program.
3. Expand the access to fair housing services and other housing services through the following
strategies:
a. Dedicate eligible entitlement dollars (CDBG, HOME, etc.) and explore local, state and
federal resources to expand fair housing services.
b. Continue to support fair housing testing and investigation to look for evidence of
differential treatment and disparate impact, including providing services to low income
tenants reporting fair housing violations.
c. Continue to support fair housing presentations, mass media communications, and multi-
lingual literature distribution; conduct fair housing presentations at accessible locations
and conduct fair housing presentations for housing providers.
d. Explore alternative formats for fair housing education workshops such as pre-taped videos
and/ or recordings. Such formats could serve persons with one or more than one job,
families with you children and other who find it difficult to attend meetings in person.
4. Continue efforts to build complete communities through the following strategies:
a. Maximize and secure funding from State of California’s Cap and Trade Program
(Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund), to improve housing opportunities, increase economic
investments and address environmental factors in disadvantaged communities.
b. The City will continue to work with local transit agencies and other appropriate agencies
to facilitate safe and efficient routes of transportation, including public transit, walking
and biking.
443
9
c. Explore development of a policy to encourage developers to provide residents with
incentives to use non-auto means of transportation, including locating new developments
near public transportation and providing benefits such as bus passes.
d. Prioritize workforce development resources in racially or ethnically concentrated areas of
poverty to improve economic mobility.
City of Buena Park
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of
information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing
Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of
multi-lingual fair housing literature.
City of Costa Mesa
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of
information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing
Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of
multi-lingual fair housing literature.
444
10
City of Fountain Valley
1. Explore an inclusionary zoning requirement for all new housing developments that requires at
least 10-15 percent of for-sale units be affordable to households with incomes 80 percent or
below and rental units be affordable to households with incomes 60 percent or below.
2. Consider adopting an expedited permitting and review process for new developments with an
affordable housing set-aside.
City of Fullerton
1. Create a Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HOIZ).
2. Draft and Approve an Affordable Housing and Religious Institutions Amendment to the
Municipal Code.
3. Work with the State to streamline or remove CEQA Requirements for Affordable Housing.
4. Require Affordable Housing in Surplus Property Sales.
City of Garden Grove
1. Update Density Bonus Ordinance – Garden Grove will update the 2011 Density Bonus
Ordinance to comply with current State law. The update will streamline the approval process,
increase feasibility, and facilitate future housing development at all affordability levels.
2. Create Objective Residential Development Standards to allow for streamlined housing
development in all residential zones.
3. Create Objective Development Standards for Supportive Housing. These standards would be
for new construction of Supportive Housing.
4. Evaluate the creation of Objective Development Standards for Hotel/Motel/Office Conversion
to Supportive Housing.
5. Review and amend Garden Grove’s current Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance to
comply with State requirements and further increase housing supply.
6. Continue to invest in landlord and tenant counseling and mediation services, unlawful detainer
assistance, housing discrimination services, homebuyer education and outreach, and local
eviction prevention strategies.
City of Huntington Beach
1. Modify the existing Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to increase the supply of affordable
housing opportunities available to lower income persons and households.
445
11
a. Study the current methodology of setting the maximum sales price and down payment
requirements of an affordable home for ownership.
b. Study requirements for the provision of inclusionary units through on-site units, dedication
of land, in-lieu fees, and off-site development.
c. Study the in-lieu fee structure.
d. Explore the provision of incentives for developments that exceed inclusionary requirements
and/or provide extremely low-income units on site. Incentives can be through the provision
of fee waivers and deferrals, financial assistance, regulatory relief, and flexible
development standards.
2. Update the density bonus ordinance to be consistent with state law,
3. Expand the TBRA program to help tenants impacted by Covid-19. Currently, an eviction
moratorium is in place to prevent evictions due to lack of non-payment of rent due to Covid-
19. This moratorium ends on May 31, 2020. The moratorium does not end the obligation to
pay the rent eventually. On June 1, 2020, there most likely will be an increased need from
persons to receive rental assistance for the rents due prior to May 31 and going forward. The
City would work with its current service providers to help tenants impacted by Covid-19.
City of Irvine
1. Ensure compliance with their HCD-certified Housing Element.
2. Update Density Bonus Ordinance – Irvine will update the Density Bonus Ordinance to comply
with current State law.
3. Review and amend Irvine’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, as necessary, to increase its
effectiveness.
4. Review and amend Irvine’s current Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance to comply with
State requirements and further increase housing supply.
5. Create Objective Development Standards for Supportive Housing. These standards would be
for new construction of Supportive Housing.
6. Working with the City’s fair housing services provider, continue to invest in local eviction
prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families in Irvine.
7. Working with the City’s fair housing services provider, continue to invest in landlord and
tenant counseling and mediation services, unlawful detainer assistance, housing
discrimination services, and homebuyer education and outreach.
City of La Habra
1. Explore the creation of an inclusionary housing ordinance to increase the number of
affordable housing units.
446
12
2. Advocate for increasing the minimum percentage of affordable units at Park La Habra Mobile
Home and View Park Mobile Home Estates from 20 percent to 50 percent.
City of Laguna Niguel
1. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information
regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher
program and regional housing issues.
2. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
b. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
3. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of
multi-lingual fair housing literature.
c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord
issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate
actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities.
d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially
discriminatory housing advertisements.
e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider.
4. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
5. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law.
6. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority, provide community
education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities.
7. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and
families (homelessness prevention services).
City of Lake Forest
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
447
13
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of
information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing
Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of
multi-lingual fair housing literature.
c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord
issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate
actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities.
d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially
discriminatory housing advertisements.
e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider.
f. Regularly consult with the City's fair housing contractor on potential strategies for
affirmatively furthering fair housing on an on-going basis.
3. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority:
a. Provide community education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities.
b. Explore bus route options to ensure neighborhoods with concentration of low-income or
protected class populations have access to transportation services.
4. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and
families (homelessness prevention services).
5. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
6. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law.
City of Mission Viejo
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of
information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing
Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
448
14
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of
multi-lingual fair housing literature.
c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord
issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate
actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities.
d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially
discriminatory housing advertisements.
e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider.
3. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority:
a. Provide community education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities.
b. Explore bus route options to ensure neighborhoods with concentration of low-income or
protected class populations have access to transportation services.
4. Monitor FBI data to determine if any hate crimes are housing related and if there are actions
that may be taken by the City’s fair housing service provider to address potential
discrimination linked to the bias motivations of hate crimes.
5. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and
families (homelessness prevention services).
6. Seek funding through State programs (SB2/PLHA) to expand affordable housing and or
homelessness prevention services.
7. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
8. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law.
City of Orange
1. Continue to follow current State Density Bonus law and further its implementation through a
Density Bonus ordinance update.
449
15
2. Prepare a Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance to provide opportunities for
development rights transfers to accommodate higher density housing in transit and
employment-rich areas of the city.
3. Continue providing financial assistance to the affordable housing projects.
4. Amend the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to be consistent with State Junior
Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) laws.
5. Facilitate the development of housing along the North Tustin corridor by the way of a specific
plan or rezoning measures.
6. Continue providing CDBG funds to the Fair Housing Foundation to provide fair housing
activities to the community.
City of Rancho Santa Margarita
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of
information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing
Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of
multi-lingual fair housing literature.
c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord
issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate
actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities.
d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially
discriminatory housing advertisements.
e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider.
3. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority:
a. Provide community education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities.
b. Explore bus route options to ensure neighborhoods with concentration of low-income or
protected class populations have access to transportation services.
450
16
4. Monitor FBI data to determine if any hate crimes are housing related and if there are actions
that may be taken by the City’s fair housing service provider to address potential
discrimination linked to the bias motivations of hate crimes.
5. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and
families (homelessness prevention services).
6. Seek funding through State programs (SB2/PLHA) to expand affordable housing and or
homelessness prevention services.
7. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
8. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law.
City of San Clemente
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of
information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing
Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution
of multi-lingual fair housing literature.
c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-
landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take
appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities.
d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially
discriminatory housing advertisements.
e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider.
3. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and
families (homelessness prevention services).
4. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
451
17
5. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law.
6. Offer a variety of housing opportunities to enhance mobility among residents of all races and
ethnicities by facilitating affordable housing throughout the community through 1) flexible
development standards; 2) density bonuses; and 3) other zoning tools.
7. Review the type and effectiveness of current affordable housing development incentives, and
amend/augment as may be necessary to increase the production of affordable housing units.
City of San Juan Capistrano
1. Develop Strategies to Address Lack of Affordability and Insufficient Income
a. Work with developers, and non-profit organizations to expand the affordable housing stock
within San Juan Capistrano.
b. Increase production of new affordable units and assistance towards the purchase and
renovation of housing in existing neighborhoods.
c. Seek housing program resources through the County of Orange Urban County CDBG
Program, and others which may become available.
2. Increase Public Awareness of Fair Housing
a. Increase fair housing education and outreach efforts.
b. Investigate options for enforcement including local enforcement conducted by neighboring
jurisdictions.
3. Develop Strategies to Address Poverty and Low-Incomes Among Minority Populations
a. Expand job opportunities through encouragement of corporations relocating to the city,
local corporations seeking to expand, assistance with small business loans, and other
activities.
b. Support agencies that provide workforce development programs and continuing education
courses to increase educational levels and job skills of residents.
4. Develop Strategies to Address Limited Resources to Assist Lower-Income, Elderly, and
Indigent Homeowners Maintain their Homes and Stability in Neighborhoods
a. Consider implementing a volunteer program for providing housing assistance to elderly
and indigent property owners, including assistance in complying with municipal housing
codes.
b. Encourage involvement from volunteers, community organizations, religious
organizations, and businesses as a means of supplementing available financial resources
for housing repair and neighborhood cleanup.
City of Santa Ana
1. Review and amend Santa Ana’s inclusionary housing ordinance to increase its effectiveness.
2. Evaluate the creation of a motel conversion ordinance to increase the supply of permanent
supportive housing similar to the City of Anaheim and Los Angeles.
452
18
3. Review Santa Ana’s density bonus ordinance and explore adding a density bonus for transit-
oriented development (TOD) similar to the City of Los Angeles.
4. Explore establishing a dedicated source of local funding for a Right to Counsel program for
residents of Santa Ana to ensure that they have access to legal representation during eviction
proceedings similar to the City of New York.
5. Continue to invest in local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless
individuals and families in Santa Ana.
City of Tustin
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange
of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the
Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies
by providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct
landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law
prohibiting discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and
homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is
unlawful.
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property
owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may
include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and
distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature.
c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-
landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and
take appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities.
d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify
potentially discriminatory housing advertisements.
e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider.
3. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
4. Utilize funding through State programs (SB2) to support affordable housing and/or
homeless prevention services.
5. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law.
453
19
The AI lays out a series of achievable action steps that will help jurisdictions in Orange County to
not only meet its obligation to affirmatively fair housing but to continue to be a model for equity
and inclusion in Orange County.
454
20
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 and City Council meetings were held throughout the County during the Spring.
Due to the prohibition of gatherings due to COVID, hearings and meetings were held remotely.
There have been no written comments to date but any comments received will be either
incorporated into the document or addressed as to why they were not incorporated in the Appendix.
455
21
IV. ASSESSMENT OF PAST GOALS, ACTIONS AND STRATEGIES
a. Indicate what fair housing goals were selected by program participant(s) in recent
Analyses of Impediments, Assessments of Fair Housing, or other relevant planning
documents.
City of Aliso Viejo (the City became an entitlement community in 2018)
Housing Discrimination
The City of Aliso Viejo contracted with the Fair Housing Foundation and jointly participated
in fair housing outreach and education to renters, homebuyers, lenders, and property managers.
Unfair Lending
The City contracted with the Fair Housing Foundation to identify lenders and transmit findings
to HUD and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Discriminatory Advertising
The City contracted with the Fair Housing Foundation to support efforts to identify online
discriminatory advertising and request that Craigslist and the OC register publish fair housing
and reasonable accommodation notices.
City of Anaheim
Housing Discrimination
The City allocated CDBG funds to the Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) to provide fair housing
services to the Anaheim residents and operators of rental properties. These services include
holding tenant and landlord workshops, counseling, and resolving any housing issues and
allegations of discrimination
Reasonable Accommodations
In June of 2018, the City's Planning and Building Department amended its fee schedule and
removed the reasonable accommodations application fee.
Zoning
Community Development and Planning staff will continue its review of AB 222 and AB 744
and plan to incorporate the necessary standards and provisions into the next zoning code
update.
City of Buena Park
Housing Discrimination
The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 4 tenant, 4 landlord and 4 property manager
training.
FHF participated in the Buena Park Collaborative, North Orange County Chamber of
Conference, Annual Super Senior Saturday, Buena Park School District Annual Kinder Faire,
and the inaugural Open House and Resource Fair.
456
22
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.
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 inquiries
were addressed. The majority of general housing issues addressed by the FHF included notices,
habitability issues, security deposits, and rent increases.
65 housing discrimination inquiries were received by the FHF: 9 based on physical or mental
disability, 8 related to race, 2 related to national origin, 2 related to gender, 1 related to sexual
orientation, and 5 related to familial status. 45 were counseled/resolved, and 15 cases were
opened. Investigations found no evidence of discrimination in 9 cases; 2 were inconclusive;
457
23
and in 4 cases the allegations were sustained and the investigation is pending for 2 cases and
resolved for 2 cases.
The City worked closely with the FHF to provide certified fair housing training for housing
industry realtors and property managers – 7 workshops were conducted during the report
period. Additionally, 7 tenant and 7 landlord workshops were conducted in Costa Mesa.
Racial and Ethnic Segregation
Literature related to fair housing were distributed at these events, at City Hall, community
centers, and community events. Literature was provided to the community in English, Spanish
and Vietnamese. City staff distributed large numbers of this literature in target neighborhoods
in conjunction with other neighborhood improvement efforts.
Reasonable Accommodations
FHF developed an “Accommodation & Modification 101 Workshop” for housing providers
that covers the legal parameters that housing providers need to know in order to make an
informed decision when addressing accommodation and modification requests.
Unfair Lending
The City does not offer homebuyer assistance. Housing Rehab programs are marketed citywide
in English and Spanish.
Density Bonus Incentive
The City’s Zone Codes are compliant with current State density bonus laws.
City of Fountain Valley
Housing Discrimination
Fair housing outreach and training, general counseling and referrals, and testing/audits
provided by Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC).
Racial and Ethnic Segregation
Fair housing services, education/outreach, and testing in areas of racial/et hnic 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.
458
24
Discriminatory Advertising
FHCOC periodically monitors local newspapers and online media outlets to identify
potentially discriminatory housing advertisements.
Unfair Lending
Housing rehabilitation programs are marketed to low income households which include high
minority concentrations and limited English-speaking proficiency areas.
Zoning
Fountain Valley’s Zoning Code was updated in 2016 to treat transitional and supportive
housing as a residential use, subject to the same standards as other residential uses of the same
type in the same zone.
Density Bonus Incentives
Fountain Valley’s Zoning Code was updated in 2018 to continually remain consistent with
State density bonus law.
City of Fullerton
Addressing cost burden: To relieve the cost of rent, the City operates a rental assistance program
for seniors over 55. Programs have assisted seniors living in mobile homes (53 residents) and
seniors renting residential units (58 residents). The program was expanded to assist senior veterans
renting citywide.
New construction: Compass Ross Apartments provides 46 affordable units ranging from one to 3
bedrooms in the Richman Park area.
New construction: Ventana Apartments offers one and two-bedrooms units for low-income
seniors. The facility is central to dining, retail and local entertainment. Several amenities are
offered including a fitness center and social activities.
Addressing affordable homeownership: The City in collaboration with Habitat for Humanity will
provide 12 new housing units with affordability restrictions on the property.
Addressing accessibility: Fullerton Heights Apartments were developed with 24
affordable/accessible unit for special needs residence with mental disabilities. Units range from
one to three bedrooms. The units sit on top of 2,000 square feet of commercial use which is
proposed to provide services such as food/coffee that will be easily accessible to the residents. In
addition, the facility offers amenities such as laundry facilities, computer lab, and community areas
including a garden and large kitchen area that encourages socialization amongst the tenants and
their extended families. Accessibility to transit is within 1.2 miles offering bus and train service.
Addressing fair housing/discrimination: All developers and landlords of affordable housing
projects in the City are invited to workshops related to fair housing and must provide a Housing
Plan to the City. The Plan states that all applications will be reviewed without bias and all
459
25
applicants will be treated equally. In addition, Fair Housing flyers are provided in multiple
languages to the apartment sites.
General fair housing related literature and workshop advertisement was available at City Hall, the
Library, community centers, and community events. The lists below summarize accomplishments
from July 1, 2015 – January 31, 2020. The accomplishments are summarized as follows: 1) the
workshops provide by the Fair Housing Foundation and the number of participants at each
workshop, 2) the types of clients and the number of clients in each category (totaling 1,128
unduplicated individuals), and 3) the types of cases and the number of cases in each category.
WORKSHOPS
Fullerton Agency Meetings:
Fullerton Agencies: 3,737
Fullerton Mobile Home Tenant Meetings:
Rancho La Paz Community Meeting: 100 Fullerton residents
Workshops: Held at Fullerton Public Library
Tenant’s Rights Workshop: 44
Certificate Management Training: 70
Landlord Rights Workshop: 32
Tester Training: 6
City Staff Tenant Landlord Training: 20
Accommodations and Modifications 101 Workshop: 2
Walk-In Clinic: 13
Rental Counseling: 12
Fair Housing Workshop: 10
CLIENTS
In-Place Tenant: 904
Landlord/Management: 81
Other: 58
Property Owner: 61
Rental Home Seeker: 14
Community Organization: 5
Realtor: 5
CASES
Familial Status: 3
Mental Disability: 6
Physical Disability: 2
Race: 6
Age: 1
National Origin: 1
460
26
LAND USE – City amended SB 2 Zone and Density Bonus Incentives
City of Garden Grove
Housing Discrimination
In partnership with the Fair Housing Foundation, the City conducted multi-faceted fair housing
outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies.
Methods of outreach included workshops, informational booths at community events,
presentations to community groups, staff trainings, and distribution of multi-lingual fair
housing literature.
Conducted focused outreach and education to small property owners/landlords on fair housing,
and race, reasonable accommodation and familial status issues in particular. Conducted
property manager trainings on a regular basis, targeting managers of smaller properties, and
promoted fair housing certificate training.
Provided general counseling and referrals to address tenant-landlord issues and provided
periodic tenant-landlord walk-in clinics at City Hall and other community locations.
Racial and Ethnic Segregation
Coordinated with the Fair Housing Foundation to focus fair housing services,
education/outreach, and/or additional testing in identified areas of racial/ethnic concentrations.
Offered a variety of housing opportunities to enhance mobility among residents of all races
and ethnicities. Facilitate the provision of affordable housing throughout the community
through: 1) available financial assistance; 2) flexible development standards; 3) density
bonuses; and 4) other zoning tools.
Promoted equal access to information on the availability of affordable housing by providing
information in multiple languages, and through methods that have proven successful in
outreaching to the community, particularly those hard-to-reach groups.
Affirmatively marketed first-time homebuyer and/or housing rehabilitation programs to low-
and moderate-income areas, and areas of racial/ethnic concentration.
Worked collaboratively with local housing authorities to ensure affirmative fair marketing
plans and de-concentration policies were implemented.
Reasonable Accommodations
In partnership with the Fair Housing Foundation, continued to provide fair housing education
and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of
reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
Discriminatory Advertising
In partnership with the Fair Housing Foundation, periodically monitored local newspapers and
online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements.
Took steps to encourage the Orange County Register to publish a Fair Housing Notice and a
"no pets" disclaimer that indicates rental housing owners must provide reasonable
accommodations, including "service animals" and "companion animals" for disabled persons.
461
27
Hate Crimes
Continued to coordinate with various City and County housing, building and safety, health and
sanitation, law enforcement and legal aid offices to offer support services for victims of hate
crimes or other violent crimes – inclusive of housing resources.
Unfair Lending
In partnership with the Fair Housing Foundation, identified potential issues regarding
redlining, predatory lending and other illegal lending activities. In addition, the City reviewed
agreements annually to make sure that increased and comprehensive services are being
provided, and that education and outreach efforts are expanded and affirmatively marketed in
low and moderate income and racial concentrated areas.
Collaborated with local lenders and supported lenders’ efforts to work with community groups
to help minority households purchase their homes. Ensured that minority groups have access
and knowledge of City programs, supportive services, and provide for networking
opportunities with these groups.
Coordinated with local lenders to expand outreach efforts to first time homebuyers in minority
neighborhoods.
Affirmatively marketed first-time homebuyer and/or housing rehabilitation programs in
neighborhoods with high denial rates, high minority population concentrations and limited
English-speaking proficiency to help increase loan approval rates.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
The City has adopted formal policies and procedures in the Municipal Code to reasonably
accommodate the housing needs of disabled residents.
Zoning Regulations
The City has an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance that allows for the production in
all residential zones.
Single-Room Occupancy Housing: the City has specific provisions for SROs in our Zoning
Ordinances and has clarified in our Housing Elements how SROs are provided for under other
zoning classifications.
Transitional/Supportive Housing: the City has ordinances and development standards that
allow transitional and supportive housing in the manner prescribed by State law, regulated as
a residential use and subject to the same permitting and standards as similar residential uses of
the same type in the same zone.
Density Bonus Incentives
The City is amending the Zoning Code to reflect current State density bonus law.
City of Huntington Beach
Housing Discrimination
The City’s Code Enforcement staff provides fair housing information and referrals to tenants
in the field.
462
28
Racial and Ethnic Segregation
The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance allows for developers to be eligible for reduced
City fees if projects exceed the minimum (10%) inclusionary requirements on-site.
In early 2020, the City established an Affordable Housing Overlay within the Beach and
Edinger Corridors Specific Plan that allows for ministerial (by-right) project approval and
other development incentives for projects providing a minimum of 20% of the total units
affordable to lower income households on-site.
Since 2016, the City has approved four density bonus projects.
In fiscal year 2015/16, the City established a tenant based rental assistance program (TBRA);
program assistance includes security deposit and rental assistance paid directly to the landlord
as well as housing relocation and stabilization services, case managements, outreach, housing
search and placement, legal services, and financial management/credit repair.
Density Bonus Incentives
The City of Huntington Beach has not updated its zoning code to reflect current state regarding
density bonus. However, practically speaking, the City has implemented the state law
regarding density bonus.
Since 2016, the City has received four density bonus requests; all four projects were approved.
All four projects were reviewed for compliance with state density bonus law (including the
two that have not been incorporated into the City’s zoning code).
City of Irvine
Housing Discrimination
The City provided general housing services to address tenant‐landlord issues.
The City provided fair housing education services in Irvine, including informational booths at
community events, overview presentations to community-based organizations, resident
associations and government agencies and more detailed workshops tailored to specific
audiences such as housing consumers or housing providers.
The City and its fair housing provider, Fair Housing Foundation, investigated all allegations
of housing discrimination to determine if discrimination has occurred and continue advising
complainants of their rights and options under the law.
Discriminatory Advertising
The City monitored local newspapers and online media outlets periodically to identify
potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. When identified, contact the individual or
firm and provide fair housing education with the goal of eliminating this practice.
The City, through its fair housing provider, provided fair housing education services in Irvine,
including the Certificate Management Training Certificate Management training classes for
property owners, managers, management companies and real estate professionals.
Reasonable Accommodations
The City provided fair housing education workshops such as the “Accommodation and
Modification 101 Workshop” to Irvine housing providers on an annual basis.
The City provided access to Certificate Management classes for rental property owners and
managers from Irvine on an annual basis.
463
29
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.
464
30
Discriminatory Advertising
Orange County rentals listed on Craigslist were monitored by FHCOC for discriminatory
content (as permitted by staffing limitations). Discriminatory advertisements were flagged and
FHCOC responded to these ads in order to inform the poster of possible discriminatory content.
FHCOC also brought these ads to the attention of Craigslist via abuse@craigslist.org, or in
some cases, the ad was referred to FHCOC’s investigators for possible enforcement action.
Other on-line rental sites (e.g., OC Register, LA Times) were sporadically monitored; however,
the lack of a text search function made monitoring of other sites less efficient. Without
exception, identified problematic postings indicated restrictions with regard to children under
the age of 18 or improper preference for seniors or ‘older adults’ for housing opportunities that
did not appear qualify as housing for older persons (age 55 and over).
City of La Habra
Housing Discrimination
La Habra worked with the Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) and previously worked with Fair
Housing Council of Orange County to provide education and outreach activities, trainings to
owners and managers, general counseling and referrals, and tenant-landlord walk-in clinics.
Racial and Ethnic Segregation
La Habra has a grant/loan program available for low-income residents to receive assistance in
the rehabilitation of owner-occupied properties.
La Habra’s Zone Codes allow for use of density bonus in order to encourage developers to
include units with restricted rents or reduced sales prices for low and moderate-income
households.
La Habra along with the Fair Housing Council of Orange County (2015) and the Fair Housing
Foundation (2016-current) provides information in both English and Spanish. La Habra also
provides bilingual pay to employees that speak other non-English languages. Finally, La Habra
has a contract with Links Sign Language & Interpreting Service to provide translation service
for languages in which bilingual staff cannot provide in house including American Sign
Language.
La Habra participates in the Cities Advisory Committee hosted by Orange County Housing
Authority to discuss housing issues and housing choice vouchers within the County.
Although La Habra does not have a down payment assistance program, residents are referred
to NeighborWorks of Orange County for down payment assistance.
La Habra also hosted a homebuyer education workshop with NeighborWorks of Orange
County to provide education and training to first-time homebuyers, lenders and realtors. These
workshops are marketed to areas of racial/ethnic concentrations within La Habra.
Reasonable Accommodations
La Habra worked with Fair Housing Council of Orange County and now the Fair Housing
Foundation to conduct seminars on reasonable accommodation. n=during Fiscal Year 2015 to
provide these services. During Fiscal Year 2016 until current, Fair Housing Foundation
provides these services for La Habra.
465
31
Discriminatory Advertising
La Habra worked with both Fair Housing Council of Orange County and the Fair Housing
Foundation to monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially
discriminatory housing advertisements.
Unfair Lending
La Habra worked with NeighborWorks of Orange County to market first-time homebuyers
counseling and other programs. NeighborWorks also provides lender trainings so that lenders
make loans available to minorities and limited English-speaking persons.
Density Bonus Incentives
La Habra’s Density Bonus Ordinance was updated in 2010, and per City Attorney, the City’s
Ordinance remains consistent with State density bonus law.
City of Lake Forest
Fair Housing Education
FHCOC conducted/participated in 78 education and outreach activities. Individuals were made
aware of fair housing laws and services
3 landlord and 5 tenant workshops on fair housing were held in Lake Forest.
Fair Housing Enforcement
FHCOC received 11 allegations of housing discrimination and opened 4 cases involved Lake
Forest. FHCOC also conducted 18 paired, on-site, systemic tests for discriminatory rental
housing practices in Lake Forest.
Housing Dispute Evaluation & Resolution –FHCOC assisted 314 unduplicated households
addressed 983 issues from Lake Forest.
Reasonable Accommodations
1 inquiry regarding reasonable accommodations and modifications was received by FHCOC.
4 landlord & 6 tenant fair housing workshops were held in Lake Forest. Topics covered
included information regarding reasonable modifications/accommodations.
Web-based Outreach
FHCOC’s multi-language website has an online housing discrimination complaint-reporting
tool. The City has a link to the FHCOC website where residents can access this information.
Monitoring Advertising
A limited number of Orange County rentals listed on Craigslist were monitored by FHCOC.
Discriminatory ads were flagged and FHCOC informed the poster of possible discriminatory
content. FHCOC also brought ads to the attention of Craigslist or referred the ad to FHCOC’s
investigators for possible action. Other on-line sites (OC Register, LA Times) were
sporadically monitored. Problematic postings indicated restrictions regarding children under
the age of 18 or improper preference for seniors for housing that did not appear qualified as
housing for persons age 55 and over.
466
32
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, 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:
467
33
Family definition inconsistent with fair housing laws;
Lack of a definition of disability;
Lack of a reasonable accommodation procedure;
Lack of zoning regulations for special needs housing;
Lack of a fair housing discussion in zoning and planning documents.
City of Orange
Housing Discrimination
During FY 2015-19, the Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted multi-faceted fair
housing outreach activities within the City of Orange to provide fair housing education to
tenants, landlords, rental property owners, realtors, and property management companies.
Each activity was promoted utilizing multiple marketing channels including social media,
event flyer distribution, and press releases with the local cable channel. Activities included:
o Conducted 8 Tenant Workshops (2-Hours each) to 20 attendees total.
o Conducted 8 Landlord Workshops (2-Hours each) to 43 attendees total.
o Staffed 10 Community Event Informational Booths (8-Hours total) making fair housing
information available to 2,820 attendees at the 2015 Friendly Center Health and Resource
Fair, 2016 Friendly Center Resource Fair, 2016 25th Anniversary Health Fair, 2016
Orange Senior Wellness Fair, 2017 Rideshare & Health Fair, 2017 Health and Wellness
Fair, 2017 Friendly Center Community Resource Fair, 2018 CalOptima's Community
Resource Fair, 2018 City of Orange Rideshare & Health Fair, and 2019 CalOptima
Community Resource Fair.
o Conducted 29 FHF 101 presentations to civic leaders and community organizations
including the Heart to Heart Collaborative, West Orange Elementary English Learner
Advisory Committee Meeting, Office of Assembly member Tom Daly, Friendly Center,
CDBG Program Committee, Women’s Transitional Living Center OC Senior Roundtable
Networking Group, Fristers, OC Adult Protective Services, Vietnamese American
Human Services Network, Heart to Heart, Patriots and Paws, Realtors Group, Orange
Children & Parents Together (OCPT), Planned Parenthood, El Modena Family Resource
Center, Santiago Canyon College - Student Services, Youth Centers of Orange, Orange
Code Enforcement, Rehabilitation Institute of So Cal, Mariposa Center, and OCPT Head
Start. There was a total of 457 attendees.
o Distributed 26,094 pieces of Fair Housing Literature in English, Spanish, and
Vietnamese during outreach activities and mass mailings.
To promote education opportunities to rental housing providers, FHF conducted focused
outreach efforts such as mailings, presentations, and trainings to 608 small property
owners/landlords, and 203 Property Management Companies in the City of Orange
promoting our fair housing certificate training. Thus, FHF conducted 9 Certificate
Management Trainings (4 Hours each) to 65 attendees, all successfully passing the post Fair
Housing Exam.
FHF provided ongoing Landlord/Tenant Counseling, Mediation, and Assistance to 894
Households resulting in 1334 Landlord/Tenant Issues.
FHF counseled and screened 79 households for potential fair housing violations,. These
included allegations of housing discrimination based on Disability-48, Race-19, Familial
Status -5, Age – 2, Arbitrary – 1, National Origin – 2, and Gender -2. FHF opened 26
468
34
Bonafide Fair Housing Cases based on: Arbitrary – 1, Disability -8, Gender -1, Familial
Status-3, National Origin -1, and Race-12. FHF conducted 17 Onsite Tests, 207 Property
Surveys, collected 52 Witness Statements, 315 documents, and 71 photos. Of these cases, 8
Sustained Allegations were successfully conciliated, 4 Inconclusive cases were provide
educational information and provided additional options to the client, such as filing with
DFEH or small claims, 14 No Evidence cases were provided educational information and
provided additional options to the client, such as filing with DFEH or small claims.
County of Orange
During the 2015-19 reporting period the County of Orange Urban County Jurisdiction took the
following actions (on its own or in cooperation with regional partners and the Fair Housing Council
of Orange County (FHCOC)) to overcome impediments to fair housing choice identified in the
regional AI:
Fair Housing Community Education – During 2015-19, the FHCOC regionally conducted or
participated in 467 education and/or outreach activities. Regionally, over 9,550 people were served
by these activities. Through its various regional outreach efforts FHCOC distributed over 82,130
pieces of literature on fair housing, its services and other housing-related topics. Additionally,
throughout Orange County FHCOC held 32 training sessions for rental property owners/managers.
FHCOC presented 16 fair housing seminars, 70 general fair housing workshops.
Fair Housing Enforcement – On a regional basis, FHCOC staff received 363 allegations of housing
discrimination and opened 179 cases where the allegations seemed sufficiently meritorious to
warrant further investigation and/or action. FHCOC also conducted 362 systemic onsite tests,
either paired or ‘sandwich’, 51 tests occurring in the jurisdiction and 215 other testing activities.
Housing Dispute Evaluation & Resolution – On a regional basis, activities provided by FHCOC
included assisting 7,664 unduplicated households addressing 24,766 issues, disputes and/or
inquires.
City of Rancho Santa Margarita
Fair Housing Outreach and Education
FHCOC held one education and outreach activity in Rancho Santa Margarita (RSM), reaching
a culturally and ethnically diverse audience.
Fair Housing Enforcement
FHCOC staff received 6 allegations of housing discrimination and opened 4 cases involved
housing in RSM. FHCOC also conducted 6 paired, on-site, systemic tests for discriminatory
rental housing practices in RSM.
469
35
Housing Dispute Evaluation & Resolution
Services provided by FHCOC included assisting approximately 188 unduplicated Rancho
Santa Margarita households.
Racial and Ethnic Segregation
Literature regarding fair housing was distributed in English, Spanish & Vietnamese.
FHCOC’s website has an online housing discrimination complaint reporting tool that generates
an email to FHCOC. It is also used for other, non-discrimination, housing-related issues. RSM
has a link to the FHCOC website where residents can access this information.
The City does not offer homebuyer assistance programs. Housing rehabilitation programs are
advertised citywide.
City attended quarterly meetings the OCHA to discuss a variety of housing issues and assisted
housing policies – FHCOC staff also attends quarterly meetings.
Reasonable Accommodations
On a regional basis, 53 inquiries regarding reasonable accommodations and modifications
were received by FHCOC that resulted in casework beyond basic counseling, including 1 from
RSM. 8 households received accommodations. FHCOC assisted those denied an
accommodation by filing an administrative housing discrimination complaint with the HUD
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. None of these cases involved RSM residents or
properties.
1 fair housing workshop was held in RSM. Topics covered included information regarding
reasonable modifications/accommodations.
Web-based Outreach
FHCOC’s multi-language website currently has an on-line housing discrimination complaint-
reporting tool that generates an email to FHCOC. The City of Rancho Santa Margarita has a
link to the FHCOC website where residents can access this information.
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.
470
36
Presently, the City of RSM does not offer homebuyer assistance programs; however, program
staff provides referrals to the Orange County Affordable Housing Clearinghouse and
NeighborWorks Orange County.
FHCOC continued efforts to promote housing affordability within Orange County. It provided
services and outreach to organizations involved in the creation and preservation of affordable
housing. These groups included the Kennedy Commission, Mental Health Association of
Orange County, AIDS Services Foundation, Affordable Housing Clearinghouse, Jamboree
Housing Corporation, Orange County Congregations Community Organizations, and Orange
County Community Housing Corporation.
Density Bonus Incentives
City Planning staff has confirmed that current zoning code is consistent with current State
density bonus law.
City of San Clemente
Housing Discrimination
The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) provided fair housing services to 261 San Clemente
households, most of whom were Hispanic. Issues included housing discrimination, notices
received, habitability issues, security deposit disputes, and lease terms.
5 housing discrimination inquiries were received and investigated, 4 related to physical or
mental disability discrimination and 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.
471
37
The City conducted focused outreach to small property owners/ landlords; conducted property
manager trainings on an annual basis and promoted fair housing certificate training.
o The City held an annual property manager training in February or March of each year.
o The City sent information on fair housing to property owners and managers who participate
in the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
o In August of each year, the City provided an annual mandatory training on fair housing for
all employees in the City’s Housing Division in partnership with the Orange County Fair
Housing Council.
The City provided tenant counseling and referrals to address specific tenant-landlord issues.
o Fair Housing programs and resources were included in all voucher issuance briefings and
reasonable accommodation tracking logs updated. Communication was maintained with
the Orange County Fair Housing Council, Public Law Center, and Legal Aid, to ensure
proper referrals for anyone alleging discrimination.
o A new DVD on Fair Housing was implemented for all voucher issuance meetings.
Racial and Ethnic Segregation
The City coordinated with the Orange County Fair Housing Council to focus fair housing
services, education/outreach, and additional testing in areas of racial/ethnic concentrations.
o In addition to its fair housing services funded by the City, the Orange County Fair Housing
Council, engaged in additional work to affirmatively further fair housing through its HUD
Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) enforcement and education and outreach grants.
o The City provided an annual mandatory training on fair housing for all employees in the
City’s Housing Division in partnership with the Orange County Fair Housing Council.
The City offered a variety of housing opportunities to enhance mobility among residents of all
races and ethnicities. The City facilitated the p rovision 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
472
38
execution of the PBV HAP Contract with Jamboree for this project, the Annual
Contributions Contract for SAHA was increased from 2,699 to 2,774.
On October 9, 2017, SAHA submitted a Registration of Interest for one hundred (100)
HUD-VASH vouchers in response to PIH Notice 2017-17. In FY 2019, SAHA,
received an award of 100 HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Project-Based
Vouchers (HUD-VASH PBVs) under PIH Notice 2017-17 and an additional award of
105 HUD-VASH tenant-based vouchers under PIH Notice 2018-07. Following the
award of HUD-VASH PBVs under PIH Notice 2017-17, SAHA issued an RFP and
committed the 100 HUD-VASH PBVs to three affordable housing projects including:
8 HUD-VASH PBVs committed to National CORE for the development of the Legacy
Square project which will include 93 total units of which 33 will be permanent
supportive housing; 3 HUD-VASH PBVs committed to HomeAid Orange County for
the development of the FX Residences project which will include 11 units of permanent
supportive housing; and 89 HUD-VASH PBVs committed to Jamboree Housing for
the rehabilitation of the North Harbor Village project to create 89 permanent supportive
housing units for qualified and eligible homeless veterans. In September 2018, SAHA
also received an award of 50 Mainstream Vouchers following a competitive application
process under 2017 Mainstream Voucher Program NOFA FR-6100-N-43.
In November 2019, SAHA received an additional award of seventy (70) Mainstream
Vouchers following a competitive application process under the Mainstream Voucher
Program NOFA FR-6300-N-43. In November 2019, SAHA also received an award of
twenty-five (25) Foster Youth to Independence Tenant-Protection Vouchers following
a competitive application process under Notice PIH 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 affordable
housing projects.
In addition, the City also approved a Density Bonus Agreement for each of the following
affordable housing projects:
o Villa Court Senior Apartments – a 418-unit affordable rental project at 2222 East First
Street.
o First Point I and II - a 552-unit affordable rental project at 2110, 2114, and 2020 East First
Street
o First American – a 220-unit residential project which will include 11 affordable units at
114 and 117 East Fifth Street.
o A Density Bonus Agreement was also approved for the Legacy Square project mentioned
above – a 92-unit affordable rental project at 609 North Spurgeon Street.
The City promoted equal access to information on the availability of affordable housing by
providing information in multiple languages, and through methods that have proven successful
in outreaching to the community, particularly those hard-to-reach groups.
o The City provided this information in the office, on it’s website and in informational
materials provided to residents.
The City affirmatively marketed first-time homebuyer and/or housing rehabilitation programs
to low- and moderate-income areas, and areas of racial/ethnic concentration.
473
39
o The City held a first-time homebuyer workshop on a quarterly basis and promoted the
information widely to all residents in the City.
The City worked collaboratively with local housing authorities to ensure affirmative fair
marketing plans and de-concentration policies are implemented.
o The City convened a quarterly meeting of local housing authorities to discuss efforts and
initiatives to reduce homelessness.
Reasonable Accommodations
Through the Orange County Fair Housing Council, Inc., the City continued to provide fair
housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on
why denial of necessary reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
o The City held an annual property manager training in February or March of each year.
o The City sent information on fair housing to property owners and managers who participate
in the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
o The City provided an annual mandatory training on fair housing for all employees in the
City’s Housing Division in partnership with the Orange County Fair Housing Council.
o Through its HUD Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) grant Orange County Fair
Housing Council actively assists disabled persons in requesting and obtaining reasonable
accommodations or modifications.
Discriminatory Advertising
Through a contract with the Orange County Fair Housing Council, the City periodically
monitored local print publications and online platforms to identify potentially discriminatory
housing advertisements. When identified, the Orange County Fair Housing Council contacted
the individual or firm and provided fair housing education or took appropriate enforcement
action.
Hate Crimes
The City monitored FBI data to determine if any hate crimes are housing-related and if there
are actions that may be taken by the City. The Orange County Fair Housing Council was
available to address any possible issues of housing discrimination linked to the bias
motivations of hate crimes.
The City coordinated with various City and County housing, building and safety, health and
sanitation, law enforcement and legal aid offices to maintain a comprehensive referral list of
support services for victims of hate crimes or other violent crimes –inclusive of housing
resources.
o For FY 2016, the Santa Ana Housing Authority (SAHA):
Updated the definition of the Violence Against Women Act to include sexual assault.
Coordinated with the County of Orange Domestic Violence office for referrals and to
ensure applicants and participants are informed on all available services.
Provided information on VAWA in regards to owner/tenant responsibilities and
evictions to all program applicants and participants and also mailed to all owners.
SAHA’s HCV Administrative Plan details restrictions on terminating assistance for
victims of domestic violence, as well as guidelines on terminating assistance for
perpetrators of domestic violence.
SAHA discussed VAWA with staff at least once annually.
474
40
o For FY 2017, FY 2018, FY 2019, and FY 2020, SAHA:
In accordance with the Violence against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA
2013), SAHA implemented an Emergency Transfer Plan for Victims of Domestic
Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking.
Implemented HUD-5380, Notice of Occupancy Rights under the Violence Against
Women Act, HUD-5382, Certification of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual
Assault, or Stalking, and Alternate Documentation, and HUD-5383, Emergency
Transfer Request for Certain Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual
Assault, or Stalking.
Coordinated with the County of Orange Domestic Violence office for referrals and to
ensure applicants and participants are informed on all available services.
Provided information on VAWA in regards to owner/tenant responsibilities and
evictions to all program applicants and participants; e-mailed the information to all
owners.
SAHA trained staff on VAWA at least once annually. Staff also proactively provided
information on VAWA to any program participant or applicant who may show any
evidence that information on VAWA is needed.
Unfair Lending
As resources permitted, the City monitored HMDA data annually using the 2013 HMDA
analysis as a benchmark.
The City, through its contract with the Orange County Fair Housing Council, had access to
resources to identify and/or address any potential issues regarding redlining, predatory lending
and other illegal lending activities. Through HUD-funded enforcement activities, Orange
County Fair Housing Council has engaged in regional paired pre-application testing to uncover
possibly discriminatory mortgage lending practices. In addition, the city reviewed their
agreements annually to make sure that increased and comprehensive services are being
provided, and that education and outreach efforts are expanded and affirmatively marketed in
low and moderate income and racial concentrated areas.
The City ensured that minority groups have access and knowledge of City programs,
supportive services by providing information as widely as possible to the community in
multiple languages.
The City coordinate with local lenders to expand outreach efforts to first time homebuyers in
minority neighborhoods by providing quarterly workshops to first time homebuyers in
partnership with NeighborWorks Orange County.
The City affirmatively marketed first-time homebuyer and/or housing rehabilitation programs
in neighborhoods with high denial rates, high minority population concentrations and limited
English-speaking proficiency to help increase loan approval rates by providing quarterly
workshops to first time homebuyers in partnership with NeighborWorks Orange County and
providing information as widely as possible to the community in multiple languages.
Zoning Codes
The City complied with current State density bonus law even though the municipal code was
not updated to reflect current State law for the following projects:
o Villa Court Senior Apartments, 418-unit affordable rental project.
o First Point I and II, a 552-unit affordable rental project.
475
41
o First American , a 220-unit residential project with 11 affordable units.
o Legacy Square, a 92-unit affordable rental project.
City of Tustin
Housing Discrimination
Although the 2015-2020 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 Foundation
476
42
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 read y for a home purchase. The Fair Housing Foundation participates in numerous
education and/or outreach activities, reaching a culturally and ethnically diverse audience, in
Cities of Costa Mesa, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, and Tustin) which they inform participants
of fair housing laws and of their counseling services
City of Westminster
Education and Outreach Activities
Progress: The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) provided a comprehensive, extensive and viable
education and outreach program. The purpose of this program was to educate managers,
tenants, landlords, owners, realtors and property management companies on fair housing laws,
to promote media and consumer interest, and to secure grass roots involvement within the
communities. FHF specifically aimed its outreach to persons and protected classes that are
most likely to encounter housing discrimination.
The FHF developed new, dynamic, and more effective approaches to bringing fair housing
information to residents; including brochures that focused on specific fair housing issues,
including discrimination against people with disabilities, discrimination based on national
origin, sexual orientation, discrimination against families with children, and sexual
harassment. All of FHF’s announcements and literature was available in various languages.
Reasonable Accommodations – On a regional basis, 52 inquiries regarding reasonable
accommodations and modifications were received by FHCOC that resulted in casework beyond
basic counseling.
Web-based Outreach - FHCOC’s website currently has an on-line housing discrimination
complaint-reporting tool that generates an email to FHCOC.
Monitoring On-line Advertising – Orange County rentals listed on Craigslist were monitored by
FHCOC for discriminatory content (as permitted by staffing limitations). Discriminatory
advertisements were flagged and FHCOC responded to these ads in order to inform the poster of
possible discriminatory content.
Monitor Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data - Ongoing monitoring of Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA) data continues to be infeasible due to limited resources at
FHCOC. During 2015-19, FHCOC continued efforts to promote housing affordability within
Orange County. These groups included the Kenned y Commission, Mental Health Association of
Orange County, Aids Services Foundation, Affordable Housing Clearinghouse, Jamboree Housing
Corporation, Orange County Community Housing Corporation, Innovative Housing
Opportunities, and Orange County Congregations Community Organizations, among others.
477
43
V. FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
A. Demographic Summary
This Demographic Summary provides an overview of data concerning race and ethnicity, sex, familial
status, disability status, limited English proficiency, national origin, and age. The data included reflects the
composition of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Region, Orange County itself, and thirty-four
jurisdictions within it.
1. Describe demographic patterns in the jurisdiction and region, and describe trends 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%
National Origin
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
478
44
#7 LEP Language Japanese 1,167 0.22% Persian 41,051 0.34%
#8 LEP Language Arabic 1,054 0.19% Japanese 32,457 0.27%
#9 LEP Language Urdu 644 0.12% Russian 28,358 0.23%
#10 LEP Language Russian 587 0.11% Arabic 23,275 0.19%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 81,297 2.59% 81,297 2.59%
Vision difficulty 51,196 1.63% 51,196 1.63%
Cognitive difficulty 99,317 3.16% 99,317 3.16%
Ambulatory difficulty 133,232 4.24% 133,232 4.24%
Self-care difficulty 61,615 1.96% 61,615 1.96%
Independent living difficulty 104,705 3.34% 104,705 3.34%
Sex
Male 274,258 48.38% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 292,676 51.62% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
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%
Familial Status
Families with children 65,179 44.98% 1,388,564 47.84%
Race and Ethnicity
Orange County has a plurality non-Hispanic White population (41.40%), with large populations of
Hispanics (34.20%) and non-Hispanic Asians (19.78%). Black residents comprise only 1.57% of the
population, and the non-Hispanic Native American population is 0.21%. The percentage of multi-race non-
Hispanic population is 2.71%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.21%.
National Origin
The most common country of origin within the County is Mexico, with 11.21% of the county population
comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most countries of origin are, in order, Vietnam, Korea,
Philippines, China excluding Hong Kong & Taiwan, India, Iran, Taiwan, El Salvador, and Canada.
Limited English Proficiency
The most commonly spoken language for those in the County with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is
Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Korean, Vietnamese,
Chinese, Persian, Tagalog, Japanese, Arabic, Urdu, and Russian.
Disability
The most common type of disability experienced by county residents is ambulatory difficulty. The
remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive
difficulty, hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty.
Sex
County residents are 49.33% male and 50.67% female.
479
45
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%
480
46
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%
National Origin
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 914 1.8% 303,390 2.52%
Vision difficulty 503 1.0% 227,927 1.90%
Cognitive difficulty 1,140 2.4% 445,175 3.70%
Ambulatory difficulty 1,148 2.4% 641,347 5.34%
Self-care difficulty 669 1.4% 312,961 2.60%
481
47
Independent living difficulty 913 2.4% 496,105 4.13%
Sex
Male 23,780 46.94% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 26,881 53.06% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
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%
Familial Status
Families with children 13,010 69.7% 1,388,564 47.84%
Race and Ethnicity
Aliso Viejo has a majority White population (53.85%), with significant populations of Hispanic (17.62%)
and Asian or Pacific Islander (15.45%) residents as well. Black and Native American populations are
extremely low in the city, at 1.69% and 0.43% respectively.
National Origin
The most common countries of origin for foreign-born residents in the city are Mexico, at 13.90% and Iran,
at 11.89%. The remaining most common countries for foreign -born residents, in order, are the Philippines,
Korea, Vietnam, India, China excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan, Canada, Taiwan, and Peru.
Limited English Proficiency
The most commonly spoken language for those in Aliso Viejo with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is
Spanish or Spanish Creole. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order,
Korean, Persian, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Japanese, other Asian Languages, Russian, French, and Other
Pacific Island Languages.
Disability
The most common type of disability experienced by Aliso Viejo residents is ambulatory difficulty. The
remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, cognitive difficulty, independent living
difficulty, hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty.
Sex
Aliso Viejo residents are 46.94% male and 53.06% female.
Age
The majority of Aliso Viejo residents are between 18-64, with 66.49% of residents falling in this group.
25.40% of city residents are under 18, and 8.11% are 65 or older.
Familial Status
Families with children constitute 69.7% of Aliso Viejo’s population.
482
48
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%
National Origin
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
Disability
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%
Sex
Male 168,317 49.85% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 169,326 50.15% 6,500,403 50.67%
483
49
Age
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%
Familial Status
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.
484
50
Table 3.2: Demographic Trends, Anaheim
1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Race/Ethnicity # % # % # %
White, Non-
Hispanic 151,166 56.06% 117,551 35.85% 93,266 27.62%
Black, Non-
Hispanic 6,098 2.26% 8,791 2.68% 9,222 2.73%
Hispanic 86,359 32.03% 153,420 46.78% 177,540 52.58%
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-
Hispanic 24,457 9.07% 43,642 13.31% 55,306 16.38%
Native American,
Non-Hispanic 975 0.36% 2,007 0.61% 1,532 0.45%
National Origin
Foreign-born 76,795 28.49% 123,353 37.62% 127,512 37.77%
LEP
Limited English
Proficiency 56,117 20.82% 93,273 28.45% 92,680 27.45%
Sex
Male 136,823 50.75% 164,072 50.04% 168,317 49.85%
Female 132,766 49.25% 163,809 49.96% 169,326 50.15%
Age
Under 18 70,689 26.22% 101,574 30.98% 92,481 27.39%
18-64 176,977 65.65% 199,651 60.89% 213,574 63.25%
65+ 21,923 8.13% 26,656 8.13% 31,589 9.36%
Family Type
Families with
children 32,321 50.08% 37,351 57.02% 38,282 51.43%
Table 4.1: Demographics, Buena Park
(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%
485
51
National Origin
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
Disability
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%
Sex
Male 39,425 49.25% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 40,622 50.75% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 20,320 25.39% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 51,322 64.11% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 8,404 10.50% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 8,916 46.83% 1,388,564 47.84%
Race and Ethnicity
Buena Park has a plurality Hispanic population (39.97%), with large populations of non-Hispanic Asian
residents (29.45%) and non-Hispanic Whites (24.90%). Black residents comprise 3.23% of the population,
and non-Hispanic Native American population is 0.24%. The percentage of multi -race non-Hispanic
population is 2.24%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.17%.
486
52
National Origin
The most common country of origin for Buena Park residents is Mexico, with 11.66% of the city population
comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin are, in order, Korea,
Philippines, India, Vietnam, Peru, Thailand, El Salvador, Taiwan, and Afghanistan.
Limited English Proficiency
The most commonly spoken language for those in Buena Park with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is
Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Korean, Tagalog,
Chinese, Vietnamese, Other Indic Languages, Thai, Gujarati, Other Pacific Island Languages, and Urdu.
Disability
The most common type of disability experienced by Buena Park residents is ambulatory difficulty. The
remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, hearing
difficulty, cognitive difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty.
Sex
Buena Park residents are 49.25% male and 50.75% female.
Age
The majority of Buena Park residents are between 18-64, with 64.11% of residents falling in this group.
25.39% of city residents are under 18, and 10.50% are 65 or older.
Familial Status
Families with children constitute 46.83% of Buena Park’s population.
Table 4.2: Demographic Trends, Buena Park
1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Race/Ethnicity # % # % # %
White, Non-
Hispanic 39,286 58.15% 29,077 37.27% 21,298 26.61%
Black, Non-
Hispanic 1,774 2.63% 3,290 4.22% 3,272 4.09%
Hispanic 16,909 25.03% 26,955 34.55% 32,288 40.34%
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-
Hispanic 9,116 13.49% 17,392 22.29% 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%
487
53
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%
Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 2,725 2.48% 267,038 2.08%
Other, Non-Hispanic 246 0.22% 30,960 0.24%
National Origin
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
488
54
#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%
Disability
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%
Sex
Male 55,886 50.87% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 53,971 49.13% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
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%
Familial Status
Families with children 11,152 48.03% 1,388,564 47.84%
Race and Ethnicity
Costa Mesa has a near-majority White population (49.38%), with a large population of Hispanic residents
(36.48%) and a sizable population of non-Hispanic Asian residents (9.40%). Black residents comprise
1.59% of the population, and non-Hispanic Native American population is 0.18%. The percentage of multi-
race non-Hispanic population is 2.48%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.22%.
National Origin
The most common country of origin for Costa Mesa residents is Mexico, with 13.28% of the city population
comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin are, in order, El
Salvador, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Guatemala, Iran, Canada, India, and Korea.
Limited English Proficiency
The most commonly spoken language for those in Costa Mesa with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is
Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Vietnamese, 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.
489
55
Age
The majority of Costa Mesa residents are between 18-64, with 69.17% of residents falling in this group.
21.60% of city residents are under 18, and 9.23% are 65 or older.
Familial Status
Families with children constitute 48.03% of Costa Mesa’s population.
Table 5.2: Demographic Trends, Costa Mesa
1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Race/Ethnicity # % # % # %
White, Non-
Hispanic 70,120 72.26% 62,285 56.96% 56,901 51.80%
Black, Non-
Hispanic 1,142 1.18% 1,653 1.51% 1,879 1.71%
Hispanic 19,300 19.89% 34,569 31.61% 39,405 35.87%
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-
Hispanic 6,024 6.21% 9,204 8.42% 10,680 9.72%
Native American,
Non-Hispanic 331 0.34% 771 0.71% 673 0.61%
National Origin
Foreign-born 20,844 21.50% 31,702 28.98% 29,598 26.94%
LEP
Limited English
Proficiency 12,652 13.05% 21,813 19.94% 17,533 15.96%
Sex
Male 49,424 50.97% 55,859 51.07% 55,886 50.87%
Female 47,542 49.03% 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%
490
56
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%
National Origin
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
Disability
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%
Sex
Male 27,076 48.76% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 28,451 51.24% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 11,794 21.24% 3,138,867 24.47%
491
57
18-64 34,068 61.35% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 9,664 17.40% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
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.
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.
492
58
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%
aaaaa18-64 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%
493
59
National Origin
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 3,344 2.40% 303,390 2.52%
Vision difficulty 2,406 1.73% 227,927 1.90%
Cognitive difficulty 4,478 3.22% 445,175 3.70%
Ambulatory difficulty 6,425 4.62% 641,347 5.34%
Self-care difficulty 2,683 1.93% 312,961 2.60%
Independent living difficulty 4,992 3.59% 496,105 4.13%
Sex
Male 66,653 49.10% 66,653 49.10%
Female 69,094 50.90% 69,094 50.90%
Age
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%
Familial Status
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-
494
60
Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.15% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic
population is 2.18%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.17%.
National Origin
The most common country of origin for Fullerton residents is Mexico, with 10.27% of the city population
comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin are, in order, Korea,
Philippines, India, China (excluding Hong Kong & Taiwan), Vietnam, Taiwan, El Salvador, Canada, and
Japan.
Limited English Proficiency
The most commonly spoken language for those in Fullerton with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is
Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Korean, Chinese,
Vietnamese, Japanese, Tagalog, Gujarati, Arabic, Other Asian Languages, and Other Indo -European
Languages.
Disability
The most common type of disability experienced by Fullerton residents is ambulatory difficulty. The
remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive
difficulty, hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty.
Sex
Fullerton residents are 49.10% male and 50.90% female.
Age
The majority of Fullerton residents are between 18-64, with 64.75% of residents falling in this group.
23.54% of city residents are under 18, and 11.71% are 65 or older.
Familial Status
Families with children constitute 46.37% of Fullerton’s population.
Table 7.2: 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%
495
61
National Origin
Foreign-born 25,948 22.98% 35,894 28.49% 39,906 29.40%
LEP
Limited English
Proficiency 16,188 14.33% 24,576 19.50% 25,536 18.81%
Sex
Male 56,379 49.92% 62,453 49.57% 66,653 49.10%
Female 56,554 50.08% 63,542 50.43% 69,094 50.90%
Age
Under 18 25,569 22.64% 32,955 26.16% 31,953 23.54%
18-64 75,660 67.00% 78,816 62.55% 87,901 64.75%
65+ 11,703 10.36% 14,224 11.29% 15,893 11.71%
Family Type
Families with
children 12,505 44.91% 11,097 48.22% 14,582 46.37%
Table 8.1: 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%
National Origin
#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%
496
62
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 5,132 2.95% 303,390 2.52%
Vision difficulty 3,044 1.75% 227,927 1.90%
Cognitive difficulty 6,805 3.91% 445,175 3.70%
Ambulatory difficulty 8,226 4.73% 641,347 5.34%
Self-care difficulty 3,996 2.30% 312,961 2.60%
Independent living difficulty 7,328 4.21% 496,105 4.13%
Sex
Male 86,373 49.85% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 86,888 50.15% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
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%
Familial Status
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
497
63
remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Tagalog,
Cambodian, Other Pacific Island Languages, Arabic, Japanese, and Hmong.
Disability
The most common type of disability experienced by Garden Grove residents is ambulatory difficulty. The
remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive
difficulty, hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty.
Sex
Garden Grove residents are 49.85% male and 50.15% female.
Age
The majority of Garden Grove residents are between 18-64, with 63.55% of residents falling in this group.
25.53% of city residents are under 18, and 10.92% are 65 or older.
Familial Status
Families with children constitute 47.97% of Garden Grove’s population.
Table 8.2: Demographic Trends, Garden Grove
1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Race/Ethnicity # % # % # %
White, Non-
Hispanic 79,750 54.42% 54,141 32.25% 38,900 22.45%
Black, Non-
Hispanic 2,145 1.46% 2,474 1.47% 2,376 1.37%
Hispanic 34,492 23.54% 55,487 33.06% 64,694 37.34%
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-
Hispanic 29,209 19.93% 53,793 32.05% 66,272 38.25%
Native American,
Non-Hispanic 631 0.43% 1,107 0.66% 725 0.42%
National Origin
Foreign-born 44,669 30.48% 72,339 43.10% 74,749 43.14%
LEP
Limited English
Proficiency 32,715 22.32% 57,735 34.40% 56,658 32.70%
Sex
Male 74,265 50.67% 84,033 50.06% 86,373 49.85%
Female 72,300 49.33% 83,818 49.94% 86,888 50.15%
498
64
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%
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%
National Origin
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
499
65
Disability
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%
Sex
Male 94,733 49.60% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 96,243 50.40% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 39,353 20.61% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 124,400 65.14% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 27,224 14.26% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 20,083 41.45% 1,388,564 47.84%
Race and Ethnicity
Huntington Beach has a majority White population (63.10%) and sizable populations of Hispanics (19.35%)
and non-Hispanic Asians (12.01%). This represents a large increase in the percentage of White residents as
compared to Orange County overall (41.40%). Black residents comprise 1.25% of the population, and non-
Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.36% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic
population is 3.15%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.21%.
National Origin
The most common country of origin for Huntington Beach residents is Mexico, with 3.86% of the city
population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in
Huntington Beach are, in order, Vietnam, Philippines, Canada, Egypt, China (excluding Hong Kong &
Taiwan), Japan, Korea, India, and Taiwan.
Limited English Proficiency
The most commonly spoken language for those in Huntington Beach with Limited English Proficiency
(LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Vietnamese,
Chinese, Korean, Arabic, Japanese, Tagalog, Portuguese, Other Indo-European Languages, and Thai.
Disability
The most common type of disability experienced by Huntington Beach residents is ambulatory difficulty.
The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, cognitive difficulty, independent living
difficulty, hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty.
Sex
Huntington Beach residents are 49.60% male and 50.40% female.
500
66
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%
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%
501
67
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%
National Origin
#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%
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
Disability
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%
Sex
Male 103,034 48.71% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 108,498 51.29% 6,500,403 50.67%
502
68
Age
Under 18 45,857 21.68% 45,857 21.68%
18-64 146,753 69.38% 146,753 69.38%
65+ 18,922 8.95% 18,922 8.95%
Familial Status
Families with children 25,573 49.80% 1,388,564 47.84%
Race and Ethnicity
Irvine has a plurality non-Hispanic Asian population (41.79%) with a large population of White residents
(41.73%) and a relatively small population of Hispanic residents (9.74%) as compared to the county (over
34%). Black residents comprise 1.84% of the population, and non-Hispanic Native Americans comprise
0.09% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 4.50%, and the other
non-Hispanic population is 0.26%.
National Origin
The most common country of origin for Irvine residents is Korea, with 5.48% of the city population
comprised of residents from Korea. This is distinct from the County, for which the most common country
of origin is Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in Irvine are, in order, China
(excluding Hong Kong & Tibet), India, Iran, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Mexico, and Hong
Kong.
Limited English Proficiency
The most commonly spoken language for those in Irvine with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is Chinese
– distinct from the most common language spoken by those with LEP in the County (Spanish). The
remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Korean, Persian, Spanish, Vietnamese,
Japanese, Arabic, Other Indic Languages, Other Asian Languages, and Russian.
Disability
The most common type of disability experienced by Irvine residents is ambulatory difficulty. The remaining
most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cogn itive 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.
503
69
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%
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%
504
70
National Origin
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
Disability
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%
Sex
Male 29,680 49.24% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 30,594 50.76% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
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%
Familial Status
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
505
71
comprise 0.15% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 1.61%, and the
other non-Hispanic population is 0.15%.
National Origin
The most common country of origin for La Habra residents is Mexico, with 16.35% of the city population
comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in La Habra are, in
order, Korea, Philippines, Guatemala, China (excluding Hong Kong & Tibet), Indonesia, India, El Salvador,
Taiwan, and Nicaragua.
Limited English Proficiency
The most commonly spoken language for those in La Habra with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is
Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Korean, Chinese,
Tagalog, Vietnamese, Persian, Hindi, Other Pacific Island Languages, Russian, and Arabic.
Disability
The most common type of disability experienced by La Habra residents is ambulatory difficulty. The
remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive
difficulty, hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty.
Sex
La Habra residents are 49.24% male and 50.76% female.
Age
The majority of La Habra residents are between 18-64, with 62.31% of residents falling in this group.
26.58% of city residents are under 18, and 11.12% are 65 or older.
Familial Status
Families with children constitute 47.85% of La Habra’s population.
Table 11.2: 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%
506
72
National Origin
Foreign-born 10,852 20.55% 16,382 27.53% 17,238 28.60%
LEP
Limited English
Proficiency 7,693 14.57% 12,530 21.06% 13,172 21.85%
Sex
Male 26,272 49.75% 29,148 48.99% 29,680 49.24%
Female 26,539 50.25% 30,349 51.01% 30,594 50.76%
Age
Under 18 13,363 25.30% 17,662 29.69% 16,021 26.58%
18-64 33,885 64.16% 35,363 59.44% 37,554 62.31%
65+ 5,563 10.53% 6,472 10.88% 6,700 11.12%
Family Type
Families with
children 6,424 47.32% 6,353 54.73% 6,885 47.85%
Table 12.1: Demographics, La Palma
(La Palma, Orange County)
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%
National Origin
#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%
507
73
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 421 2.7% 303,390 2.52%
Vision difficulty 262 1.7% 227,927 1.90%
Cognitive difficulty 476 3.1% 445,175 3.70%
Ambulatory difficulty 825 5.4% 641,347 5.34%
Self-care difficulty 496 3.3% 312,961 2.60%
Independent living difficulty 547 4.2% 496,105 4.13%
Sex
Male 7,673 48.54% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 8,135 51.46% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
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%
Familial Status
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.
508
74
Disability
The most common type of disability experienced by La Palma residents is ambulatory difficulty. The
remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, self-care
difficulty, cognitive difficulty, hearing difficulty, and vision difficulty.
Sex
La Palma residents are 48.54% male and 51.46% female.
Age
The majority of La Palma residents are between 18-64, with 63.90% of residents falling in this group.
18.13% of city residents are under 18, and 17.97% are 65 or older.
Familial Status
Families with children constitute 81.5% of La Palma’s population.
Table 13.1: Demographics, 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%
National Origin
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
509
75
#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%
Disability
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%
Sex
Male 30,893 48.50% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 32,803 51.50% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
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%
Familial Status
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.
510
76
Sex
Laguna Niguel residents are 48.50% male and 51.50% female.
Age
The majority of Laguna Niguel residents are between 18-64, with 64.53% of residents falling in this group.
22.65% of city residents are under 18, and 12.82% are 65 or older.
Familial Status
Families with children constitute 44.73% of Laguna Niguel’s population.
Table 13.2: 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%
511
77
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%
Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 2,393 3.09% 2,393 3.09%
Other, Non-Hispanic 184 0.24% 184 0.24%
National Origin
#1 country of origin Mexico 4,765 5.82% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34%
#2 country of origin Philippines 2,714 3.32% Philippines 288,529 2.38%
#3 country of origin Vietnam 1,117 1.37% El Salvador 279,381 2.31%
#4 country of origin India 1,055 1.29% Vietnam 234,251 1.93%
#5 country of origin Iran 753 0.92% Korea 224,370 1.85%
#6 country of origin Korea 739 0.90% Guatemala 188,854 1.56%
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
Disability
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%
Sex
Male 38,359 49.58% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 39,011 50.42% 6,500,403 50.67%
512
78
Age
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%
Familial Status
Families with children 9,581 48.85% 1,388,564 47.84%
Race and Ethnicity
Lake Forest is majority White (53.98%) with sizable minority populations of Hispanics (24.52%) and non-
Hispanic Asian residents (15.57%) This is a moderately larger White population than the county as a whole
(41.40%). Black residents comprise 1.80% of the population, and non-Hispanic Native Americans comprise
0.44% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 3.09%, and the other
non-Hispanic population is 0.24%.
National Origin
The most common country of origin for Lake Forest residents is Mexico, with 5.82% of the city population
comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in Lake Forest are,
in order, Philippines, Vietnam, India, Iran, Korea, El Salvador, China (excluding Hong Kong & Taiwan),
Canada, and Guatemala.
Limited English Proficiency
The most commonly spoken language for those in Lake Forest with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is
Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Vietnamese, Chinese,
Tagalog, Korean, Persian, Japanese, Other Pacific Island Languages, Arabic, and Scandinavian Languages.
Disability
The most common type of disability experienced by Lake Forest residents is ambulatory difficulty. The
remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, hearing
difficulty, cognitive difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty.
Sex
Lake Forest residents are 49.58% male and 50.42% female.
Age
The majority of Lake Forest residents are between 18-64, with 66.31% of residents falling in this group.
24.58% of city residents are under 18, and 9.11% are 65 or older.
Familial Status
Families with children constitute 48.85% of Lake Forest’s population.
513
79
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%
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%
514
80
National Origin
#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%
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
Disability
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%
Sex
Male 45,368 49.01% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 47,192 50.99% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 21,375 23.09% 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%
Familial Status
Families with children 10,884 44.01% 1,388,564 47.84%
515
81
Race and Ethnicity
Mission Viejo is majority White (66.87%) with sizable minority populations of Hispanics (16.94%) and
non-Hispanic Asian residents (10.62%) This is a significantly larger White population than the county as a
whole (41.40%). Black residents comprise 1.36% of the population, and non-Hispanic Native Americans
comprise 0.21% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 3.36%, and the
other non-Hispanic population is 0.20%.
National Origin
The most common country of origin for Mission Viejo residents is Mexico, with 3.80% of the city
population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in
Mission Viejo are, in order, Iran, Philippines, Vietnam, China (excluding Hong Kong & Taiwan), Korea,
Taiwan, Canada, India, and El Salvador.
Limited English Proficiency
The most commonly spoken language for those in Mission Viejo with Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Persian, Chinese,
Vietnamese, Arabic, Korean, Japanese, Tagalog, Other Pacific Island Languages, and Russian.
Disability
The most common type of disability experienced by Mission Viejo residents is ambulatory difficult y. 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%
516
82
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-
Hispanic 5,327 6.62% 8,512 9.23% 10,597 11.45%
Native American,
Non-Hispanic 198 0.25% 507 0.55% 475 0.51%
National Origin
Foreign-born 10,815 13.44% 15,120 16.39% 16,427 17.75%
LEP
Limited English
Proficiency 4,189 5.21% 6,072 6.58% 6,250 6.75%
Sex
Male 39,987 49.69% 44,952 48.73% 45,368 49.01%
Female 40,480 50.31% 47,294 51.27% 47,192 50.99%
Age
Under 18 22,602 28.09% 26,099 28.29% 21,375 23.09%
18-64 51,800 64.37% 56,701 61.47% 58,357 63.05%
65+ 6,065 7.54% 9,446 10.24% 12,828 13.86%
Family Type
Families with
children 11,971 53.71% 11,488 51.77% 10,884 44.01%
Table 17.1: Demographics, 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%
National Origin
#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%
517
83
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
Disability
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%
Sex
Male 68,542 50.29% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 67,753 49.71% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 31,745 23.29% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 89,676 65.80% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 14,874 10.91% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 14,250 45.66% 1,388,564 47.84%
Race and Ethnicity
Orange has a plurality of White residents (45.01%) with significant minority populations of Hispanics
(39.41%) and non-Hispanic Asian residents (11.58%). Black residents comprise 1.44% of the population,
and non-Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.21% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-
Hispanic population is 1.92%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.18%.
National Origin
The most common country of origin for Orange residents is Mexico, with 12.10% of the city population
comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in Orange are, in
order, Vietnam, Philippines, Korea, India, Guatemala, Taiwan, Iran, China (excluding Hong Kong and
Taiwan), and El Salvador.
518
84
Limited English Proficiency
The most commonly spoken language for those in Orange with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is
Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Vietnamese, Korean,
Chinese, Tagalog, Arabic, Japanese, Gujarati, Cambodian, and Persian.
Disability
The most common type of disability experienced by Orange residents is ambulatory difficulty. The
remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive
difficulty, hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty.
Sex
Orange residents are 50.29% male and 49.71% female.
Age
The majority of Orange residents are between 18-64, with 65.80% of residents falling in this group. 23.29%
of city residents are under 18, and 10.91% are 65 or older.
Familial Status
Families with children constitute 45.66% of Orange’s population.
Table 17.2: Demographic Trends, 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%
519
85
Female 56,148 49.85% 65,535 50.23% 67,753 49.71%
Age
Under 18 27,188 24.14% 35,677 27.35% 31,745 23.29%
18-64 75,361 66.91% 81,767 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%
National Origin
#1 country of origin Mexico 1,379 2.81% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34%
#2 country of origin Philippines 901 1.84% Philippines 288,529 2.38%
#3 country of origin El Salvador 475 0.97% El Salvador 279,381 2.31%
#4 country of origin Iran 446 0.91% Vietnam 234,251 1.93%
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
520
86
#10 LEP Language German 42 0.09% Arabic 23,275 0.19%
Disability
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%
Sex
Male 23,681 48.81% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 24,839 51.19% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
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%
Familial Status
Families with children 7,256 56.76% 1,388,564 47.84%
Race and Ethnicity
Rancho Santa Margarita is majority White (63.36%) with significant minority populations of Hispanics
(19.57%) and non-Hispanic Asian residents (10.47%). This is a significantly larger White population than
the county as a whole (41.40%). Black residents comprise 2.47% of the population, and non -Hispanic
Native Americans comprise 0% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population
is 3.31%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.20%.
National Origin
The most common country of origin for Rancho Santa Margarita residents is Mexico, with 2.81% of the
city population comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in
Rancho Santa Margarita are, in order, Philippines, El Salvador, Iran, China (excluding Hong Kong and
Taiwan), India, Vietnam, Germany, Korea, and Argentina.
Limited English Proficiency
The most commonly spoken language for those in Rancho Santa Margarita with Limited English
Proficiency (LEP) is Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order,
Vietnamese, Korean, Arabic, Tagalog, Persian, Chinese, Japanese, Other Slavic Languages, and German.
Disability
The most common type of disability experienced by Rancho Santa Margarita residents is ambulatory
difficulty. The remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, cognitive difficulty,
independent living difficulty, hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty.
Sex
Rancho Santa Margarita residents are 48.81% male and 51.19% female.
521
87
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 Trend2 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Race/Ethnicity # % # % # %
White, Non-
Hispanic 9,721 80.59% 35,728 74.82% 32,644 67.28%
Black, Non-
Hispanic 147 1.22% 1,014 2.12% 1,111 2.29%
Hispanic 1,183 9.81% 6,019 12.60% 8,850 18.24%
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-
Hispanic 932 7.73% 4,350 9.11% 5,521 11.38%
Native American,
Non-Hispanic 43 0.36% 325 0.68% 270 0.56%
National Origin
Foreign-born 1,753 14.49% 6,404 13.40% 7,746 15.97%
LEP
Limited English
Proficiency 653 5.40% 2,595 5.43% 2,723 5.61%
Sex
Male 6,055 50.06% 23,527 49.21% 23,681 48.81%
Female 6,041 49.94% 24,281 50.79% 24,839 51.19%
Age
Under 18 3,118 25.78% 15,827 33.10% 13,719 28.27%
18-64 8,519 70.43% 29,814 62.36% 31,402 64.72%
65+ 459 3.79% 2,168 4.53% 3,399 7.01%
Family Type
Families with
children 1,819 54.54% 7,149 64.49% 7,256 56.76%
2 Rancho Santa Margarita was incorporated in 2000 so boundaries prior to incorporation may be different.
522
88
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%
National Origin
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
Disability
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%
Sex
Male 31,315 50.27% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 30,980 49.73% 6,500,403 50.67%
523
89
Age
Under 18 14,972 24.03% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 39,094 62.76% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 8,228 13.21% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
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.
524
90
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%
Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 595 1.66% 267,038 2.08%
Other, Non-Hispanic 322 0.90% 30,960 0.24%
525
91
National Origin
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
Disability
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%
Sex
Male 48.03% 11.0% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 51.97% 9.4% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 8,381 23.35% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 20,925 58.29% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 6,593 18.37% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 8,839 72.3% 1,388,564 47.84%
526
92
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%
National Origin
#1 country of origin Mexico 108,270 32.37% Mexico 108,270 32.37%
527
93
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 6,745 2.04% 303,390 2.52%
Vision difficulty 9,075 2.74% 227,927 1.90%
Cognitive difficulty 9,177 2.77% 445,175 3.70%
Ambulatory difficulty 11,321 3.42% 641,347 5.34%
Self-care difficulty 5,603 1.69% 312,961 2.60%
Independent living difficulty 9,146 2.76% 496,105 4.13%
Sex
Male 164,857 51.05% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 158,082 48.95% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
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%
Familial Status
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
the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic population is 0.68%, and the other non-Hispanic
population is 0.12%.
528
94
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%
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%
529
95
LEP
Limited English
Proficiency 125,596 42.98% 155,759 46.31% 147,471 45.67%
Sex
Male 155,301 53.15% 174,039 51.75% 164,857 51.05%
Female 136,895 46.85% 162,299 48.25% 158,082 48.95%
Age
Under 18 89,063 30.48% 118,041 35.10% 99,297 30.75%
18-64 186,981 63.99% 200,328 59.56% 201,647 62.44%
65+ 16,151 5.53% 17,969 5.34% 21,995 6.81%
Family Type
Families with
children 32,142 58.43% 35,540 64.63% 34,031 57.04%
Table 22.1: Demographics, Tustin
(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%
National Origin
#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%
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
530
96
#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%
Disability
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%
Sex
Male 36,263 48.83% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 37,995 51.17% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 19,341 26.05% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 48,704 65.59% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 6,213 8.37% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 9,226 52.64% 1,388,564 47.84%
Race and Ethnicity
Tustin is majority Hispanic (41.22%) with a significant minority population of White residents (30.36%)
and non-Hispanic Asian residents (21.93%). Black residents comprise 2.41% of the population, and non-
Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.52% of the population. The percentage of multi-race non-Hispanic
population is 2.62%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.23%.
National Origin
The most common country of origin for Tustin residents is Mexico, with 14.09% of the city population
comprised of residents from Mexico. The remaining most common countries of origin in Tustin are, in
order, Vietnam, India, Philippines, Korea, China (excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan), Taiwan, Iran,
Guatemala, and Canada.
Limited English Proficiency
The most commonly spoken language for those in Tustin with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is
Spanish. The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Vietnamese, Korean,
Chinese, Tagalog, Other Indic Language, Hindi, Persian, Other Asian Language, and Arabic.
531
97
Disability
The most common type of disability experienced by Tustin residents is ambulatory difficulty. The
remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive
difficulty, hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, and self-care difficulty.
Sex
Tustin residents are 48.83% male and 51.17% female.
Age
The majority of Tustin residents are between 18-64, with 65.59% of residents falling in this group. 26.05%
of city residents are under 18, and 8.37% are 65 or older.
Familial Status
Families with children constitute 47.84% of Tustin’s population.
Table 22.2: Demographic Trends, Tustin
1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Race/Ethnicity # % # % # %
White, Non-
Hispanic 33,203 64.04% 29,936 45.70% 26,741 36.01%
Black, Non-
Hispanic 2,546 4.91% 2,001 3.05% 1,879 2.53%
Hispanic 10,687 20.61% 22,177 33.85% 28,873 38.88%
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-
Hispanic 5,105 9.85% 10,452 15.95% 16,240 21.87%
Native American,
Non-Hispanic 197 0.38% 401 0.61% 314 0.42%
National Origin
Foreign-born 11,250 21.67% 21,580 32.92% 24,470 32.95%
LEP
Limited English
Proficiency 6,814 13.13% 13,970 21.31% 14,937 20.12%
Sex
Male 26,403 50.87% 32,163 49.07% 36,263 48.83%
Female 25,502 49.13% 33,386 50.93% 37,995 51.17%
Age
Under 18 12,604 24.28% 17,885 27.28% 19,341 26.05%
18-64 35,509 68.41% 42,998 65.60% 48,704 65.59%
532
98
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%
National Origin
#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%
Limited English Proficiency
#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%
#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%
Disability
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%
533
99
Independent living difficulty 5,665 6.19% 496,105 4.13%
Sex
Male 44,523 49.57% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 45,295 50.43% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
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%
Famial Status
Families with children 9,079 44.54% 1,388,564 47.84%
Race and Ethnicity
Westminster is majority non-Hispanic Asian residents (47.89%) with a significant minority population of
White residents (24.46%) and Hispanic residents (23.73%). This is a significantly higher percentage of non-
Hispanic Asian residents than Orange County overall (19.78%). Black residents comprise 0.87% of the
population, and non-Hispanic Native Americans comprise 0.42% of the population. The percentage of
multi-race non-Hispanic population is 2.07%, and the other non-Hispanic population is 0.13%.
National Origin
The most common country of origin for Westminster residents is Vietnam, with 29.20% of the city
population comprised of residents from Vietnam. This is distinct from the most common country of origin
for all Orange County residents (Mexico). The remaining most common countries of origin in Westminster
are, in order, Mexico, Philippines, China (excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan), Egypt, Cambodia, Peru,
Laos, Taiwan, and Korea.
Limited English Proficiency
The most commonly spoken language for those in Westminster with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is
Vietnamese. This is distinct from the most common LEP language overall in Orange County (Spanish).
The remaining most common languages for those with LEP are, in order, Spanish, Chinese, Korean,
Cambodian, Tagalog, Laotian, Japanese, Arabic, and Armenian.
Disability
The most common type of disability experienced by Westminster residents is ambulatory difficulty. The
remaining most common disabilities are, in order of prevalence, independent living difficulty, cognitive
difficulty, hearing difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision difficulty.
Sex
Westminster residents are 49.57% male and 50.43% female.
Age
The majority of Westminster residents are between 18-64, with 62.61% of residents falling in this group.
23.40% of city residents are under 18, and 13.99% are 65 or older.
534
100
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
Families with
children 9,049 46.90% 9,753 49.37% 9,079 44.54%
Non-Entitlement Jurisdictions
Table 24: Demographics, Brea
Brea
(Los Angeles – Long Beach –
Anaheim, CA) Region
Race/Ethnicity # % # %
White, Non-Hispanic 18,738 44.70% 4,056,820 31.62%
Black, Non-Hispanic 633 1.51% 859,086 6.70%
Hispanic 12,191 29.08% 5,700,860 44.44%
535
101
Asian/Pacific Island, Non-
Hispanic 8,883 21.19% 1,888,969 14.72%
Native American, Non-Hisp. 93 0.22% 25,102 0.20%
Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 1,270 3.03% 267,038 2.08%
Other, Non-Hispanic 113 0.27% 30,960 0.24%
National Origin
#1 country of origin Mexico 1,697 20.55% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34%
#2 country of origin Korea 1,390 16.83% Philippines 288,529 2.38%
#3 country of origin Philippines 997 12.07% El Salvador 279,381 2.31%
#4 country of origin Taiwan 623 7.54% Vietnam 234,251 1.93%
#5 country of origin
China,
excluding
Hong Kong
and Taiwan 571 6.91% Korea 224,370 1.85%
#6 country of origin India 381 4.61% Guatemala 188,854 1.56%
#7 country of origin Vietnam 318 3.85%
China excl.
Hong Kong &
Taiwan 174,424 1.44%
#8 country of origin Canada 162 1.96% Iran 133,596 1.10%
#9 country of origin England 118 1.43% Taiwan 87,643 0.72%
#10 country of origin
United
Kingdom,
excluding
England and
Scotland 112 1.36% India 79,608 0.66%
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Language
#1 LEP Language
Spanish or
Spanish
Creole 1,475 3.83% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79%
#2 LEP Language Korean 988 2.57% Chinese 239,576 1.98%
#3 LEP Language Chinese 573 1.49% Korean 156,343 1.29%
#4 LEP Language Tagalog 178 0.46% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22%
#5 LEP Language Vietnamese 118 0.31% Armenian 87,201 0.72%
#6 LEP Language
Mon-Khmer,
Cambodian 117 0.30% Tagalog 86,691 0.72%
#7 LEP Language
Other Asian
languages 109 0.28% Persian 41,051 0.34%
#8 LEP Language Arabic 106 0.28% Japanese 32,457 0.27%
#9 LEP Language Japanese 59 0.15% Russian 28,358 0.23%
#10 LEP Language Thai 39 0.10% Arabic 23,275 0.19%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 971 2.30% 81,297 2.59%
Vision difficulty 580 1.40% 51,196 1.63%
Cognitive difficulty 969 2.50% 99,317 3.16%
Ambulatory difficulty 1,633 4.20% 133,232 4.24%
Self-care difficulty 730 1.90% 61,615 1.96%
Independent living difficulty 1,249 3.90% 104,705 3.34%
Sex
Male 20,407 48.70% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 21,500 51.30% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
536
102
Under 18 9,493 22.65% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 26,691 63.69% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 5,723 13.66% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 4,880 32.32% 1,388,564 47.84%
Table 25: Demographics, Cypress
Cypress
(Los Angeles – Long Beach –
Anaheim, CA) Region
Race/Ethnicity # % # %
White, Non-Hispanic 19,399 39.50% 4,056,820 31.62%
Black, Non-Hispanic 1,947 3.96% 859,086 6.70%
Hispanic 9,767 19.89% 5,700,860 44.44%
Asian/Pacific Island, Non-
Hispanic 16,154 32.89% 1,888,969 14.72%
Native American, Non-Hisp. 179 0.36% 25,102 0.20%
Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 1,506 3.07% 267,038 2.08%
Other, Non-Hispanic 156 0.32% 30,960 0.24%
National Origin
#1 country of origin Korea 3,736 25.87% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34%
#2 country of origin Mexico 1,668 11.55% Philippines 288,529 2.38%
#3 country of origin Philippines 1,473 10.20% El Salvador 279,381 2.31%
#4 country of origin India 1,001 6.93% Vietnam 234,251 1.93%
#5 country of origin Taiwan 812 5.62% Korea 224,370 1.85%
#6 country of origin
China,
excluding
Hong Kong
and Taiwan 740 5.12% Guatemala 188,854 1.56%
#7 country of origin Vietnam 703 4.87%
China excl.
Hong Kong &
Taiwan 174,424 1.44%
#8 country of origin Iran 399 2.76% Iran 133,596 1.10%
#9 country of origin Jordan 306 2.12% Taiwan 87,643 0.72%
#10 country of origin England 212 1.47% India 79,608 0.66%
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Language
#1 LEP Language Korean 4,111 8.79% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79%
#2 LEP Language
Spanish or
Spanish
Creole 2,282 4.88% Chinese 239,576 1.98%
#3 LEP Language Chinese 1,368 2.93% Korean 156,343 1.29%
#4 LEP Language Tagalog 480 1.03% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22%
#5 LEP Language Vietnamese 455 0.97% Armenian 87,201 0.72%
#6 LEP Language Japanese 197 0.42% Tagalog 86,691 0.72%
#7 LEP Language Persian 197 0.42% Persian 41,051 0.34%
#8 LEP Language Arabic 150 0.32% Japanese 32,457 0.27%
#9 LEP Language
Other and
unspecified
languages 142 0.30% Russian 28,358 0.23%
#10 LEP Language Thai 112 0.24% Arabic 23,275 0.19%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 1,587 3.20% 81,297 2.59%
537
103
Vision difficulty 786 1.60% 51,196 1.63%
Cognitive difficulty 1,789 3.80% 99,317 3.16%
Ambulatory difficulty 2,640 5.60% 133,232 4.24%
Self-care difficulty 1,180 2.50% 61,615 1.96%
Independent living difficulty 1,583 4.10% 104,705 3.34%
Sex
Male 23,816 48.50% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 25,286 51.50% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 10,793 21.98% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 31,414 63.98% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 6,895 14.04% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 5,583 35.25% 1,388,564 47.84%
Table 26: Demographics, Dana Point
Dana Point
(Los Angeles – Long Beach –
Anaheim, CA) Region
Race/Ethnicity # % # %
White, Non-Hispanic 25,799 75.82% 4,056,820 31.62%
Black, Non-Hispanic 525 1.54% 859,086 6.70%
Hispanic 5,594 16.44% 5,700,860 44.44%
Asian/Pacific Island, Non-
Hispanic 1,115 3.28% 1,888,969 14.72%
Native American, Non-Hisp. 89 0.26% 25,102 0.20%
Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 838 2.46% 267,038 2.08%
Other, Non-Hispanic 68 0.20% 30,960 0.24%
National Origin
#1 country of origin Mexico 1,076 23.31% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34%
#2 country of origin Canada 360 7.80% Philippines 288,529 2.38%
#3 country of origin Iran 226 4.90% El Salvador 279,381 2.31%
#4 country of origin Germany 218 4.72% Vietnam 234,251 1.93%
#5 country of origin Vietnam 187 4.05% Korea 224,370 1.85%
#6 country of origin Philippines 183 3.96% Guatemala 188,854 1.56%
#7 country of origin Argentina 160 3.47%
China excl.
Hong Kong &
Taiwan 174,424 1.44%
#8 country of origin England 140 3.03% Iran 133,596 1.10%
#9 country of origin Guatemala 140 3.03% Taiwan 87,643 0.72%
#10 country of origin Ukraine 111 2.40% India 79,608 0.66%
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Language
#1 LEP Language
Spanish or
Spanish
Creole 1,515 4.68% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79%
#2 LEP Language Russian 94 0.29% Chinese 239,576 1.98%
#3 LEP Language Chinese 58 0.18% Korean 156,343 1.29%
#4 LEP Language Korean 49 0.15% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22%
#5 LEP Language
French (incl.
Patois,
Cajun) 38 0.12% Armenian 87,201 0.72%
538
104
#6 LEP Language Hungarian 38 0.12% Tagalog 86,691 0.72%
#7 LEP Language
Other West
Germanic
languages 34 0.11% Persian 41,051 0.34%
#8 LEP Language
Other Pacific
Island
languages 24 0.07% Japanese 32,457 0.27%
#9 LEP Language
Other Slavic
languages 24 0.07% Russian 28,358 0.23%
#10 LEP Language Persian 22 0.07% Arabic 23,275 0.19%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 1,123 3.30% 81,297 2.59%
Vision difficulty 361 1.10% 51,196 1.63%
Cognitive difficulty 1,209 3.80% 99,317 3.16%
Ambulatory difficulty 1,323 4.10% 133,232 4.24%
Self-care difficulty 682 2.10% 61,615 1.96%
Independent living difficulty 1,137 4.00% 104,705 3.34%
Sex
Male 16,302 48.18% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 17,537 51.82% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 5,699 16.84% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 21,299 62.94% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 6,841 20.22% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 2,909 19.90% 1,388,564 47.84%
Table 27: Demographics, Laguna Beach
Laguna Beach
(Los Angeles – Long Beach –
Anaheim, CA) Region
Race/Ethnicity # % # %
White, Non-Hispanic 19,075 82.13% 4,056,820 31.62%
Black, Non-Hispanic 201 0.87% 859,086 6.70%
Hispanic 1,959 8.44% 5,700,860 44.44%
Asian/Pacific Island, Non-
Hispanic 1,151 4.96% 1,888,969 14.72%
Native American, Non-Hisp. 33 0.14% 25,102 0.20%
Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 704 3.03% 267,038 2.08%
Other, Non-Hispanic 101 0.43% 30,960 0.24%
National Origin
#1 country of origin Iran 275 8.89% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34%
#2 country of origin Germany 259 8.37% Philippines 288,529 2.38%
#3 country of origin Canada 240 7.76% El Salvador 279,381 2.31%
#4 country of origin Mexico 238 7.69% Vietnam 234,251 1.93%
#5 country of origin England 211 6.82% Korea 224,370 1.85%
#6 country of origin Poland 127 4.10% Guatemala 188,854 1.56%
#7 country of origin
United
Kingdom,
excluding
England and
Scotland 114 3.68%
China excl.
Hong Kong &
Taiwan 174,424 1.44%
539
105
#8 country of origin France 112 3.62% Iran 133,596 1.10%
#9 country of origin Korea 105 3.39% Taiwan 87,643 0.72%
#10 country of origin Brazil 92 2.97% India 79,608 0.66%
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Language
#1 LEP Language
Spanish or
Spanish
Creole 127 0.56% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79%
#2 LEP Language Korean 72 0.32% Chinese 239,576 1.98%
#3 LEP Language
French (incl.
Patois,
Cajun) 67 0.30% Korean 156,343 1.29%
#4 LEP Language Persian 50 0.22% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22%
#5 LEP Language German 49 0.22% Armenian 87,201 0.72%
#6 LEP Language Tagalog 30 0.13% Tagalog 86,691 0.72%
#7 LEP Language Chinese 26 0.12% Persian 41,051 0.34%
#8 LEP Language Japanese 20 0.09% Japanese 32,457 0.27%
#9 LEP Language Vietnamese 19 0.08% Russian 28,358 0.23%
#10 LEP Language
Serbo-
Croatian 13 0.06% Arabic 23,275 0.19%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 624 2.70% 81,297 2.59%
Vision difficulty 334 1.40% 51,196 1.63%
Cognitive difficulty 714 3.20% 99,317 3.16%
Ambulatory difficulty 814 3.60% 133,232 4.24%
Self-care difficulty 293 1.30% 61,615 1.96%
Independent living difficulty 531 2.80% 104,705 3.34%
Sex
Male 11,638 50.16% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 11,563 49.84% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 3,989 17.19% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 13,887 59.86% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 5,325 22.95% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 2,152 20.52% 1,388,564 47.84%
Table 28: Demographics, Laguna Hills
Laguna Hills
(Los Angeles – Long Beach –
Anaheim, CA) Region
Race/Ethnicity # % # %
White, Non-Hispanic 18,298 58.58% 4,056,820 31.62%
Black, Non-Hispanic 745 2.39% 859,086 6.70%
Hispanic 6,519 20.87% 5,700,860 44.44%
Asian/Pacific Island, Non-
Hispanic 4,556 14.59% 1,888,969 14.72%
Native American, Non-Hisp. 158 0.51% 25,102 0.20%
Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 946 3.03% 267,038 2.08%
Other, Non-Hispanic 13 0.04% 30,960 0.24%
National Origin
#1 country of origin Mexico 1,992 24.32% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34%
#2 country of origin Philippines 1,070 13.06% Philippines 288,529 2.38%
540
106
#3 country of origin Iran 1,021 12.46% El Salvador 279,381 2.31%
#4 country of origin Vietnam 363 4.43% Vietnam 234,251 1.93%
#5 country of origin El Salvador 255 3.11% Korea 224,370 1.85%
#6 country of origin Peru 242 2.95% Guatemala 188,854 1.56%
#7 country of origin Korea 240 2.93%
China excl.
Hong Kong &
Taiwan 174,424 1.44%
#8 country of origin India 229 2.80% Iran 133,596 1.10%
#9 country of origin Colombia 223 2.72% Taiwan 87,643 0.72%
#10 country of origin Canada 206 2.51% India 79,608 0.66%
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Language
#1 LEP Language
Spanish or
Spanish
Creole 1,994 6.74% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79%
#2 LEP Language Persian 328 1.11% Chinese 239,576 1.98%
#3 LEP Language Korean 238 0.80% Korean 156,343 1.29%
#4 LEP Language Chinese 228 0.77% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22%
#5 LEP Language Tagalog 187 0.63% Armenian 87,201 0.72%
#6 LEP Language Vietnamese 157 0.53% Tagalog 86,691 0.72%
#7 LEP Language Japanese 143 0.48% Persian 41,051 0.34%
#8 LEP Language Gujarati 101 0.34% Japanese 32,457 0.27%
#9 LEP Language Arabic 65 0.22% Russian 28,358 0.23%
#10 LEP Language Polish 33 0.11% Arabic 23,275 0.19%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 936 3.00% 81,297 2.59%
Vision difficulty 631 2.00% 51,196 1.63%
Cognitive difficulty 1,114 3.80% 99,317 3.16%
Ambulatory difficulty 1,322 4.50% 133,232 4.24%
Self-care difficulty 771 2.60% 61,615 1.96%
Independent living difficulty 1,070 4.30% 104,705 3.34%
Sex
Male 15,052 48.47% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 16,003 51.53% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 6,337 20.41% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 20,208 65.07% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 4,510 14.52% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 2,978 28.72% 1,388,564 47.84%
Table 29: Demographics, Laguna Woods
Laguna Woods
(Los Angeles – Long Beach –
Anaheim, CA) Region
Race/Ethnicity # % # %
White, Non-Hispanic 12,382 75.90% 4,056,820 31.62%
Black, Non-Hispanic 69 0.42% 859,086 6.70%
Hispanic 714 4.38% 5,700,860 44.44%
Asian/Pacific Island, Non-
Hispanic 2,986 18.30% 1,888,969 14.72%
541
107
Native American, Non-
Hispanic 0 0.00% 25,102 0.20%
Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 141 0.86% 267,038 2.08%
Other, Non-Hispanic 22 0.13% 30,960 0.24%
National Origin
#1 country of origin Korea 1,082 20.14% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34%
#2 country of origin
China,
excluding
Hong Kong
and Taiwan 528 9.83% Philippines 288,529 2.38%
#3 country of origin Iran 448 8.34% El Salvador 279,381 2.31%
#4 country of origin Taiwan 383 7.13% Vietnam 234,251 1.93%
#5 country of origin Philippines 328 6.10% Korea 224,370 1.85%
#6 country of origin South Africa 238 4.43% Guatemala 188,854 1.56%
#7 country of origin England 217 4.04%
China excl.
Hong Kong &
Taiwan 174,424 1.44%
#8 country of origin India 190 3.54% Iran 133,596 1.10%
#9 country of origin Canada 171 3.18% Taiwan 87,643 0.72%
#10 country of origin Mexico 170 3.16% India 79,608 0.66%
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Language
#1 LEP Language Korean 658 4.02% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79%
#2 LEP Language Chinese 393 2.40% Chinese 239,576 1.98%
#3 LEP Language Persian 205 1.25% Korean 156,343 1.29%
#4 LEP Language
Spanish or
Spanish
Creole 188 1.15% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22%
#5 LEP Language Vietnamese 84 0.51% Armenian 87,201 0.72%
#6 LEP Language Hungarian 63 0.39% Tagalog 86,691 0.72%
#7 LEP Language Polish 42 0.26% Persian 41,051 0.34%
#8 LEP Language Arabic 31 0.19% Japanese 32,457 0.27%
#9 LEP Language Japanese 30 0.18% Russian 28,358 0.23%
#10 LEP Language Russian 22 0.13% Arabic 23,275 0.19%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 1,868 11.50% 81,297 2.59%
Vision difficulty 792 4.90% 51,196 1.63%
Cognitive difficulty 973 6.00% 99,317 3.16%
Ambulatory difficulty 2,758 16.90% 133,232 4.24%
Self-care difficulty 1,172 7.20% 61,615 1.96%
Independent living difficulty 1,776 10.90% 104,705 3.34%
Sex
Male 5,762 35.32% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 10,552 64.68% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 11 0.07% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 2,852 17.48% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 13,451 82.45% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 0 0.00% 1,388,564 47.84%
542
108
Table 30: Demographics, La Palma
La Palma
(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 7,398 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%
National Origin
#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%
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Language
#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%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 421 2.70% 81,297 2.59%
Vision difficulty 262 1.70% 51,196 1.63%
Cognitive difficulty 476 3.10% 99,317 3.16%
Ambulatory difficulty 825 5.40% 133,232 4.24%
Self-care difficulty 496 3.30% 61,615 1.96%
Independent living difficulty 547 4.20% 104,705 3.34%
Sex
Male 7,673 48.54% 6,328,434 49.33%
543
109
Female 8,135 51.46% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
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%
Familial Status
Families with children 1,380 28.12% 1,388,564 47.84%
Table 31: Demographics, Los Alamitos
Los Alamitos
(Los Angeles – Long Beach –
Anaheim, CA) Region
Race/Ethnicity # % # %
White, Non-Hispanic 5,505 47.30% 4,056,820 31.62%
Black, Non-Hispanic 518 4.45% 859,086 6.70%
Hispanic 3,233 27.78% 5,700,860 44.44%
Asian/Pacific Island, Non-
Hispanic 1,448 12.44% 1,888,969 14.72%
Native American, Non-Hisp. 74 0.64% 25,102 0.20%
Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 842 7.23% 267,038 2.08%
Other, Non-Hispanic 19 0.16% 30,960 0.24%
National Origin
#1 country of origin Korea 373 19.97% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34%
#2 country of origin Mexico 353 18.90% Philippines 288,529 2.38%
#3 country of origin Philippines 238 12.74% El Salvador 279,381 2.31%
#4 country of origin Taiwan 115 6.16% Vietnam 234,251 1.93%
#5 country of origin
United
Kingdom,
excluding
England and
Scotland 76 4.07% Korea 224,370 1.85%
#6 country of origin Sri Lanka 62 3.32% Guatemala 188,854 1.56%
#7 country of origin
China,
excluding
Hong Kong
and Taiwan 56 3.00%
China excl.
Hong Kong &
Taiwan 174,424 1.44%
#8 country of origin Canada 50 2.68% Iran 133,596 1.10%
#9 country of origin Japan 47 2.52% Taiwan 87,643 0.72%
#10 country of origin India 37 1.98% India 79,608 0.66%
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Language
#1 LEP Language Korean 247 2.23% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79%
#2 LEP Language
Spanish or
Spanish
Creole 243 2.20% Chinese 239,576 1.98%
#3 LEP Language Tagalog 85 0.77% Korean 156,343 1.29%
#4 LEP Language Chinese 84 0.76% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22%
#5 LEP Language Japanese 40 0.36% Armenian 87,201 0.72%
#6 LEP Language
Other Asian
languages 29 0.26% Tagalog 86,691 0.72%
#7 LEP Language Vietnamese 22 0.20% Persian 41,051 0.34%
#8 LEP Language Armenian 20 0.18% Japanese 32,457 0.27%
544
110
#9 LEP Language
Portuguese or
Portuguese
Creole 20 0.18% Russian 28,358 0.23%
#10 LEP Language
Mon-Khmer,
Cambodian 19 0.17% Arabic 23,275 0.19%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 436 3.80% 81,297 2.59%
Vision difficulty 300 2.60% 51,196 1.63%
Cognitive difficulty 351 3.20% 99,317 3.16%
Ambulatory difficulty 466 4.30% 133,232 4.24%
Self-care difficulty 224 2.00% 61,615 1.96%
Independent living difficulty 308 3.50% 104,705 3.34%
Sex
Male 5,530 48.16% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 5,952 51.84% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 2,679 23.33% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 7,010 61.05% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 1,793 15.62% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 1,296 31.53% 1,388,564 47.84%
Table 32: Demographics, Placentia
Placentia
(Los Angeles – Long Beach –
Anaheim, CA) Region
Race/Ethnicity # % # %
White, Non-Hispanic 20,906 39.98% 4,056,820 31.62%
Black, Non-Hispanic 631 1.21% 859,086 6.70%
Hispanic 20,292 38.80% 5,700,860 44.44%
Asian/Pacific Island, Non-
Hispanic 9,202 17.60% 1,888,969 14.72%
Native American, Non-Hisp. 20 0.04% 25,102 0.20%
Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 1,205 2.30% 267,038 2.08%
Other, Non-Hispanic 38 0.07% 30,960 0.24%
National Origin
#1 country of origin Mexico 4,959 39.15% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34%
#2 country of origin Philippines 1,489 11.75% Philippines 288,529 2.38%
#3 country of origin India 1,074 8.48% El Salvador 279,381 2.31%
#4 country of origin Vietnam 955 7.54% Vietnam 234,251 1.93%
#5 country of origin Korea 789 6.23% Korea 224,370 1.85%
#6 country of origin
China,
excluding
Hong Kong
and Taiwan 479 3.78% Guatemala 188,854 1.56%
#7 country of origin Taiwan 383 3.02%
China excl.
Hong Kong &
Taiwan 174,424 1.44%
#8 country of origin Argentina 194 1.53% Iran 133,596 1.10%
#9 country of origin Canada 161 1.27% Taiwan 87,643 0.72%
#10 country of origin Iran 156 1.23% India 79,608 0.66%
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Language
545
111
#1 LEP Language
Spanish or
Spanish
Creole 5,022 10.29% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79%
#2 LEP Language Korean 616 1.26% Chinese 239,576 1.98%
#3 LEP Language Vietnamese 570 1.17% Korean 156,343 1.29%
#4 LEP Language Chinese 491 1.01% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22%
#5 LEP Language Tagalog 370 0.76% Armenian 87,201 0.72%
#6 LEP Language Gujarati 287 0.59% Tagalog 86,691 0.72%
#7 LEP Language Japanese 82 0.17% Persian 41,051 0.34%
#8 LEP Language
Other Asian
languages 81 0.17% Japanese 32,457 0.27%
#9 LEP Language Arabic 74 0.15% Russian 28,358 0.23%
#10 LEP Language
Other Pacific
Island
languages 70 0.14% Arabic 23,275 0.19%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 1,509 2.90% 81,297 2.59%
Vision difficulty 724 1.40% 51,196 1.63%
Cognitive difficulty 1,449 3.00% 99,317 3.16%
Ambulatory difficulty 2,425 4.90% 133,232 4.24%
Self-care difficulty 1,193 2.40% 61,615 1.96%
Independent living difficulty 1,725 4.30% 104,705 3.34%
Sex
Male 25,505 48.98% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 26,572 51.02% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 12,193 23.41% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 32,780 62.95% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 7,104 13.64% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 5,831 35.54% 1,388,564 47.84%
Table 33: Demographics, Seal Beach
Seal Beach
(Los Angeles – Long Beach –
Anaheim, CA) Region
Race/Ethnicity # % # %
White, Non-Hispanic 17,782 72.55% 4,056,820 31.62%
Black, Non-Hispanic 337 1.37% 859,086 6.70%
Hispanic 3,001 12.24% 5,700,860 44.44%
Asian/Pacific Island, Non-
Hispanic 2,502 10.21% 1,888,969 14.72%
Native American, Non-Hisp. 26 0.11% 25,102 0.20%
Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 810 3.30% 267,038 2.08%
Other, Non-Hispanic 52 0.21% 30,960 0.24%
National Origin
#1 country of origin Korea 647 17.23% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34%
#2 country of origin Philippines 305 8.12% Philippines 288,529 2.38%
#3 country of origin Canada 292 7.78% El Salvador 279,381 2.31%
#4 country of origin Mexico 291 7.75% Vietnam 234,251 1.93%
#5 country of origin Vietnam 224 5.97% Korea 224,370 1.85%
546
112
#6 country of origin Germany 129 3.44% Guatemala 188,854 1.56%
#7 country of origin Japan 100 2.66%
China excl.
Hong Kong &
Taiwan 174,424 1.44%
#8 country of origin Cuba 98 2.61% Iran 133,596 1.10%
#9 country of origin Thailand 87 2.32% Taiwan 87,643 0.72%
#10 country of origin England 82 2.18% India 79,608 0.66%
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Language
#1 LEP Language Korean 486 2.05% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79%
#2 LEP Language
Spanish or
Spanish
Creole 360 1.52% Chinese 239,576 1.98%
#3 LEP Language Chinese 192 0.81% Korean 156,343 1.29%
#4 LEP Language Vietnamese 125 0.53% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22%
#5 LEP Language Japanese 72 0.30% Armenian 87,201 0.72%
#6 LEP Language German 67 0.28% Tagalog 86,691 0.72%
#7 LEP Language Arabic 60 0.25% Persian 41,051 0.34%
#8 LEP Language
Other West
Germanic
languages 40 0.17% Japanese 32,457 0.27%
#9 LEP Language Russian 36 0.15% Russian 28,358 0.23%
#10 LEP Language Thai 31 0.13% Arabic 23,275 0.19%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 1,558 6.50% 81,297 2.59%
Vision difficulty 700 2.90% 51,196 1.63%
Cognitive difficulty 1,202 5.20% 99,317 3.16%
Ambulatory difficulty 2,567 11.10% 133,232 4.24%
Self-care difficulty 1,000 4.30% 61,615 1.96%
Independent living difficulty 1,371 6.50% 104,705 3.34%
Sex
Male 11,097 45.96% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 13,047 54.04% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 2,917 12.08% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 12,047 49.90% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 9,180 38.02% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 1,532 12.30% 1,388,564 47.84%
Table 34: Demographics, Stanton
Stanton
(Los Angeles – Long Beach –
Anaheim, CA) Region
Race/Ethnicity # % # %
White, Non-Hispanic 7,172 18.56% 4,056,820 31.62%
Black, Non-Hispanic 519 1.34% 859,086 6.70%
Hispanic 19,358 50.09% 5,700,860 44.44%
Asian/Pacific Island, Non-
Hispanic 10,674 27.62% 1,888,969 14.72%
Native American, Non-Hisp. 173 0.45% 25,102 0.20%
Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 709 1.83% 267,038 2.08%
Other, Non-Hispanic 43 0.11% 30,960 0.24%
547
113
National Origin
#1 country of origin Mexico 7,699 44.54% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34%
#2 country of origin Vietnam 5,440 31.47% Philippines 288,529 2.38%
#3 country of origin Korea 944 5.46% El Salvador 279,381 2.31%
#4 country of origin Philippines 538 3.11% Vietnam 234,251 1.93%
#5 country of origin Guatemala 382 2.21% Korea 224,370 1.85%
#6 country of origin El Salvador 307 1.78% Guatemala 188,854 1.56%
#7 country of origin Peru 207 1.20%
China excl.
Hong Kong &
Taiwan 174,424 1.44%
#8 country of origin
China,
excluding
Hong Kong
and Taiwan 167 0.97% Iran 133,596 1.10%
#9 country of origin Sri Lanka 153 0.89% Taiwan 87,643 0.72%
#10 country of origin Bangladesh 99 0.57% India 79,608 0.66%
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Language
#1 LEP Language
Spanish or
Spanish
Creole 7,609 21.26% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79%
#2 LEP Language Vietnamese 4,128 11.54% Chinese 239,576 1.98%
#3 LEP Language Korean 531 1.48% Korean 156,343 1.29%
#4 LEP Language Arabic 152 0.42% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22%
#5 LEP Language Chinese 128 0.36% Armenian 87,201 0.72%
#6 LEP Language Persian 70 0.20% Tagalog 86,691 0.72%
#7 LEP Language Tagalog 53 0.15% Persian 41,051 0.34%
#8 LEP Language
Other Asian
languages 53 0.15% Japanese 32,457 0.27%
#9 LEP Language
Other Indo-
European
languages 49 0.14% Russian 28,358 0.23%
#10 LEP Language Thai 32 0.09% Arabic 23,275 0.19%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 1,291 3.30% 81,297 2.59%
Vision difficulty 691 1.80% 51,196 1.63%
Cognitive difficulty 1,898 5.30% 99,317 3.16%
Ambulatory difficulty 1,952 5.40% 133,232 4.24%
Self-care difficulty 829 2.30% 61,615 1.96%
Independent living difficulty 1,522 5.40% 104,705 3.34%
Sex
Male 19,064 49.45% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 19,487 50.55% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 10,149 26.33% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 24,010 62.28% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 4,392 11.39% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 4,244 38.84% 1,388,564 47.84%
548
114
Table 35: Demographics, Villa Park
Villa Park
(Los Angeles – Long Beach –
Anaheim, CA) Region
Race/Ethnicity # % # %
White, Non-Hispanic 3,998 67.36% 4,056,820 31.62%
Black, Non-Hispanic 80 1.35% 859,086 6.70%
Hispanic 668 11.26% 5,700,860 44.44%
Asian/Pacific Island, Non-
Hispanic 1,001 16.87% 1,888,969 14.72%
Native American, Non-Hisp. 0 0.00% 25,102 0.20%
Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 162 2.73% 267,038 2.08%
Other, Non-Hispanic 26 0.44% 30,960 0.24%
National Origin
#1 country of origin Taiwan 217 20.83% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34%
#2 country of origin India 103 9.88% Philippines 288,529 2.38%
#3 country of origin Vietnam 87 8.35% El Salvador 279,381 2.31%
#4 country of origin
China,
excluding
Hong Kong
and Taiwan 87 8.35% Vietnam 234,251 1.93%
#5 country of origin Korea 85 8.16% Korea 224,370 1.85%
#6 country of origin Mexico 73 7.01% Guatemala 188,854 1.56%
#7 country of origin England 46 4.41%
China excl.
Hong Kong &
Taiwan 174,424 1.44%
#8 country of origin Japan 44 4.22% Iran 133,596 1.10%
#9 country of origin Iran 34 3.26% Taiwan 87,643 0.72%
#10 country of origin Germany 32 3.07% India 79,608 0.66%
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Language
#1 LEP Language Chinese 96 1.65% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79%
#2 LEP Language Korean 83 1.43% Chinese 239,576 1.98%
#3 LEP Language Vietnamese 44 0.76% Korean 156,343 1.29%
#4 LEP Language
Spanish or
Spanish
Creole 22 0.38% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22%
#5 LEP Language
French (incl.
Patois,
Cajun) 19 0.33% Armenian 87,201 0.72%
#6 LEP Language Gujarati 12 0.21% Tagalog 86,691 0.72%
#7 LEP Language Thai 10 0.17% Persian 41,051 0.34%
#8 LEP Language Arabic 8 0.14% Japanese 32,457 0.27%
#9 LEP Language Persian 0 0.00% Russian 28,358 0.23%
#10 LEP Language Tagalog 0 0.00% Arabic 23,275 0.19%
Disability
Hearing difficulty 271 4.60% 81,297 2.59%
Vision difficulty 193 3.30% 51,196 1.63%
Cognitive difficulty 365 6.30% 99,317 3.16%
Ambulatory difficulty 477 8.20% 133,232 4.24%
Self-care difficulty 270 4.70% 61,615 1.96%
Independent living difficulty 384 8.00% 104,705 3.34%
549
115
Sex
Male 2,939 49.52% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 2,996 50.48% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 1,125 18.96% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 3,116 52.50% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 1,694 28.54% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 524 26.23% 1,388,564 47.84%
Table 36: Demographics, Yorba Linda
Yorba Linda
(Los Angeles – Long Beach –
Anaheim, CA) Region
Race/Ethnicity # % # %
White, Non-Hispanic 40,902 60.38% 4,056,820 31.62%
Black, Non-Hispanic 766 1.13% 859,086 6.70%
Hispanic 10,991 16.23% 5,700,860 44.44%
Asian/Pacific Island, Non-
Hispanic 12,641 18.66% 1,888,969 14.72%
Native American, Non-Hisp. 67 0.10% 25,102 0.20%
Two+ Races, Non-Hispanic 2,327 3.44% 267,038 2.08%
Other, Non-Hispanic 46 0.07% 30,960 0.24%
National Origin
#1 country of origin Mexico 1,538 11.90% Mexico 1,735,902 14.34%
#2 country of origin Korea 1,403 10.85% Philippines 288,529 2.38%
#3 country of origin
China,
excluding
Hong Kong
and Taiwan 1,401 10.84% El Salvador 279,381 2.31%
#4 country of origin Taiwan 1,285 9.94% Vietnam 234,251 1.93%
#5 country of origin Vietnam 947 7.32% Korea 224,370 1.85%
#6 country of origin Philippines 784 6.06% Guatemala 188,854 1.56%
#7 country of origin India 672 5.20%
China excl.
Hong Kong &
Taiwan 174,424 1.44%
#8 country of origin Iran 585 4.52% Iran 133,596 1.10%
#9 country of origin Canada 429 3.32% Taiwan 87,643 0.72%
#10 country of origin Indonesia 263 2.03% India 79,608 0.66%
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Language
#1 LEP Language
Spanish or
Spanish
Creole 1,299 2.05% Spanish 2,033,088 16.79%
#2 LEP Language Chinese 1,132 1.78% Chinese 239,576 1.98%
#3 LEP Language Korean 654 1.03% Korean 156,343 1.29%
#4 LEP Language Vietnamese 522 0.82% Vietnamese 147,472 1.22%
#5 LEP Language Persian 285 0.45% Armenian 87,201 0.72%
#6 LEP Language Tagalog 161 0.25% Tagalog 86,691 0.72%
#7 LEP Language Gujarati 118 0.19% Persian 41,051 0.34%
#8 LEP Language Japanese 98 0.15% Japanese 32,457 0.27%
#9 LEP Language Arabic 75 0.12% Russian 28,358 0.23%
#10 LEP Language Armenian 59 0.09% Arabic 23,275 0.19%
550
116
Disability
Hearing difficulty 1,797 2.70% 81,297 2.59%
Vision difficulty 765 1.10% 51,196 1.63%
Cognitive difficulty 1,631 2.50% 99,317 3.16%
Ambulatory difficulty 2,460 3.80% 133,232 4.24%
Self-care difficulty 1,033 1.60% 61,615 1.96%
Independent living difficulty 2,147 4.20% 104,705 3.34%
Sex
Male 33,179 49.12% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female 34,372 50.88% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18 16,120 23.86% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64 40,467 59.91% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+ 10,964 16.23% 1,415,376 11.03%
Familial Status
Families with children 7,825 35.61% 1,388,564 47.84%
Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA Region
Religion
The most common religious group is Roman Catholic. Approximately 797,473 County residents identify
as Roman Catholic, which is 26.49% of the total population. The second most common is
nondenominational, which accounts for 122,205 residents, or 4.06% of the total population. Southern
Baptist Convention and Mormon account for 2.30% and 2.22% of the population respectively. The
remaining religions, which account for less than 1% of the total county population, are Assemblies of God,
Buddhism, Muslim, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Church of Christ.
Table 37: Demographic Trends, Region
1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Race/Ethnicity # % # % # %
White, Non-
Hispanic
5,166,76
8 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
3,914,00
1 34.74% 5,117,049 41.38% 5,700,862 44.44%
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-
Hispanic
1,146,69
1 10.18% 1,651,006 13.35% 2,046,118 15.95%
Native
American, Non-
Hispanic 36,210 0.32% 66,029 0.53% 54,362 0.42%
National
Origin
Foreign-born
3,469,56
7 30.80% 4,299,323 34.77% 4,380,850 34.15%
LEP
551
117
Limited English
Proficiency
2,430,63
0 21.57% 3,132,663 25.33% 3,053,077 23.80%
Sex
Male
5,626,07
7 49.94% 6,107,286 49.39% 6,328,434 49.33%
Female
5,640,05
1 50.06% 6,258,058 50.61% 6,500,403 50.67%
Age
Under 18
2,911,03
1 25.84% 3,518,245 28.45% 3,138,867 24.47%
18-64
7,280,51
7 64.62% 7,641,369 61.80% 8,274,594 64.50%
65+
1,074,58
0 9.54% 1,205,730 9.75% 1,415,376 11.03%
Family Type
Families with
children
1,318,47
3 50.20% 1,143,222 53.64% 1,388,564 47.84%
Over time, the non-Hispanic white population has dropped over time since 1990 both measured both by
percentage change and overall population decline. The white population has dropped by 21.48% since 1990,
and has decreased by 1,109,948 people over that span. The white population has gone from representing
45.86% of the region’s population to representing 31.62% of the region’s population. By contrast, the
Hispanic population in Orange County has grown significantly: 1,786,859 more people identify as Hispanic
currently as compared to 1990, and Hispanic residents now represent 44.44% of the region’s population,
up from 34.74% in 1990. The Asian, non-Hispanic population has also increased over this time period,
albeit at a slower pace than the Hispanic population: 237,963 more residents are non-Hispanic Asians, and
their proportion of the region’s population has increased from 10.18% to 14.72% today. The Black
population has decreased slightly (from 8.62% to 6.70%), while the Native American population has
remained relatively flat (0.32% to 0.20%).
The percentage of population with LEP has seen an increase of approximately 2%. The percentage of the
population that are families with children has decreased slightly, by approximately 2.5% since 1990. The
population of residents under 18 has remained essentially constant. The population of residents from 18-64
has also remained basically constant, while the percentage of those over 65 years of age has increased
slightly (by approximately 1.5%).
552
118
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.
The Cities of Orange, Santa Ana and Tustin are particularly affected. The Black/White index value
for the City of Orange is 42.35, as opposed to a 22.63 Non-White/White index value. Neighboring
Santa Ana has a 50.58 Non-White/White index value, and Tustin 48.19. Hispanic residents are
affected in Santa Ana, with Dissimilarity Index value of 52.62, and Black and Hispanic residents
are especially segregated with values of 66.02 and 57.43, respectively. These measures are relevant
because Hispanic residents are more concentrated in Anaheim and Santa Ana, compared to the rest
of the county.
Black residents face consistently high Dissimilarity Index values, especially compared to Non-
White/White or other populations’ index values. They experience higher levels of segregation in
La Habra, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, Orange and Santa Ana, and especially high levels in
Newport Beach and Tustin, at 67.68 and 66.02, respectively. This is not represented in county-
wide Dissimilarity Index values likely due to Black residents being comparatively more evenly
distributed throughout the county than in individual jurisdictions.
553
119
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 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current
Non-White/White N/A N/A N/A 13.3
Black/White N/A 12.6 12.3 50.89
Hispanic/White N/A 11.6 20.4 22.57
Asian or Pacific Islander/White N/A 6.1 8.1 14.98
Table 3: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Anaheim
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
554
120
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
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
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
555
121
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
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
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
556
122
Table 17: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Rancho Santa Margarita
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend3 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 19: 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 20: 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
Hispanic/White 31.14 48.19 42.55 57.43
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 19.20 17.74 19.76 28.73
Table 21: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Westminster
Racial/Ethnic 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
Non-Entitlement Jurisdictions
Table 22: Dissimilarity Index Values, Brea
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index Current
Non-White/White 11.40
Black/White 28.40
Hispanic/White 21.11
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.49
3 Rancho Santa Margarita was incorporated in 2000 so boundaries prior to incorporation may be different.
557
123
Table 23: Dissimilarity Index Values, Cypress
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index Current
Non-White/White 20.98
Black/White 29.47
Hispanic/White 23.70
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 21.94
Table 24: Dissimilarity Index Values, Dana Point
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index Current
Non-White/White 19.17
Black/White 46.50
Hispanic/White 25.62
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.27
Table 25: Dissimilarity Index Values, La Palma
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index Current
Non-White/White 11.34
Black/White 33.34
Hispanic/White 9.10
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 18.43
Table 26: Dissimilarity Index Values, Laguna Beach
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index Current
Non-White/White 26.11
Black/White 38.23
Hispanic/White 8.37
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 41.49
Table 27: Dissimilarity Index Values, Laguna Hills
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index Current
Non-White/White 18.38
Black/White 50.11
Hispanic/White 26.05
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 19.06
Table 28: Dissimilarity Index Values, Laguna Woods
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index Current
Non-White/White 14.83
Black/White 4.36
Hispanic/White 38.53
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 0.62
558
124
Table 29: Dissimilarity Index Values, Los Alamitos
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index Current
Non-White/White 29.42
Black/White 62.03
Hispanic/White 33.57
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.96
Table 30: Dissimilarity Index Values, Placentia
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index Current
Non-White/White 31.44
Black/White 46.05
Hispanic/White 37.79
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 23.07
Table 31: Dissimilarity Index Values, Seal Beach
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index Current
Non-White/White 10.56
Black/White 35.72
Hispanic/White 16.70
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 26.08
Table 32: Dissimilarity Index Values, Stanton
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index Current
Non-White/White 21.08
Black/White 44.79
Hispanic/White 25.43
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 21.95
Table 33: Dissimilarity Index Values, Villa Park
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index Current
Non-White/White 33.19
Black/White 24.53
Hispanic/White 48.15
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 18.78
Table 34: Dissimilarity Index Values, Yorba Linda
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index Current
Non-White/White 12.82
Black/White 48.13
Hispanic/White 16.94
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 26.56
559
125
b. Explain how these segregation levels have changed over time (since 1990).
In addition to the Dissimilarity Index, social scientists also use the Isolation and Exposure Indices
to measure segregation. These indices, when taken together, capture the neighborhood
demographics experienced, on average, by members of a particular racial or ethnic group within a
city or metropolitan area. The Isolation Index measures what percentage of the census tract in
which a person of a certain racial identity lives is comprised of other persons of that same
racial/ethnic group. Values for the Isolation Index range from 0 to 100. The Exposure Index is a
group's exposure to all racial groups. Values for the Exposure Index also range from 0 to 100. A
larger value means that the average group member lives in a census tract with a higher percentage
of people from another group.
Table 35: Isolation Index Values by Race and Ethnicity, Orange County
Isolation Index Current
White/White 55.16
Black/Black 3.32
Hispanic/Hispanic 52.81
Asian/Asian 31.84
Table 36: Aliso Viejo
Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current
White/White N/A N/A 71.3 62.6 62.94
Black/Black N/A N/A 2.7 2.7 3.97
Hispanic/Hispanic N/A N/A 12.5 21.7 19.52
Asian/Asian N/A N/A 13.5 18.5 16.32
Table 37: Anaheim
Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current
White/White 78.8 62.1 44.9 37.1 35.8
Black/Black 1.8 3.1 3.6 3.6 3.61
Hispanic/Hispanic 28.6 44.8 58.2 61.7 59.25
Asian/Asian 4.4 10.8 16.5 20 22.66
Table 38: Buena Park
Isolation Index 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 39: Costa Mesa
Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current
White/White 84.1 74.8 64.6 59.7 57.38
560
126
Black/Black 1.6 1.8 2 2.1 3.18
Hispanic/Hispanic 14.9 29.3 47.7 49.2 45.35
Asian/Asian 6.4 9.7 12.7 14.3 22.27
Table 40: Fountain 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 41: 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 42: 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 43: Huntington Beach
Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current
White/White 85.4 80.5 74.4 69.8 63.99
Black/Black 1 1.1 1.2 1.7 2.68
Hispanic/Hispanic 9.5 18.3 26.7 26.9 27.39
Asian/Asian 5.9 9.7 12.6 14.8 21.32
Table 44: Irvine
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 45: La Habra
Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current
White/White 76.6 64.7 46.5 34.7 35.40
561
127
Black/Black 0.4 1 1.8 2 1.79
Hispanic/Hispanic 31.2 41.9 55.4 62.7 62.64
Asian/Asian 2.8 5.8 15.4 22.5 18.18
Table 46: Laguna Niguel
Isolation Index 1980 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 47: 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 48: 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 49: Orange (City)
Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current
White/White 82.9 70.3 58.5 50.4 52.18
Black/Black 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.2 2.71
Hispanic/Hispanic 17 30.6 39.7 43.9 44.99
Asian/Asian 3.7 10.2 13.6 15.9 14.10
Table 50: Rancho Santa 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 51: San Clemente
Isolation Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current
White/White 88.4 84.5 80.4 77.1 75.50
562
128
Black/Black 1.2 0.7 1 1 1.62
Hispanic/Hispanic 10 19.3 25.8 22.4 23.44
Asian/Asian 1.7 2.9 4.1 6.1 6.16
Table 52: Santa Ana
Isolation Index 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 53: 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 54: 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
Non-Entitlement Jurisdictions
Table 55: Isolation Index Values, Brea
Isolation Index Current
White/White 48.74
Black/Black 2.19
Hispanic/Hispanic 35.18
Asian/Asian 22.25
Table 56: Isolation Index Values, Cypress
Isolation Index Current
White/White 44.17
Black/Black 4.45
Hispanic/Hispanic 24.03
Asian/Asian 34.45
563
129
Table 57: Isolation Index Values, Dana Point
Isolation Index Current
White/White 72.77
Black/Black 2.46
Hispanic/Hispanic 23.18
Asian/Asian 4.10
Table 58: Isolation Index Values, La Palma
Isolation Index Current
White/White 29.59
Black/Black 6.48
Hispanic/Hispanic 25.33
Asian/Asian 41.14
Table 59: Isolation Index Values, Laguna Beach
Isolation Index Current
White/White 71.88
Black/Black 1.72
Hispanic/Hispanic 8.52
Asian/Asian 26.72
Table 60: Isolation Index Values, Laguna Hills
Isolation Index Current
White/White 62.98
Black/Black 3.52
Hispanic/Hispanic 21.14
Asian/Asian 18.80
Table 61: Isolation Index Values, Laguna Woods
Isolation Index Current
White/White 66.65
Black/Black 0.86
Hispanic/Hispanic 16.17
Asian/Asian 19.24
Table 62: Isolation Index Values, Los Alamitos
Isolation Index Current
White/White 61.96
Black/Black 5.77
Hispanic/Hispanic 26.74
Asian/Asian 13.53
564
130
Table 63: Isolation Index Values, Placentia
Isolation Index Current
White/White 46.15
Black/Black 2.85
Hispanic/Hispanic 50.88
Asian/Asian 21.73
Table 64: Isolation Index Values, Seal Beach
Isolation Index Current
White/White 74.76
Black/Black 5.64
Hispanic/Hispanic 13.55
Asian/Asian 11.55
Table 65: Isolation Index Values, Stanton
Isolation Index Current
White/White 26.47
Black/Black 2.79
Hispanic/Hispanic 48.93
Asian/Asian 31.42
Table 66: Isolation Index Values, Villa Park
Isolation Index Current
White/White 52.00
Black/Black 1.41
Hispanic/Hispanic 50.17
Asian/Asian 17.75
Table 67: Isolation Index Values, Yorba Linda
Isolation Index Current
White/White 59.46
Black/Black 3.00
Hispanic/Hispanic 21.33
Asian/Asian 22.32
Isolation values for different populations vary widely across the county and individual
jurisdictions. Values for White residents are generally higher than for other residents, likely due
to the larger number of White residents overall. In Orange County, W hite residents have an
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.
565
131
There are notable exceptions, however. White residents have especially high Isolation values in
Aliso Viejo, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Rancho
Santa Margarita, and San Clemente. While some of those cities have lower non-White populations,
Lake Forest’s significant Hispanic population suggests that White residents are disproportionately
isolated. San Clemente has the highest White Isolation index value at 75.5. Buena Park has the
lowest at 27.37.
Isolation index values for Black residents are uniformly low. Values are in the single digits, due
to the low Black population across the county. These values have remained low and fairly
consistent since the 1980s, with no noticeable exceptions.
Hispanic residents have experienced the highest Isolation Index value change over the last few
decades. This is partly due to the increasing size of the population in the county. Certain areas have
exceptionally high Hispanic Isolation Index values, however including La Habra at 62.64 and
Santa Ana with 82.04.
Table 68: 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 69: Aliso Viejo
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
566
132
White/Asian 4.1 13.8 23.4 29.2 31.53
Black/Asian 5 14 22 27 25.39
Hispanic/Asian 4.2 13 20.6 25.4 24.21
Table 70: Anaheim
Exposure Index 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
Hispanic/Black 1 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.09
Asian/Black 1.2 2.5 3.2 3.2 2.12
White/Hispanic 14.8 25.2 35.6 40.7 40.09
Black/Hispanic 15.8 29.7 43.1 49.9 50.48
Asian/Hispanic 14.2 24.6 37.8 44.8 44.5
White/Asian 3.9 9.8 15.2 18.6 19.66
Black/Asian 4.1 9.4 15.1 18.1 18.31
Hispanic/Asian 3.1 7.1 10.7 13.8 15.96
Table 71: Buena Park
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 72: 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
567
133
White/Hispanic 9.7 17.6 23.8 27.8 25.99
Black/Hispanic 9.8 19.4 28.9 33.3 26.41
Asian/Hispanic 10.2 19.1 26.7 30 28.27
White/Asian 4.2 6 8.5 9.9 11.69
Black/Asian 4 7 10.5 12.1 19.1
Hispanic/Asian 4.3 5.9 7.1 8.2 11.38
Table 73: Fountain Valley
Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current
Black/White 83.5 70.8 54.9 47 40.9
Hispanic/White 83.4 71.6 55.4 46.4 29.3
Asian/White 83.3 71.8 55.2 45.9 32.95
White/Black 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.2 0.47
Hispanic/Black 0.7 1.1 1.6 1.4 0.47
Asian/Black 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.2 0.35
White/Hispanic 6.8 8 10.1 12.4 16.67
Black/Hispanic 7 9.6 12.7 15.1 23.22
Asian/Hispanic 6.8 8.1 11 13.3 21.16
White/Asian 7 17.2 26.3 33.2 33.5
Black/Asian 7 17.8 29.1 35.5 31.29
Hispanic/Asian 7 17.4 28.8 36.2 37.8
Table 74: Fullerton
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 75: 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
568
134
White/Black 0.8 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.48
Hispanic/Black 0.8 1.4 1.5 1.3 0.92
Asian/Black 0.9 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.89
White/Hispanic 11.5 20.7 27.8 31.3 31.25
Black/Hispanic 13.8 23.7 33 36.9 32.61
Asian/Hispanic 12.7 22.9 30.2 33.9 34.42
White/Asian 5.6 18.4 27.6 32.4 32.34
Black/Asian 6.2 21 31.4 37.7 32.74
Hispanic/Asian 5.4 19.4 30.2 35.6 35.94
Table 76: 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 77: 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
569
135
Table 78: 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
Black/Asian 2.6 4.3 7.4 12.8 9.89
Hispanic/Asian 1.7 3.3 5.2 7.6 8.86
Table 79: Laguna Niguel
Exposure Index 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 80: 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
570
136
Black/Asian n/a n/a 11.5 15.6 14.3
Hispanic/Asian n/a n/a 11.2 14.7 14.02
Table 81: Mission Viejo
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
Black/Hispanic 5.9 8.2 13.5 18.3 15.45
Asian/Hispanic 6 7.9 12.4 17 16.76
White/Asian 2.8 6 9 11.4 10.9
Black/Asian 3.2 6.5 9.8 11.4 10.12
Hispanic/Asian 3.1 6.2 9.4 11.5 10.92
Table 82: Orange (City)
Exposure Index 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 83: 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
571
137
Black/Hispanic n/a 11.6 14 19.3 16.6
Asian/Hispanic n/a 11.6 13 18.4 17.99
White/Asian n/a 8.2 9.2 11.3 9.43
Black/Asian n/a 8.1 9.3 11.5 10.51
Hispanic/Asian n/a 8.2 9.2 11.2 9.77
Table 84: San Clemente
Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 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
Hispanic/Black 1.1 0.6 1 0.9 0.63
Asian/Black 1 0.6 0.9 1 0.76
White/Hispanic 8.2 11.9 13.9 15.7 15.89
Black/Hispanic 10.4 13.8 18.2 17 14.78
Asian/Hispanic 9 12.4 14.5 15.5 14.98
White/Asian 1.5 2.6 3.7 5.4 4.29
Black/Asian 1.6 2.8 3.8 5.7 4.45
Hispanic/Asian 1.6 2.5 3.3 4.9 3.77
Table 85: Santa Ana
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 86: 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
572
138
Hispanic/Black 3 6.3 3.5 2.7 3.49
Asian/Black 2.6 4.6 2.9 2.4 2.56
White/Hispanic 8.5 18.5 23.5 30 25.32
Black/Hispanic 10.2 24 39 42.8 55.54
Asian/Hispanic 8.6 20.1 27.2 33.1 34.8
White/Asian 4 9.8 17.9 23.8 17.08
Black/Asian 4 8.4 15.6 21.4 16.51
Hispanic/Asian 3.9 9.6 13.1 18.5 14.12
Table 87: Westminster
Exposure Index 1980 1990 2000 2010 Current
Black/White 78.8 57.8 38.6 29.6 17.19
Hispanic/White 74.1 52 33.4 24.5 16.4
Asian/White 75 53.8 31.1 21.4 15.21
White/Black 0.7 1 1.2 1.3 0.45
Hispanic/Black 0.6 1 1.1 1.2 0.51
Asian/Black 0.6 1 1 1 0.36
White/Hispanic 11.5 17.3 20 22.6 27.06
Black/Hispanic 11.4 18.7 21.8 25.7 31.71
Asian/Hispanic 12.9 18.8 20.9 21.7 24.54
White/Asian 7.7 20.5 34.1 41.1 53.04
Black/Asian 7.1 21.9 37 42.6 47.49
Hispanic/Asian 8.5 21.6 38.2 45.1 51.88
Non-Entitlement Jurisdictions
Table 88: Exposure Index Values, Brea
Exposure Index Current
Black/White 46.13
Hispanic/White 43.14
Asian/White 47.93
White/Black 1.58
Hispanic/Black 1.55
Asian/Black 1.70
White/Hispanic 25.86
Black/Hispanic 27.13
Asian/Hispanic 24.13
White/Asian 19.99
Black/Asian 20.69
Hispanic/Asian 16.80
573
139
Table 89: Exposure Index Values, Cypress
Exposure Index Current
Black/White 37.56
Hispanic/White 38.58
Asian/White 37.61
White/Black 3.33
Hispanic/Black 3.70
Asian/Black 3.87
White/Hispanic 20.09
Black/Hispanic 21.73
Asian/Hispanic 20.60
White/Asian 28.27
Black/Asian 32.84
Hispanic/Asian 29.74
Table 90: Exposure Index Values, Dana Point
Exposure Index Current
Black/White 75.73
Hispanic/White 68.57
Asian/White 74.73
White/Black 1.09
Hispanic/Black 0.90
Asian/Black 1.09
White/Hispanic 17.05
Black/Hispanic 15.5
Asian/Hispanic 16.48
White/Asian 3.62
Black/Asian 3.64
Hispanic/Asian 3.21
Table 91: Exposure Index Values, La Palma
Exposure Index Current
Black/White 25.73
Hispanic/White 29.45
Asian/White 27.22
White/Black 4.32
Hispanic/Black 4.07
Asian/Black 5.32
White/Hispanic 24.56
Black/Hispanic 20.22
Asian/Hispanic 22.42
White/Asian 37.72
574
140
Black/Asian 43.89
Hispanic/Asian 37.25
Table 92: Exposure Index Values, Laguna Beach
Exposure Index Current
Black/White 74.89
Hispanic/White 70.43
Asian/White 61.60
White/Black 0.99
Hispanic/Black 1.02
Asian/Black 0.62
White/Hispanic 8.24
Black/Hispanic 9.04
Asian/Hispanic 7.78
White/Asian 15.62
Black/Asian 11.99
Hispanic/Asian 16.88
Table 93: Exposure Index Values, Laguna Hills
Exposure Index Current
Black/White 55.88
Hispanic/White 57.65
Asian/White 60.02
White/Black 1.56
Hispanic/Black 2.04
Asian/Black 1.67
White/Hispanic 16.02
Black/Hispanic 20.38
Asian/Hispanic 16.14
White/Asian 16.01
Black/Asian 16.01
Hispanic/Asian 15.49
Table 94: Exposure Index Values, Laguna Woods
Exposure Index Current
Black/White 67.23
Hispanic/White 61.51
Asian/White 66.73
White/Black 0.84
Hispanic/Black 0.72
Asian/Black 0.85
White/Hispanic 10.40
575
141
Black/Hispanic 9.75
Asian/Hispanic 10.31
White/Asian 19.21
Black/Asian 19.40
Hispanic/Asian 17.55
Table 95: Exposure Index Values, Los Alamitos
Exposure Index Current
Black/White 41.47
Hispanic/White 50.85
Asian/White 57.37
White/Black 1.82
Hispanic/Black 3.96
Asian/Black 2.49
White/Hispanic 18.85
Black/Hispanic 33.44
Asian/Hispanic 21.15
White/Asian 12.88
Black/Asian 12.73
Hispanic/Asian 12.81
Table 96: Exposure Index Values, Placentia
Exposure Index Current
Black/White 34.37
Hispanic/White 29.80
Asian/White 39.38
White/Black 1.66
Hispanic/Black 2.07
Asian/Black 1.67
White/Hispanic 31.19
Black/Hispanic 44.89
Asian/Hispanic 34.60
White/Asian 18.16
Black/Asian 15.95
Hispanic/Asian 15.25
Table 97: Exposure Index Values, Seal Beach
Exposure Index Current
Black/White 66.77
Hispanic/White 73.68
Asian/White 73.94
White/Black 1.19
576
142
Hispanic/Black 1.41
Asian/Black 1.34
White/Hispanic 11.68
Black/Hispanic 12.59
Asian/Hispanic 9.56
White/Asian 8.40
Black/Asian 8.56
Hispanic/Asian 6.85
Table 98: Exposure Index Values, Stanton
Exposure Index Current
Black/White 18.65
Hispanic/White 18.94
Asian/White 20.68
White/Black 1.27
Hispanic/Black 1.59
Asian/Black 1.26
White/Hispanic 41.28
Black/Hispanic 50.81
Asian/Hispanic 44.50
White/Asian 28.49
Black/Asian 25.44
Hispanic/Asian 28.13
Table 99: Exposure Index Values, Villa Park
Exposure Index Current
Black/White 46.78
Hispanic/White 34.63
Asian/White 47.94
White/Black 1.15
Hispanic/Black 0.96
Asian/Black 1.30
White/Hispanic 27.92
Black/Hispanic 31.53
Asian/Hispanic 30.59
White/Asian 16.32
Black/Asian 17.96
Hispanic/Asian 12.92
Exposure Index values are for the most part consistent with proportions of populations in
individual jurisdictions. While Non-White/White exposure values are decreasing, exposure to
Hispanic and Asian populations is increasing, and to the Black population is remaining the same.
577
143
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.
578
144
Race/Ethnicity
Map 1: Race/Ethnicity, North Orange County, CA
579
145
Map 2: Race/Ethnicity, Central Orange County, CA
Map 2.1: Hispanic Origin, Central Orange County
580
146
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.
581
147
National Origin
Map 4: National Origin, North Orange County, CA
Map 5: National Origin, North Orange County, CA
582
148
Map 6: National Origin, Central Orange County, CA
Map 7: National Origin, Central Orange County, CA
583
149
Map 8: National Origin, South Orange County, CA
Map 9: National Origin, South Orange County, CA
584
150
There are some clear patterns of settlement based on national origin in Orange County. The maps
above show the largest populations of foreign national origins in both the county overall and in
individual jurisdictions. These maps were formed using the top five largest foreign born
populations in each jurisdiction, but due to the high levels of overlap across jurisdictions, 12
populations total are represented.
In northern Orange County, there is a high Korean population in La Habra and Fullerton. A very
large Vietnamese population exists in the area stretching from Garden Grove into Westminster,
and a Filipino population is most populous in Buena Park and Anaheim. Anaheim, along with
Santa Ana, also contains a large Mexican population, stretching into south Costa Mesa. Mexican
residents are similarly scattered throughout central Orange County, though less are present in
Irvine. Irvine has significant populations of all represented populations, and higher numbers of
residents from the United Kingdom in particular. Mexican residents are especially present in the
areas of Lake Forest, Mission Viejo and Laguna Hills, and central San Juan Capistrano.
d. Consider and describe the location of owner and renter occupied housing in the
jurisdiction and region in determining whether such housing is located in segregated or
integrated areas, and describe trends over time.
Map 10: North Orange County, Housing Tenure
585
151
Map 11: Central Orange County, Housing Tenure
Map 12: South Orange County, Housing Tenure
586
152
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).
587
153
Maps 13 & 14: Race/Ethnicity in 1990
588
154
Maps 15 & 16: Race/Ethnicity in 2000
589
155
Maps 17 & 18: Race/Ethnicity in 2010
590
156
The main trends present in residential patterns in the County are in Asian and Hispanic populations.
Asian and Hispanic populations were small but significant in 1990, and for the most part
constrained to certain sections of the Central part of the County. This was mostly in the vicinity of
Garden Grove and Westminster. By the 2000s, the Hispanic population began growing more
rapidly in Anaheim, and Hispanic and Asian populations grew more rapidly into other northern
parts of the county, including in Buena Park and Fullerton. There are fewer visible changes in
residential patterns from 2000 to 2010.
Additional Information
Beyond the HUD-provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about
segregation in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other protected
characteristics.
HUD does not provide and the Census Bureau does not collect data concerning religious affiliation,
but religion remains a prohibited basis for discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. Although
the data discussed above with respect to national origin and LEP status can provide some insight
into residential patterns with respect to religion given correlations between language, national
origin, and religion, the resulting picture is merely a rough prox y. It is also a proxy that does not
genuinely capture minority religious communities whose members are less likely to be recent
immigrants.
The tables below, from USC’s Center for Religion and Civic Culture, indicates the number of each
type of religious center located in the county’s jurisdictions. These numbers roughly correlate to
residential patterns based on race/ethnicity and national origin. Areas with higher numbers of
Buddhist or Hindu centers, including Anaheim, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and
Irvine, indicate more Asian or Pacific Islander residents or residents of Asian descent in those
jurisdictions.
Table 100: Religious Centers, Orange 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-
INTERRELIGIOUS
1 1
OTHER-JAPANESE 5 3
PENTECOSTAL 1
591
157
PROTESTANT 12 452 143 177 70 266
Grand Total 15 628 173 245 100 343
Table 101: 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-
INTERRELIGIOUS
OTHER-JAPANESE
PENTECOSTAL
PROTESTANT 301 180 150 124 16 39
Grand Total 413 232 228 144 17 54
Table 102: 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
592
158
Table 103: 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
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
593
159
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.
594
160
Map 1: R/ECAPs in Orange County
595
161
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%
#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%
596
162
#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).
597
163
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.
598
164
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.
599
165
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
600
166
● 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
601
167
iii. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
The following section describes locational differences and disparities experienced by different
groups in accessing key features of opportunity: educational quality, economic factors,
transportation, and environmental health. Access to neighborhoods with higher levels of
opportunity can be more difficult due to discrimination and when there may not be a sufficient
range and supply of housing in such neighborhoods. In addition, the continuing legacy of
discrimination and segregation can impact the availability of quality infrastructure, educational
resources, environmental protections, and economic drivers, all of which can create disparities in
access to opportunity.
Three opportunity indices (economic, educational, and environmental) use data assembled by the
California Fair Housing Task Force on behalf of the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) for the 2020
TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map4. The Economic Opportunity Index is a composite of four
indicators5 depicting elements of neighborhood socio-economic character. The Environmental
Opportunity Index reflects indicators6 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 indicators7 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 Count y8, and with higher values indicating higher
levels of opportunity.
The two transportation indicators (transit trips and low transportation cost) analyzed below employ
data from version 3.0 of the Location Affordability Index (LAI)9. The transit trips index measures
how often low-income families in a neighborhood use public transportation. The index ranges
from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating a higher likelihood that residents in a neighborhood
utilize public transit. The low transportation cost index measures cost of transportation and
proximity to public transportation by neighborhood. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores
point to lower transportation costs in that neighborhood.
4 Data files and methodology details available for download here:
https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp
5 The Economic Opportunity Index summarizes the following four indicators: (1) Poverty: % of population with
income above 200% of federal poverty line (2013 -17 ACS); (2) Adult Education: % of adults with a bachelor’s
degree or above (2013-17 ACS); (3) Employment: % of adults aged 20-64 who are employed in civilian labor force
or in armed forces (2013-17 ACS); (4) Jobs proximity: number of jobs filled by workers with less than a BA that
fall within a given radius of each census tract population -weighted centroid (2017 LEHD LODES). See
methodology document for further details.
6 See methodology document for additional details. Also note that because higher pollution exposure and effects
reflects a negative outcome, the final composite environmental index is inverted to ensure that higher index values
denote higher opportunity.
7 (1) Math and Reading Proficiency: % of 4th graders who meet/exceed literacy or math standards; (2)
Graduation: % of students who graduate high school in 4 years; (3) Student Poverty: % of students not receiving
free or reduced-price lunch. All indicators use data from 2017 -18 CA DOE.
8 Similarly, data computed for LA County (for regional comparisons) are scaled to census tracts in LA County.
9 Data available for download here: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/location-affordability-index/
602
168
a. 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
and Westminster are other cities that struggle with educational opportunity, all with scores in the
30s to 40s on the composite education index.
Finally, a few cities have educational opportunity patterns that mirror those of Orange County
overall. Non-Hispanic Whites in Fountain Valley have high exposure to educational opportunity
(scores of about 60), whereas Hispanics in the city do not (30). In both Fullerton and Tustin, Non-
Hispanic Whites and Asians have much higher access than do Blacks and Hispanics.
2. For the protected class group(s) HUD has provided data, describe how the
disparities in access to education relate to residential living patterns in the
jurisdiction and region.
Jurisdictions that score low on the education opportunity index exhibit different residential
patterns. For instance, Santa Ana has high concentrations of Hispanics and a ve ry 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.
603
169
b. Environmental Opportunities
1. For the protected class group(s) HUD has provided data, describe any disparities
in access to environmental opportunity in the jurisdiction and region.
Countywide, there are disparities across racial/ethnic groups in access to environmental
opportunities, measured as lower exposure to and effects from pollution. Across all tracts in
Orange County, non-Hispanic Whites exhibit the highest access to environmentally healthy
neighborhoods (index score of about 54). All other racial/ethnic groups obtain lower index scores
in the 40s: Hispanics score lowest at 41, followed by non-Hispanic Blacks (45), non-Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander (47), and non-Hispanic Native American (48).
Several jurisdictions score especially highly on environmental opportunity across all racial
categories. Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Mission Viejo, and Rancho Santa Margarita all have
index scores in the 70s to 90s for all racial and ethnic groups. Fountain Valley and Huntington
Beach also have higher access to environmental health, scoring in the 50s to low-70s on the index.
Other cities are low-scoring across the board. Orange City, La Habra, and Fullerton are the least
environmentally healthy, with index scores in the 20s. Anaheim, Buena Park, Irvine, Santa Ana,
and Westminster also have low access to environmental opportunity, scoring in the 30s to 40s on
the index.
Other cities have disparate environmental scores between races. One such jurisdiction is Costa
Mesa, in which Hispanics, non-Hispanic Whites, and non-Hispanic Native Americans score the
highest (50s), while non-Hispanic Blacks (44) and non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islanders (35) score
lower. Another such city is Tustin, with non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics scoring the lowest
(20s/30s) and non-Hispanic Whites the highest (55).
2. For the protected class group(s) HUD has provided data, describe how the
disparities in access to environmental opportunity relate to residential living
patterns in the jurisdiction and region.
Jurisdictions with the highest environmental opportunity appear to have primarily large
concentrations of non-Hispanic Whites and Asian/Pacific Islanders. Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo,
Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach are good examples of cities with large populations of those
two groups. Other high opportunity cities, by contrast appear more segregated and more heavily
populated by non-Hispanic Whites. Rancho Santa Margarita and Mission Viejo are two examples
of such places.
Lower-scoring cities exhibit a diversity of residential patterns. For example, Orange (city) has
concentrations of both Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. Similarly, Fullerton has
concentrations of Hispanic neighborhoods as well as non-Hispanic Whites and Asian/Pacific
Islanders. Anaheim and La Habra follow a similar pattern. By contrast, Santa Ana is a city with
low environmental quality that is characterized almost exclusively by dense concentrations of
Hispanics.
604
170
c. Economic Opportunities
1. For the protected class groups HUD has provided data, describe any disparities in
access to economic opportunity by protected class groups in the jurisdiction and
region.
In Orange County, there are significant disparities in access to economic opportunity. Non -
Hispanic White residents have the greatest access to economic opportunity. Asian and Pacific
Islander residents (49), Native Americans (46), and Black residents (46) have lower index scores
in the high to mid-40s. Hispanic residents (32) have the lowest access to economic opportunity of
all racial and ethnic groups in Orange County. Among residents living below the poverty line,
there are significant disparities between groups. White residents have the highest economic
opportunity score (30) followed by Black residents (27) and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
(23). Poor Native Americans and Hispanic residents have the lowest economic opportunity scores
(19).
There are major disparities in economic opportunity scores across racial/ethnic groups in other
cities in the County. Generally, Asian and White residents tend to have the highest index scores in
these cities. For instance, Tustin has very high scores for non-Hispanic White residents (77) as
well as Asian residents (67) but Black and Hispanic residents have significantly lower scores (in
the 40s). In Fullerton, Asian residents have the highest score (64) while Black residents have a
score of 44 and Hispanic residents have a score of 37. In Santa Ana, White residents have the
highest score (41) while Hispanics have the lowest (18). Costa Mesa has relatively high access to
economic opportunity for all groups (high 50s to high 60s) but Hispanic residents have a
significantly lower score (42). In La Habra, economic opportunity scores are relatively low for all
groups (30s and 40s) but White residents have significantly higher scores than other racial/ethnic
groups. Other jurisdictions with relatively large disparities by protected class groups include
Anaheim, Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Lake Forest, and Orange City. In these cities, Hispanic
residents have significantly lower access to economic opportunity than other racial/ethnic groups.
A number of jurisdictions have relatively little disparity between groups. There are high economic
opportunity scores for all racial and ethnic groups in Aliso Viejo and Irvine (high 60s to low 70s),
although there are large disparities across racial/ethnic groups for the population living below the
poverty line in Irvine. La Palma also has relatively high opportunity and little variation in scores
between groups (index values ranging from 60 to 66). Huntington Beach, Laguna Niguel, Mission
Viejo, and Rancho Santa Margarita have moderate economic opportunity scores for all
racial/ethnic groups (scores from the mid-40s to mid-50s). San Clemente has moderately low
economic opportunity scores with little difference between groups (scores ranging from 40-46).
There is low access to economic opportunity for all racial and ethnic groups in Garden Grove
(index scores range from 9-25) and Westminster (scores in the 10s).
a. For the protected class groups HUD has provided data, describe how disparities
in access to employment relate to residential living patterns in the jurisdiction and
region
605
171
Economic Opportunity Index scores are generally lower in North Orange County than in South
Orange County. Scores are especially low in Westminster, Garden Grove, and much of Santa Ana
and Anaheim. Scores are generally high in much of Irvine, La Palma, and Tustin and along the
coast from Newport Beach to Laguna Niguel as well as in unincorporated areas near the eastern
border with Riverside County.
Areas in Orange County with the highest index scores tend to have large concentrations of non -
Hispanic and Asian residents. By contrast, areas with the highest concentration of Hispanic
residents tend to have lower economic index scores. Cities such as Fullerton and Costa Mesa are
examples of localities with segregated living patterns and significant disparities between racial and
ethnic groups. Neighborhoods in these cities with higher Hispanic populations score lower than
neighborhoods that are heavily populated by non-Hispanic and Asian residents.
d. Transportation
1. For the protected class groups HUD has provided data, describe any disparities in
access to transportation related to costs and access to public transit in the
jurisdiction and region.
As previously mentioned, higher scores on the low transportation cost index indicate greater access
to low cost transportation. When analyzing Orange County as a whole, non-Hispanic Whites have
the lowest scores (34). Asians and Pacific Islanders as well as Native Americans have a score of
38. Black residents have a score of 39 while Hispanic residents have the highest score (42).
Regionally, low transportation cost index scores are similar for all racial and ethnic groups. Non-
Hispanic Whites and Native Americans both have a score of 19, Asians/Pacific Islanders as well
as Hispanics have a score of 20, and Black residents have a score of 21.
There are no significant disparities between racial/ethnic groups in the low transportat ion cost
index in most jurisdictions in Orange County. Index scores are in the 20s for all groups in Laguna
Niguel, Mission Viejo, and San Clemente. Scores are in the low to mid 30s for all racial/ethnic
groups in Buena Park, Lake Forest, La Palma, Orange City. Scores are in the high 30s to low 40s
for all groups in Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Irvine,
Huntington Beach, La Habra. Scores are moderate (in the high 40s to low 50s) across groups in
Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, and Westminster.
In both Tustin and Rancho Santa Margarita, White and Asian residents have significantly lower
scores on the low transportation cost index compared to Black and Hispanic residents. These
patterns are similar to those of Orange County overall.
Transit index scores do not vary significantly by racial or ethnic group in most jurisdictions in
Orange County. Scores are moderate for all groups in Santa Ana with every group having a score
in the low 50s. Scores are moderately low (30s to 40s) across the board in Anaheim, Buena Park,
Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, La
Palma, Orange City, and Westminster. Transit use is extremely low (scores of 3 and lower) for all
groups in Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, San
606
172
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). Count ywide, 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 i n jurisdictions with
greater levels of density. Generally, North Orange County cities have a variety of residential living
patterns with varying levels of density. Additionally, some jurisdictions have highly segregated
living patterns while others have a mix of multiple racial and ethnic groups across neighborhoods.
Jurisdictions and neighborhoods with greater concentrations of non-Hispanic White residents tend
to have lower transit index scores and transportation cost index scores.
South Orange County has a greater concentration of non-White Hispanic residents and has lower
levels of transit service than North Orange County. This pattern likely contributes to disparities in
transportation cost index and transit index scores between non-Hispanic Whites and other racial
and ethnic groups in South Orange County jurisdictions and countywide.
e. Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity
1. For the protected class groups HUD has provided data, identify and discuss any
overarching patterns of access to opportunity and exposure to adverse community
factors. Include how these patterns compare to patterns of segregation, integration,
and R/ECAPs. Describe these patterns for the jurisdiction and region
Generally, access to opportunity is highest for non-Hispanic Whites and Asians/Pacific Islanders
in Orange County. By contrast, access to opportunity is generally lower for Black residents than
for non-Hispanic Whites and Asians and access is lowest for Hispanics. Metrics are lower on
average in census tracts with more of each of these groups. Geographically, access to economic,
environmental, and educational opportunity is generally lowest in portions of North Orange
County. Anaheim, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Westminster all have relatively low scores
across various dimensions of opportunity. Access to opportunity is also low in San Juan
Capistrano. However, access to transportation is generally better in North Orange County than in
South Orange County.
607
173
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
Islander, Non-
Hispanic 35.78163528 45.57190704 28.93398666 38.00388718 40.76144028
608
174
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
Islander, Non-
Hispanic 41.90719986 39.55010986 39.26160431 35.59976578 37.79622269
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic 81.6641922 33.69506073 49.20370483 31.88211632 37.17000198
609
175
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
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
610
176
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
Islander, Non-
Hispanic
64.09486389 25.70118332 65.7769165 35.43569183 35.37657928
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
"Educational
Opportunity
Index"
"Low
Transportatio
n Cost Index"
Transit Index
611
177
Opportunity
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
Islander, Non-
Hispanic
22.66533279 47.17929077 37.85955429 40.4188385 39.69983673
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
612
178
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
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
613
179
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
Islander, Non-
Hispanic
57.39865494 49.95420074 61.21666336 20.27166367 23.09456062
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
614
180
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
Islander, Non-
Hispanic
42.89958572 90.35707855 72.27500153 34.07725906 2.88683486
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
615
181
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
Islander, Non-
Hispanic
51.61265182 53.55771637 59.62294769 32.0095787 2.971857309
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic
45.60740662 53.91375732 59.4603157 34.44470978 3.268085241
616
182
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
Islander, Non-
Hispanic
50.18946457 76.0255127 75.70388031 27.29961014 2.231768131
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
617
183
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
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
618
184
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
Islander, Non-
Hispanic
52.71126556 76.4618454 74.23796082 25.72115326 1.882683992
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
619
185
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
Islander, Non-
Hispanic
36.40293121 78.38371277 26.14299583 19.77955627 0.901919305
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
620
186
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
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
621
187
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
Islander, Non-
Hispanic
67.04686737 46.94258499 49.78988266 44.89656067 48.62200546
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
622
188
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
Islander, Non-
Hispanic
12.96408653 44.58031464 32.6651535 44.92889404 37.62247467
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic
25.30000114 48.70000076 52.20000076 45.22904587 41.23970032
Map 1: Economic Opportunity Index, North Orange County
623
189
Map 2: Economic Opportunity Index, South Orange County
624
190
Map 3: Educational Opportunity Index, North Orange County
625
191
Map 4: Educational Opportunity Index, South Orange County
626
192
Map 5: Environmental Opportunity Index, North Orange County
627
193
Map 6: Environmental Opportunity Index, South Orange County
628
194
Map 7: Transportation Cost Index, North Orange County
629
195
Map 8: Transportation Cost Index, South Orange County
630
196
Map 9: Transit Trips Index, North Orange County
631
197
Map 10: Transit Trips Index, South Orange County
632
198
iv. Disproportionate Housing Needs 10
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;11 and 4) household is cost burdened”12. Households are
considered to have a housing problem if they experience at least one of the above. This analysis
also considers what HUD designates as severe housing problems, which are a lack of kitchen or
plumbing, more than one person per room, or cost burden greater than 50%.
10 The AFFH rule defines “disproportionate housing needs” as “a condition in which there are significant disparities
in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a catego ry 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
11 Households having more than 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room are considered overcrowded and those having more
than 1.51 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. The person per room analysis excludes
bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half-rooms.
12 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp/CHAS/bg_chas.html
633
199
Housing Problems
Table 1: Housing Problems, Orange County13
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%
13 Please note that the extrapolation of HUD data may result in variances and rounding errors.
634
200
Black, Non-Hispanic 3774 16,719 22.57%
Hispanic 59920 241,841 24.78%
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%
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%
635
201
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
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%
636
202
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%
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%
637
203
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%
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%
638
204
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
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%
639
205
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
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%
640
206
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%
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%
641
207
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%
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%
642
208
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%
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%
643
209
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
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%
644
210
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%
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%
645
211
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%
Family households, 5+ people 2325 3285 70.78%
Non-family households 2240 4600 48.70%
646
212
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
White, Non-Hispanic 430 1,619 26.56%
Black, Non-Hispanic 150 370 40.54%
Hispanic 320 709 45.13%
647
213
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%
648
214
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%
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-
Hispanic 325 2,350 13.83%
Native American, Non-Hispanic 15 85 17.65%
649
215
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%
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%
650
216
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
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%
651
217
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%
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%
652
218
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
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%
653
219
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 0%
Total 6,839 16,704 40.94%
Household Type and Size
Family households, <5 people 4000 11285 35.45%
Family households, 5+ people 745 1720 43.31%
Non-family households 2250 3975 56.60%
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!
654
220
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
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%
655
221
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%
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%
656
222
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
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%
657
223
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%
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%
Non-family households 1809 13590 13.31%
658
224
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%
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-
Hispanic 969 6,089 15.91%
Native American, Non-Hispanic 0 120 0.00%
659
225
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 listed in San Juan
Capistrano. It may be that this figure was lower than the margin of error, so figures with low or no
households should carry less weight in indicating frequency of problems. However, the County
data overall gives an idea of housing needs for smaller populations.
In the County, 45.84% of residents overall face at least 1 of 4 housing problems. White and Asian
or Pacific Islander residents have slightly lower rates of housing problems, at 38.22% and 45.26%
respectively, while Black residents have a slightly higher rate of 48.29%. Hispanic residents have
the highest rates at 63.16% countywide. Native American residents have a rate similar to the
average at 48.74%, but the low populations of Native American residents across jurisdictions may
lead to misleading data (which is why they are not as frequently discussed here). Housing problems
are found in differing rates across family types, with 39.66% for families of 5 or less, 65.59% for
families of 5 or more, and 50.53% for non-family households.
Housing problems occur more frequently in more populated areas of the County, including in
Anaheim and Santa Ana in particular. There are some more obvious discrepancies in rates of
housing problems across different demographic groups. Black residents in Aliso Viejo experience
housing problems at a rate of 61.84%, in Orange (city) at 68.87%, in Tustin at 62.40%, and in
Buena Park at 54.49%. Hispanic residents experience rates of housing problems that are high
overall, but significantly higher in central and southern Orange County, at 72.57% in Santa Ana,
71.19% in Tustin, and 70.28% in San Juan Capistrano. Asian residents generally experience
average or lower rates of housing problems, with exceptions in Garden Grove and Santa Ana,
where they experience housing problems at rates of 55.94% and 54.62% respectively.
Rates of severe housing problems are overall low er than housing problems at 27.10%, but more
drastic discrepancies exist compared to the white population. White residents face severe housing
problems at a rate of 19.29%. Black residents experience them at a rate of 28.81%, Hispanic
residents at 44.55%, Asian or Pacific Islander residents at 26.99%, and Native American residents
at 24.97%. Rates of severe housing problems are especially high in parts of Orange County,
including Anaheim, Buena Park, Garden Grove, Orange, San Juan Capistrano, and Santa Ana.
660
226
Black residents experience severe housing problems at rates of 36.84% in Aliso Viejo and 44.34%
in Orange (city). Hispanic residents face severe housing problems at significantly high rates of
49.60% in Anaheim, 60.55% in San Juan Capistrano, and 50.81% in Tustin, but also higher than
average in Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, La Habra, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Orange
and San Clemente. Asian residents face noticeably high rates of severe housing problems in
Garden Grove, at 36.78%.
Severe housing cost burden is a large but not as frequent problem for residents in Orange County.
The average rate of residents experiencing severe housing cost burden is 19.70% across the county.
Overall, White residents have a rate of 17.30%, Black residents 22.57%, Hispanic residents
24.78%, Asian American or Pacific Islander residents 19.82%, and Native American residents
19.83%. Families of 5 or less have a rate of 13.8%, families of 5 or more 16.95%, and non-family
households 14.39%. Discrepancies across race/ethnicity or family type are much lower than for
housing problems or severe housing problems in the County. Black and Hispanic residents still
face higher than average rates of severe housing cost burdens in some individual jurisdictions,
however. In Orange (city), Black residents experience severe housing cost burden at a rate of
36.79%. Hispanic residents experience rates of housing cost burden at 39.58% in Buena Park , and
39.27% in San Juan Capistrano.
Table 17: Percentage of Overcrowded Households by Race or Ethnicity, 2013-2017
American Community Survey
Geography White,
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%
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%
661
227
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?
662
228
Map 1: Housing Problems in North Orange County, Race
663
229
Map 2: Housing Problems in Central Orange County, Race
664
230
Map 3: Housing Problems in South Orange County, Race
665
231
Map 4: Housing Problems in North Orange County, National Origin
666
232
Map 5: Housing Problems in Central Orange County, National Origin
667
233
Map 6: Housing Problems in South Orange County, National Origin
668
234
Map 7: Housing Problems in North Orange County, National Origin
669
235
Map 8: Housing Problems in Central Orange County, National Origin
670
236
Map 9: Housing Problems in South Orange County, National Origin
671
237
Patterns in housing problems described earlier are present in the maps above. While housing
problems are generally evenly dispersed throughout the County, there are some exceptions, which
tend to have higher numbers of Hispanic residents. This is seen in the high number of Hispanic
residents in Anaheim and Santa Ana, both of which have slightly higher percentages of housing
problems. In Central Orange County, east Fountain Valley also has higher percentages of
households with housing problems in areas with higher numbers of Hispanic residents. The same
is the case for Hispanic residents in San Juan Capistrano, Lake Forest and Laguna Woods. While
the charts above suggested that Black residents similarly had higher rates of housing problems
than White and Asian residents, those patterns are more difficult to view in maps due to the lower
population of Black residents overall.
Asian or Pacific Islander residents generally live in areas with fewer housing problems, with one
notable exception. Garden Grove, which has slightly higher rates of housing problems than its
surroundings, also has a noticeably high population of Asian or Pacific Islander residents.
These patterns are further explained by national origin maps. Map 4 shows that high numbers of
Vietnamese residents are found in Garden Grove, which does have slightly higher rates of housing
problems. Filipino residents in the areas between Buena Park and Anaheim, similarly reside in
areas with higher rates of housing problems. The same holds for Filipino residents in Lake Forest
and Laguna Hills, as seen in Map 6. Mexican residents have the most noticeable pattern of living
in areas with higher rates of housing problems. Mexican residents in Santa Ana, Anaheim, Costa
Mesa, and San Juan Capistrano live in areas with higher rates of housing problems, as seen in
Maps 7, 8 and 9.
Additional Information
Beyond the HUD-provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about
disproportionate housing needs in the jurisdiction and Region affecting groups with other
protected characteristics.
The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of
disproportionate housing needs. For PHAs, such information may include a PHA’s overriding
housing needs analysis.
Contributing Factors of Disproportionate Housing 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
● Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities
672
238
● Land use and zoning laws
● Lending discrimination
● Loss of affordable housing
● Source of income discrimination
673
239
C. PUBLICLY SUPPORTED HOUSING ANALYSIS
Overview of Housing Authorities in Orange County
Orange County Housing Authority
The Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) operates numerous special housing programs.
The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program provides subsidies to help qualifying participants
pay for homeownership expenses. The Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program helps HCV
program participants gain employment to support themselves and their families by working with
other agencies for employment assistance. The Family Unification Program (FUP) promotes
family unification by providing HCV assistance specifically to families for whom housing
represents a barrier to children and parents living together. The Non-Elderly Disabled (NED)
program provides HCV for non-elderly disabled families with demonstrated need for supportive
services. Finally, the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program, run jointly through
the Department of Housing and the Department of Veteran Affairs, provides housing subsidies
and other services to homeless veterans with mental and addictive disorders.
Most HCV programs are offered with a focus on guaranteeing freedom of choice as to where
families can live or use HCV program assistance. Some additional HCV “Project-Based” vouchers
are also available with HCV vouchers tied to specific housing units.
Anaheim Housing Authority
The Anaheim Housing Authority (AHA) operates multiple housing programs. The Anaheim
Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program allows participating families to move into units of their
choice so long as property owners agree to participate in the HCV program. They also operate a
Project-Based Voucher (PBV) program that provides rental assistance at specific complexes within
the city. The AHA also maintains an affordable housing list for individuals and families looking
to rent units at an affordable rate.
Additionally, the AHA operates several programs run through the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program
delivers funding to agencies and businesses that provide benefits to low-and-moderate income
persons. The Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) program funds non -profit organizations
sponsoring projects for low-and-moderate income persons. The HOME Investments Partnerships
program provides funding for local government for plans designed to increase the supply of
affordable housing. Finally the Housing Opportunity for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program
provides funding for low-to-moderate income persons living with HIV or AIDS.
Garden Grove Housing Authority
The Garden Grove Housing Authority (GGHA) operates several housing programs. GGHA
maintains information for landlords and tenants on their website. Additionally, GGHA operates a
rental subsidy program (HCV) for eligible participants based on income. Finally, applicants who
674
240
have qualified for housing assistance in Garden Grove are permitted to maintain assistance through
mobility and portability programs when such an applicant leaves the city of Garden Grove.
Santa Ana Housing Authority
The Santa Ana Housing Authority (SAHA) operates several housing programs. SAHA operates
an HCV program for Housing Choice Vouchers within the City. Additionally, SAHA operates a
project-based voucher program with HCV vouchers tied to specific complexes within the City.
SAHA also has numerous resources for landlords and tenants, including a database of affordable
housing and pocket resources for homeless services.
SAHA was also recently recognized by HUD for the work done by the “Foster Youth to
Independence Initiative” which targets housing assistance to young people aging out of foster care
who are at extreme risk of experiencing homelessness. This project was done in tandem with the
United Way.
1. Analysis
a. Publicly Supported Housing Demographics
The Publicly Supported Housing section analyzes federally funded affordable housing and other
types of affordable housing, to determine whether the level of need is being met and whether
patterns of affordable housing siting concentrate minorities in low opportunity areas, among other
things. In Orange County, each category of publicly supported housing (public housing, Project -
Based Section 8, Other Multifamily Housing, Housing Choice Vouchers, and Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit [LIHTC] units) is represented, although that representation varies greatly
depending on the individual municipality. Affordable housing (including LIHTC) makes up 5%
or less of the total housing stock in all but six of the entitlement jurisdictions in this 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 County14
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%
14 Data from Inventory Management System (IMS)/PIH Information Center (PIC ),
https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-(AFFHT0004a)-March-2018.pdf
675
241
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 -
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
676
242
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
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%
677
243
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%
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%
678
244
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%
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
679
245
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 -
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 -
680
246
LIHTC 215 1.67%
Table 21: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Santa Ana
Housing Units # %
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
681
247
(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%
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% 333,080 7.88% 1,405,070 33.25% 629,349 14.89%
0-30% of AMI 215,775 29.59% 86,225 11.83% 305,885 41.95% 105,314 14.44%
682
248
0-50% of AMI 343,565 26.07% 135,740 10.30% 587,685 44.60% 175,814 13.34%
0-80% of AMI 590,895 28.77% 195,155 9.50% 905,370 44.09% 272,549 13.27%
Table 25: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, Aliso Viejo 15
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%
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%
15 HUD-provided demographic data for residents of publicly supported housing in Aliso Viejo was not available, but
data from CTAC reflecting the demographics of LIHTC residents is reflected above.
683
249
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%
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%
684
250
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%
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%
685
251
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%
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%
686
252
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%
Table 35: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, La Palma 16
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%
16 As with Aliso Viejo, HUD-provided demographic data for residents of publicly supported housing was not
available for La Palma.
687
253
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%
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%
2,47
7 6.48%
688
254
0-30% of AMI 3,130 78.54% 0 0.00% 400 10.04% 404 10.14%
0-50% of AMI 4,940 70.07% 0 0.00% 730 10.35% 653 9.26%
0-80% of AMI 8,355 74.90% 40 0.36% 1,030 9.23% 893 8.01%
Table 40: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, 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%
689
255
Table 42: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics, San Clemente
San Clemente White Black Hispanic
Asian or
Pacific Islander
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
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 Capistrano17
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%
0-80% of AMI 5,370 11.10% 685 1.42% 35,940 74.29% 5,523 11.42%
17 As with Aliso Viejo and La Palma, HUD-provided demographic data for residents of publicly supported housing
in San Juan Capistrano was not available.
690
256
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%
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
691
257
Multifamily Housing, White residents make up a majority in Irvine and a supermajority in
Fullerton and Orange County. By far, Housing Choice Voucher households are the most evenly
distributed across racial/ethnic groups. Asian American or Pacific Islanders make up a
supermajority of HCV units in Westminster, Fountain Valley, and Garden Grove, and a majority
in Santa Ana. They also make up a plurality in Orange County, followed closely by White
residents. White residents make up a supermajority in Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, San
Clemente, and Newport Beach, a majority in Lake Forest, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Costa
Mesa, and a plurality in Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Irvine, and Orange (City, followed closely
by Hispanics). Hispanics make up a plurality of HCV residents in Anaheim, Buena Park, and
Tustin, and a majority of residents in La Habra. LIHTC developments are also quite diverse, with
Hispanics predominating in Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton, Lake Forest, Orange (City), Santa
Ana, and Tustin, and Asian American or Pacific Islanders predominating in Garden Grove, La
Palma, and Westminster, and bringing up a close second in Fountain Valley; the other cities have
predominantly-White LIHTC demographics.
ii. Compare the racial/ethnic demographics of each program category of publicly
supported housing for the jurisdiction to the demographics of the same program
category in the region.
In the region, there are several important differences in occupancy between various types of
publicly supported housing. Firstly, there is Public Housing in the broader Los Angeles-Long Beach-
Anaheim region, which is predominantly Hispanic, with Black residents making up the next highest
share (at a rate that far outstrips the general population). Project-Based Section 8 Housing in the
region is fairly evenly spread out across racial/ethnic group, with the largest group (Asian
American or Pacific Islanders) making up only 31%. Other Multifamily units are less diverse, and
split fairly evenly between White (33%) and Asian American or Pacific Islander (36%) residents,
with Hispanic (21%) and Black (9%) residents trailing farther behind. Housing Choice Voucher
and LIHTC data are not available at the regional level.
iii. Compare the demographics, in terms of protected class, of residents of each program
category 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.
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
692
258
Choice Voucher program that exclude undocumented immigrants. By contrast, the LIHTC
program does not bar undocumented immigrants. Asian American or Pacific Islanders tend to be
either proportionally represented or overrepresented across types of publicly supported housing,
with the greatest overrepresentation in Project-Based Section 8 developments. Black residents
make up a disproportionate share of Housing Choice Voucher holders but participate in other
programs in proportion to their share of the income-eligible population.
There are a few cities with somewhat more stark contrasts between the income-eligible population
and the occupancy of particular types of publicly supported housing. In Anaheim, Black residents
make up a disproportionate share of occupants of all types of publicly supported housing, not just
of Housing Choice Voucher holders. In Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove,
and Westminster, the proportion of Project-Based Section 8 residents that is Asian or Pacific
Islander is particularly extreme. In Costa Mesa, White residents are highly overrepresented in
Project-Based Section 8 housing, which includes a 204-unit predominantly-white senior housing
development. In Fullerton, White residents are highly overrepresented in Other Multifamily
housing. In La Habra, Hispanic residents are slightly overrepresented among Housing Choice
Voucher holders despite being underrepresented in most places. In Laguna Niguel, White residents
are strongly overrepresented in both types of publicly supported housing that are present. In the
city of Orange, unlike in most cities, Asian or Pacific Islander residents are underrepresented
among residents of Project-Based Section 8 housing.
b. Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy
i. Describe patterns in the geographic location 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
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 P ark 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
693
259
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 Capistrano, all
publicly supported housing is either specifically reserved for seniors or records 90-100% elderly
residents in their statistics. Each of these communities are near the coast, driving up the cost of
real estate. San Juan Capistrano and Costa Mesa are more heavily White and Hispanic, while
Fountain Valley is more diverse and have a more significant Asian American or Pacific Islander
population. In the broader region, publicly supported housing for elderly residents across
categories is comparatively likely to be located in non-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),18 Anaheim (Avenida
18 The Orange County Urban County Program is comprised of the County unincorporated area and thirteen cities.
The participating cities include Placentia, Yorba Linda, Brea, Cypress, Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills,
Laguna Woods, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Stanton, and Villa Park .
694
260
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 included below. Rows with only 0
and/or N/A values have been deleted for space
Table 48: Irvine
Irvine
Total
# units
(occup
ied)
%
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
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
695
261
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
(occup
ied)
%
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
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
696
262
residents. In Orange (City), Casa Ramon stands out as the only Project-Based Section 8
development with a supermajority-Hispanic population, while the others are majority-White. In
Newport Beach, Lange Drive Family and Newport Veterans Housing stand out for their majority-
Hispanic and large Black populations, respectively, compared to the other far larger developments
in the city which are supermajority-White. In Irvine, The Parklands stands out among Project-
Based Section 8 developments for its large Asian American or Pacific Islander population,
compared to all the other developments which are predominantly White. Similarly, four LIHTC
developments have large Asian populations (The Arbor at Woodbury, Montecito Vista Apartment
Homes, Doria Apartment Homes Phase I, Anesi Apartments) compared to the other
predominantly-White developments. In Huntington Beach, the two Project-Based Section 8
developments are polar opposites, with one 60% White while the other is 63% Asian. Meanwhile,
most of the LIHTC developments in Huntington Beach are predominantly White, while Hermosa
Vista Apartments is predominantly Hispanic. In Garden Grove, Briar Crest+Rosecrest Apartments
and Malabar Apartments stand out at LIHTC developments with large Hispanic populations, while
the other developments are predominantly Asian American or Pacific Islander. In Fullerton,
Ventana Senior Apartments stands out for its large Asian American or Pacific Islander population,
while every other LIHTC development is predominantly White or Hispanic. In Buena Park, Park
Landing Apartments and Emerald Gardens Apartments stand out for their large White and
Hispanic populations, respectively, compared to the other LIHTC developments which are
predominantly Asian American or Pacific Islander. The Project-Based Section 8 developments are
markedly different as well, with 73% White residents at Newport House and 91% Asian American
or Pacific Islander residents at Casa Santa Maria. In Orange County, Continental Gardens
Apartments and Tara Village Apartments stand out for their large Asian American or Pacific
Islander populations, while the rest of the LIHTC developments are predominantly White or
Hispanic.
i. Provide additional relevant information, if any, about occupancy, by protected class,
in other types of publicly supported housing for the jurisdiction and region.
Effective January 2020, the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, a statewide rent gouging law, restricts
rent increases to 5% plus the local rate of inflation per year. As of January 2020, the rate of inflation
in the region was 3.1%. Additionally, San Juan Capistrano has a Mobile Home Rent Control
Ordinance, working to preserve access to a source of unsubsidized affordable housing. However,
cutting in the opposite direction, Ellis Act evictions of rent-controlled units have the potential to
counteract rent control laws. Data about Ellis Act evictions in the area is not widely available, so
it is difficult to estimate the effect they may have.
In October 2019, Governor Newsom signed into law SB 329, prohibiting discrimination in housing
based on source of income statewide.
San Clemente, Irvine, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach all have inclusionary zoning
programs. The Anaheim Housing Authority implements the Affordable Housing Program, which
consists of multifamily apartment complexes that include affordable units.19 These units maintain
rents at levels below regular market rent rates through agreements with the City, but is not a
mandatory program. People on the Interest List are notified as affordable units become available.
19 https://www.anaheim.net/770/Affordable-Housing
697
263
The Orange County Housing Authority maintains a similar list of deed -restricted units for the
entire county.20 In addition to these housing authorities, several cities maintain similar lists of
deed-restricted units and many provide development incentives to develop affordable housing
units.
i. Compare the demographics of occupants of developments in the jurisdiction, for each
category 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
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
20 http://www.ochousing.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=39906
698
264
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 publicly supported housing is concentrated. Job proximity is far more
variable, although with a general tendency to be located along the main thoroughfares – the same
as publicly supported housing. The entire County has good low transportation cost index scores,
with slightly better scores in the northern part of the County where most of the publicly supported
housing is clustered. Environmental health is very poor overall, but better to the south, where there
is far less publicly supported housing.
Contributing Factors of Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify
factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity 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:
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
699
265
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
700
266
D. Disability and Access
Population Profile
Map 1: Disability by Type, North Orange County
701
267
Map 1: Disability by Type, Central Orange County
702
268
Map 1: Disability by Type, South Orange County
703
269
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%
704
270
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%
705
271
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%
706
272
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%
707
273
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%
708
274
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
709
275
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
710
276
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.
711
277
Fair Housing Amendments Act Units
The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) covers all multifamily buildings of four or
more units that were first occupied on or after March 13, 1991 – not just affordable housing
developments. The FHAA added protections for people with disabilities and prescribed certain
basic accessibility standards, such as one building entrance must be accessible; there must be an
accessible route throughout the development, and public rooms and common rooms must be
accessible to people with disabilities. Although these accessibility requirements are not as
intensive as those of Section 504, they were a first step in opening many apartment developments
to people with disabilities regardless of income level. The FHAA was also very helpful for middle-
income and upper-income people with disabilities also need accessible housing. It is important to
note that FHAA units are not the same as accessible units under Section 504 or ADA Title 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
712
278
been produced subject to the Fair Housing Act’s design and construction standards and
approximately 4,000 units within developments that must include accessible units subject to
Section 504. There is, without question, some overlap between these two categories, some of these
units are likely non-compliant, and some accessible units are occupied by individuals who do not
have disabilities.
Describe the areas where affordable, accessible housing units are located in the jurisdiction and
region. Do they align with R/ECAPs or other areas that are segregated?
Relying on the discussion of Publicly Supported Housing to guide the assessment of which types
of housing are most likely to be affordable and accessible, such housing is highly concentrated in
the central and northern portions of the county. In particular, units are concentrated in Anaheim,
Garden Grove, Irvine, and Santa Ana. Additionally, accessible housing is most likely to be located
in places with newer construction and many units, thus conforming to the Fair Housing Act’s
accessibility standards. Areas with newer construction include the central and southern portions of
the county.
713
279
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%
Project-Based Section 8 5,013 12.71%
Other Multifamily 869 15.62%
HCV Program N/a N/a
714
280
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%
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%
715
281
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%
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%
716
282
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%
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%
717
283
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
HCV Program 459 19.60%
In Orange County, according to the 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,
11.1% of the civilian noninstitutionalized population has a disability. As the tables above reflect,
the proportion of people with disabilities with Housing Choice Vouchers exceeds the overall
population concentration of people with disabilities. For other programs, the data is more
idiosyncratic with disproportionately low concentrations of persons with disabilities in Project-
Based Section 8 and Other Multifamily housing in some cities and disproportionately high
concentrations in others. This inconsistency likely results from the differing natures of individual
developments that fall under those umbrellas, with some supportive housing – including Section
202 and Section 811 housing – encompassed in Other Multifamily housing and many age-
restricted Project-Based Section 8 developments.21 The table below shows that the extremely low-
21 Elderly individuals are significantly more likely to have disabilities than non -elderly individuals.
718
284
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
individuals with psychiatric disabilities in large state-run institutions. In California, institutions for
people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are called developmental centers, and
institutions for people with psychiatric disabilities are called state hospitals. Within these
institutions, people with disabilities have had few opportunities for meaningful interaction with
individuals without disabilities, limited access to education and employment, and a lack of
individual autonomy. The transition away from housing people with disabilities in institutional
settings and toward providing housing and services in home and community-based settings
accelerated with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1991 and the U.S. Supreme
Court’s landmark decision in Olmstead v. L.C. in 1999. In Olmstead, the Supreme Court held that,
under the regulations of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) implementing Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if a state or local government provides supportive services
to people with disabilities, it must do so in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of
a person with a disability and consistent with their informed choice. This obligation is not absolute
and is subject to the ADA defense that providing services in a more integrated setting would
constitute a fundamental alteration of the state or local government’s programs.
719
285
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%
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.
720
286
The Fairview Developmental Center was the primary institution serving the region but is now in
the process of closing.
Psychiatric Disabilities
In Orange County, Behavioral Health Services (part of the County Health Agency) is responsible
for coordinating the provision of supportive services for people with psychiatric disabilities. The
Department provides Full Service Partnership programs to allow for the provision of supportive
services that facilitate community integration for Children, Transitional Age Youth, Adults, and
Older Adults. Data regarding participation in the Full Service Partnership by individuals is not
available.
As a result of Proposition 63, a successful 2004 statewide ballot initiative, funding is available for
permanent supportive housing for people with psychiatric disabilities through the Mental Health
Services Act (MHSA). The Department operates its No Place Like Home, Special Needs Housing,
and Mortgage Assistance Programs to increase access to community-based housing for persons
with psychiatric disabilities.
Describe the range of options for people with disabilities to access affordable housing and
supportive services in the jurisdiction and region.
There are four housing authorities operating within Orange County: Orange County Housing
Authority, Anaheim Housing Authority, Garden Grove Housing Authority, and the Housing
Authority of the City of Santa Ana. One of the easiest ways for people with disabilities to access
affordable housing is for the local housing authorities to implement disability preferences in their
HCV programs. The housing authorities for Anaheim and Garden Grove administer preferences
that provide a significant advantage in admissions to persons with disabilities. The housing
authority for the county has a preference that is weighted relatively lightly in comparison to other
factors while Santa Ana’s housing authority does not have a preference. Preferences for homeless
individuals and for veterans may significantly overlap with persons with disabilities and thereby
reduce concerns about the weakness of existing disability preferences.
Supportive services are primarily provided through programs administered by the Regional Center
of Orange County and the Orange County Behavioral Health Department. Additionally,
particularly for individuals with types of disabilities other than intellectual and developmental
disabilities and psychiatric disabilities, services may be available through a range of health care
providers, paid by Medi-Cal, Medicare, or private insurance, or through nursing homes. Payment
for supportive services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities is typically
structured as Home and Community-Based Services Medicaid Waivers. These Waivers pay for a
wide variety of services necessary to empower individuals to maintain stable residence in home
and community-based services. There are, however, only as many Waivers available as there is
funding from the federal government and the State of California.
721
287
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
To what extent are people with disabilities able to access the following in the jurisdiction and
region? Identify major barriers faced concerning:
i. Government services and facilities
This Analysis did not reveal any specific barriers that persons with disabilities face in accessing
government services and facilities.
ii. Public infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, pedestrian signals)
This Analysis did not reveal any specific barriers persons with disabilities face in accessing public
infrastructure.
iii. Transportation
The relative lack of public transportation, particularly in the southern and coastal portions of the
county, disproportionately burdens persons with disabilities who are more likely to rely on public
transportation than are individuals who do not have disabilities.
iv. Proficient schools and educational programs
This Analysis did not reveal current systemic policies and practices that contribute to educational
disparities for students with disabilities in Orange County; however, data shows that, although
suspension rates are lower in Orange County than statewide, students with disabilities still face
suspension at twice the rate of other students.
v. Jobs
Data in the table below from the Regional Center of Orange County shows that persons with
developmental disabilities obtain earned income at higher rates than individuals with
developmental disabilities statewide but that rate is still very low in comparison to the proportion
of all adults with earned income.
Table 49: Employment Metrics for Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
by Regional Center
Regional Center Percentage of
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%
722
288
Describe the processes that exist in the jurisdiction and region for people with disabilities to
request and obtain reasonable accommodations and accessibility modifications to address the
barriers discussed above.
i. Government services and facilities
Government websites generally have accessibility information on them regarding the accessibility
of the websites themselves, but there is not clear, public information regarding how individuals
can request accommodations.
ii. Public infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, pedestrian signals)
There is no clear, public information regarding how individuals with disabilities can request
accommodations relating to public infrastructure.
iii. Transportation
By contrast, the Orange County Transportation Authority and Metrolink have clear, easily findable
information about their accommodation and modification policies.
iv. Proficient schools and educational programs
School districts are more disparate in how they display information relating to their
accommodation policies, with some making that information easy to find but others not.
v. Jobs
This Analysis did not reveal information suggesting patterns in how major employers do or do not
provide required accommodations in Orange County.
Describe any difficulties in achieving homeownership experienced by people with disabilities
and by people with different types of disabilities in the jurisdiction and region.
Persons with disabilities in Orange County are less able to access homeownership than individuals
who do not have disabilities, primarily because of the high cost of homeownership and relative
differences in income between persons with disabilities and individuals who do not have
disabilities. This pattern is slightly undercut by the prevalence of elderly homeowners with
disabilities that began in old age. Many of these individuals earned relatively high incomes prior
to the onset of their disabilities.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Describe any disproportionate housing needs experienced by people with disabilities and by
people with certain types of disabilities in the jurisdiction and region.
723
289
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
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
724
290
access issues and the fair housing issues, which are Segregation, R/ECAPs, Disparities in Access
to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs. For each contributing factor, note which
fair housing issue(s) the selected contributing factor relates to.
Access for persons with disabilities to proficient schools
Access to publicly supported housing for persons with disabilities
Access to transportation for persons with disabilities
Inaccessible government facilities or services
Inaccessible public or private infrastructure
Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs
Lack of affordable in-home or community-based supportive services
Lack of affordable, accessible housing in range of unit sizes
Lack of affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive services
Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications
Lack of assistance for transitioning from institutional settings to integrated housing
Lack of local or regional cooperation
Land use and zoning laws
Lending discrimination
Location of accessible housing
Loss of affordable housing
Occupancy codes and restrictions
Regulatory barriers to providing housing and supportive services for persons with
disabilities
Source of income discrimination
State or local laws, policies, or practices that discourage individuals with disabilities from
living in apartments, family homes, supportive housing and other integrated settings
725
291
E. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity and Resources
List and summarize any of the following that have not been resolved:
● A charge or letter of finding from HUD concerning a violation of a civil rights-related law;
● A cause determination from a substantially equivalent state or local fair housing agency
concerning a violation of a state or local fair housing law;
● Any voluntary compliance agreements, conciliation agreements, or settlement agreements
entered into with HUD or the Department of Justice;
● A letter of findings issued by or lawsuit filed or joined by the Department of Justice alleging
a pattern or practice or systemic violation of a fair housing or civil rights law;
● A claim under the False Claims Act related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, or civil
rights generally, including an alleged failure to affirmatively further fair housing;
● Pending administrative complaints or lawsuits against the locality alleging fair housing
violations or discrimination.
o Watts v. City of Newport Beach, 790 Fed.Appx. 853 (9th Cir. 2019): The City of
Newport Beach was recently sued by a young woman who alleged excessive force,
unlawful entry, and unlawful arrest. Upon the decline of her card for a taxi fare, the
driver called the police, who threatened to take Watts to jail if she could not produce
additional funds to pay. She asked to go to her apartment to get another form of
payment, and officers escorted her. When she objected to their entry into her apartment
to retrieve the funds, they handcuffed her to the point of injury to her wrists, kicked her
legs out from under her, pushed her head into a wall, and took her to jail overnight. The
9th Circuit ruled affirmed that officers were not covered by qualified immunity for
unlawful arrest and unlawful entry, but that they were covered for the excessive force
claim.
o A. K. H by and through Landeros v. City of Tustin, 837 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2016): In
2014, the city of Tustin was sued by the family of a minor who was shot and killed by
a Tustin police officer. The city moved for summary judgement based on qualified
immunity. The district court denied that motion. On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed
the lower court decision, holding that the shooting violated the 4th Amendment, and
that the officer was not covered by qualified immunity.
Describe any state or local fair housing laws. What characteristics are protected under each law?
California Laws
The State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) enforces California laws that
provide protection and monetary relief to victims of unlawful housing practices. The Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Government Code Section 12955 et seq.) prohibits
discrimination and harassment in housing practices, including:
● Advertising
● Application and selection process
● Unlawful evictions
● Terms and conditions of tenancy
726
292
● Privileges of occupancy
● Mortgage loans and insurance
● Public and private land use practices (zoning)
● Unlawful restrictive covenants
The following categories are protected by FEHA:
● Race or color
● Ancestry or national origin
● Sex, including Gender, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression
● Marital status
● Source of income
● Sexual orientation
● Familial status (households with children under 18 years of age)
● Religion
● Mental/physical disability
● Medical condition
● Age
● Genetic information
In addition, FEHA contains similar reasonable accommodations, reasonable modifications, and
accessibility provisions as the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act. FEHA explicitly provides
that violations can be proven through evidence of the unjustified disparate impact of challenged
actions and inactions and establishes the burden-shifting framework that courts and the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing must use in evaluating disparate impact claims.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments
in California, including housing and accommodations, because of age, ancestry, color, disability,
national origin, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. While the Unruh Civil Rights Act
specifically lists “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, and medical
condition” as protected classes, the California Supreme Court has held that protections under the
Unruh Act are not necessarily restricted to these characteristics. In practice, this has meant that the
law protects against arbitrary discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of personal
appearance.
Furthermore, the Ralph Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 51.7) forbids acts of
violence or threats of violence because of a person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or position in a labor dispute. Hate
violence can include: verbal or written threats; physical assault or attempted assault; and graffiti,
vandalism, or property damage.
The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) provides another layer of
protection for fair housing choice by protecting all people in California from interference by force
or threat of force with an individual’s constitutional or statutory rights, including a right to equal
access to housing. The Bane Act also includes criminal penalties for hate crimes; however,
convictions under the Act may not be imposed for speech alone unless that speech itself threatened
violence.
727
293
Finally, California Civil Code Section 1940.3 prohibits landlords from questioning potent ial
residents about their immigration or citizenship status. In addition, this law forbids local
jurisdictions from passing laws that direct landlords to make inquiries about a person’s citizenship
or immigration status.
In addition to these acts, Government Code Sections 11135, 65008, and 65580-65589.8 prohibit
discrimination in programs funded by the State and in any land use decisions. Specifically, recent
changes to Sections 65580-65589.8 require local jurisdictions to address the provision of housing
options for special needs groups, including:
● Housing for persons with disabilities (SB 520)
● Housing for homeless persons, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, and
supportive housing (SB 2)
● Housing for extremely low-income households, including single-room occupancy units
(AB 2634)
● Housing for persons with developmental disabilities (SB 812)
Jurisdiction-Specific Laws
Aliso Viejo
In 2013, the city of Aliso Viejo adopted housing and reasonable accommodation regulations and
procedures.
Buena Park
As part of the zoning code, the city of Buena Park describes specific procedures for reasonable
accommodations in land use, zoning regulations, rules, policies, practices and procedures through
the completion of a Fair Housing Accommodation Request form.
Costa Mesa
As part of the zoning code, the city of Costa Mesa allows for reasonable accommodations in land
use and zoning regulations.
Fountain Valley
The City of Fountain Valley provides reasonable accommodation in the application of its zoning
and building laws, policies and procedures for persons with disabilities.
Huntington Beach
In 2013, the city of Huntington Beach adopted reasonable accommodations procedures.
Irvine
The Irvine Municipal Code prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national
origin, sex, age, marital status or physical handicap of any individual in the realms of employment,
real estate transactions, and educational institutions. Regarding housing, it is prohibits
discrimination in financial transactions, advertising, or give differential treatment and terms.
728
294
La Palma
La Palma specifically provides for reasonable accommodations for person with disabilities in “land
use, zoning and building regulations, policies, practices and procedures of the City.”22
Laguna Niguel
Laguna Niguel provides for reasonable accommodations in the application of zoning laws for
persons with disabilities.
Newport Beach
Newport Beach requires provision of reasonable accommodation during the permit review process
for new development.
Orange
The city of Orange provides for reasonable accommodations in the application of land use and
zoning laws for those with disabilities.
Rancho Santa Margarita
Rancho Santa Margarita allows for reasonable accommodations in the application of land use and
zoning laws for those with disabilities.
Santa Ana
The Santa Ana municipal code allows for modification of land use or zoning regulations if
necessary to provide a reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities.
Tustin
Tustin allows for reasonable accommodations in the land use and zoning process for developers
of housing for persons with disabilities.
Westminster
Westminster allows for reasonable accommodations in land use and zoning when necessary to
accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities.
Additional Information
Provide additional relevant information, if any, about fair housing enforcement, outreach
capacity, and resources in the jurisdiction and region.
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH)
DFEH accepts, investigates, conciliates, mediates, and prosecutes complaints under FEHA, the
Disabled Persons Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the Ralph Civil Rights Act. DFEH
investigates complaints of employment and housing discrimination based on race, sex, including
gender, gender identity, and gender expression, religious creed, color, national origin, familiar
status, medical condition (cured cancer only), ancestry, physical or mental disability, marital
22https://library.municode.com/ca/la_palma/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH44ZO_ARTVPEPLCE_
DIV15REACRE
729
295
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 Foundati on
screens fair housing complaints, investigates through testing, and will engage in conciliation or
mediation efforts or refer the complaints to the appropriate administrative agencies where
appropriate.
Community Legal Aid SoCal
Community Legal Aid SoCal is a holistic legal services provider serving low-income people
Orange County and Southeast Los Angeles County. Overall, community legal aid provides direct
representation, as well as engaging in policy advocacy and impact litigation. The advocates in the
housing program provide legal assistance across a broad range of fair housing issues, including
“eviction, federally or otherwise publicly subsidized housing, substandard housing,
landlord/tenant issues, homeownership issues, homeowners association issues mobile homes,
housing discrimination, an predatory lending practices.”23 The main office is located in Santa Ana,
with additional offices in Norwalk, Anaheim, and Compton. Across four offices, the organization
has 100 staff members and 30 attorneys. Like other Legal Aid offices, Community Legal Aid
SoCal is funded by the Legal Services Corporation, which carries restrictions against representing
undocumented clients.
23 https://www.communitylegalsocal.org/programs-services/area-of-law/housing/
730
296
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
731
297
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 go als, this section includes
individual goals for Orange County, the participating jurisdictions, and the housing authorities that
may not be applicable to other jurisdictions because they respond to local circumstances.
Cross-Jurisdictional Goals
Goal 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, may be some of the leading drivers of fair housing
issues for members of protected classes in the area. Data indicates that Hispanic residents,
Vietnamese residents, and persons with disabilities experience these problems most acutely.
Many households are rent burdened, and some households pay more than 50% of their incomes
towards rent. In many high opportunity areas, current payment standards are far too low for
families with housing choice vouchers to move to these areas. Additionally, there has been vocal
community opposition to affordable housing throughout the county. These data reflect a need to
expand the both the supply and geographical diversity of affordable housing.
a. Explore the creation of a new countywide sources of affordable housing.
The State of California has approved several measures to issue bonds for affordable housing.
Orange County should consider the issuance of affordable housing bonds to meet the widening
gap for affordable rental housing through a ballot initiative or other county-wide or local means.
b. Using best practices from other jurisdictions, explore policies and programs that increase
the supply affordable housing, such as linkage fees, housing bonds, inclusionary housing,
public land set-aside, community land trusts, transit-oriented development, and expedited
permitting and review.
The above policies and practices have resulted in an increase in affordable housing in jurisdictions
throughout the country and in California in particular. In Orange County, there has been an
increase in the supply of affordable housing in cities that have adopted these best practices.
c. Explore providing low-interest loans to single-family homeowners and grants to
homeowners with household incomes of up to 80% of the Area Median Income to develop
accessory dwelling units with affordability restriction on their property.
In 2019, the California Legislature passed AB 68 and AB 881 which permit the placement of two
accessory dwelling units (ADUs), including one “junior ADU,” on a lot with an existing or
732
298
proposed single-family home statewide. Due to high construction costs and high demand, the small
size of ADUs may not be sufficient to ensure that they will be affordable by design. Local
governments may choose to provide financial assistance in order to incentivize homeowners to
make their ADUs affordable to lower income tenants at or below 80% of the area median income.
Because it can be difficult for homeowners to access bank financing to build ADUs, there may be
a need for such incentives among homeowners. As a condition of receiving assistance, jurisdictions
should also require homeowners to attend fair housing training and to maintain records that
facilitate audits of their compliance with non-discrimination laws. The need to educate individual
homeowners, who do not have experience as landlords and knowledge of the law, may prevent
unintentional and intentional violations of fair housing laws.
d. Review existing zoning policies and explore zoning changes to facilitate the develo pment
of affordable housing.
In several jurisdictions in Orange County, the prevalence of single-family residential zoning makes
it challenging to develop housing that could offer housing opportunities to members of protected
classes. Many cities across the country are increasing higher density zoning near transit. Increased
higher density zoning near transit in high opportunity areas, coupled with an affordable housing
set-aside, would provide additional mixed-income rental housing.
e. Align zoning codes to conform to recent California affordable housing legislation.
California passed several affordable housing bills that became effective on January 1, 2020.
Examples include as AB 1763, which expands existing density bonus law for 100% affordable
housing projects to include unlimited density around transit hubs with an additional three stories
or 33 feet of height, and AB 68, which allows two ADUs on a single lot, as well as multiple ADUs
on multifamily lots with limited design requirement that cities can impose and an approval process
of 60 days. This and other legislation necessitate changes to each jurisdiction’s zoning code.
Goal 2: Prevent displacement of low- and moderate-income residents with protected
characteristics, including Hispanic residents, Vietnamese residents, seniors, and people with
disabilities.
a. Explore piloting a Right to Counsel Program to ensure legal repr esentation 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.
733
299
Goal 3: Increase community integration for persons with disabilities
a. Conduct targeted outreach and provide tenant application assistance and support to persons
with disabilities, including individuals transitioning from institutional settings and
individuals who are at risk of institutionalization. As part of that assistance, maintain a
database of housing that is accessible to persons with disabilities.
Lack of access to housing is a significant impediment to full community integration for persons
with disabilities in the county. Stakeholders expressed frustration with the lack of information on
accessible affordable housing units and are required to call individual landlords to obtain this
information.
b. Consider adopting the accessibility standards adopted by the City of Los Angeles, which
require 15 percent of all new units in city-supported LIHTC projects to be ADA-accessible
with at 4 percent of total units to be accessible for persons with hearing and/or vision
disabilities.
In order to align with the Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA) between the City of Los
Angeles and HUD,24 Orange County should consider adopting the same standards. The City of
Los Angeles’ adopted accessibility standards resulting from this VCA will address deficiencies
related to the physical accessibility of designated accessible units and public/common areas in
connection with the certain housing developments and program policies and procedures.
Goal 4: Ensure equal access to housing for persons with protected characteristics, who are
disproportionately likely to be lower-income and to experience homelessness.
a. Reduce barriers to accessing rental housing by exploring eliminating application fees for
voucher holders and encouraging landlords to follow HUD’s guidance on the use of
criminal backgrounds in screening tenants.
Stakeholders reported that high application fees for rental housing are a significant barrier for
voucher holders. Additionally, some landlords continue to refuse rental housing to prospective
tenants based on decades-old criminal background checks or minor misdemeanors.
b. Consider incorporating a fair housing equity analysis into the review of significant
rezoning proposals and specific plans.
At times, large scale development and redevelopment efforts have not sufficiently addressed the
needs of large families with children, persons with disabilities, and Hispanic and Vietnamese
residents, in particular. By incorporating a fair housing analysis in the review process for
redevelopment plans at an early stage, planning staff from participating jurisdictions could catch
issues such as the distribution of unit sizes in proposed developments while it is still feasible to
amend plans.
24 https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Main/documents/HUD-City-of-Los-Angeles-VCA.pdf
734
300
Goal 5: Expand access to opportunity for protected classes.
a. Explore the voluntary adoption of Small Area Fair Market Rents or exception payment
standards in order to increase access to higher opportunity areas for Housing Choice
Voucher holders.
A significant barrier in the county is the lack of affordable housing and the sufficiency of payment
standards to provide geographic options to voucher holders. Orange County Housing Authority
has three payment standards; basic, central, and restricted. HUD’s Small Area FMRs for Orange
County permit certain zip codes to have higher payment standards than those currently used.
b. Continue implementing a mobility counseling program that informs Housing Choice
Voucher holders about their residential options in higher opportunity areas and provides
holistic supports to voucher holders seeking to move to higher opportunity areas.
The housing authorities located in Orange County currently lack funding to implement full -scale
housing mobility programs. A formal counseling program, as found in Chicago, Dallas, Baltimore,
and elsewhere, can make a significant difference in the settlement patterns of HCV households.
These programs generally identify opportunity areas, while assisting voucher holders to find new
residences within them. Workshops and information sessions allow for participants to ask
questions, find higher-performing schools and locate areas of lower crime. Individual counselors
may provide assistance to families to find units in opportunity areas, while also following up post-
move to ensure the family is adjusting well to their new neighborhood.
c. Study and make recommendations to improve and expand Orange County’s public
transportation to ensure that members of protected classes can access jobs in employment
centers in Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine.
There are few viable and reliable public transportation options in Orange County. It is important
that there is a match between where low- and moderate-income members of protected classes, who
are more likely to use public transportation, are able to commute to county job centers. Part of this
study should include ensuring that people with disabilities are able to access transportation to jobs
and services.
d. Increase support for fair housing enforcement, education, and outreach.
Nonprofit fair housing organizations and legal services providers play a critical role in fair housing
enforcement, education, and outreach but struggle to meet the full needs of victims of
discrimination due to limited financial and staff capacity. By supporting these organizations,
jurisdictions can help ensure that these organizations can address existing and critical emerging
issues, like those that have stemmed from the passage of S.B. 329, which extends source of income
protections to Housing Choice Voucher holders, and A.B. 1482, which caps annual rent increases
in at five percent plus the regionally-adjusted Consumer Price Index and requires landlords to have
“just cause” in order to evict tenants. It would also make proactive audit testing of housing
providers rather than reactive complaint-based testing more feasible.
735
301
Jurisdictional-Specific Goals
City of Aliso Viejo
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of
information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing
Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of
multi-lingual fair housing literature.
City of Anaheim
Goal 1
Increase the supply of
affordable housing through
the following strategies:
Contributing
Factors
Metrics, Milestones,
and Timeframe for
Achievement
Responsible
Program
Participant(s)
1. Explore creative land use
and zoning policies that
facilitate the development of
affordable housing, examples
include a housing overlay
zone or religious institutions
amendment.
2. Review Anaheim’s current
Density Bonus and Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU)
Ordinances to ensure
compliance with state
requirements.
Lack of access to
opportunity due to
high housing costs;
Location and type of
affordable housing;
Availability of
affordable, accessible
units in a range of
unit sizes; Land use
and zoning laws
Introduce land use
policies that facilitate
affordable housing; 1-5
years; analyze the city’s
current ADU and
Density Bonus
ordinances to ensure
compliance; 1-2 years;
Recommend the
supporting of legislation
that removes CEQA
requirements; 2 years;
Study the feasibility of
allocating city owned
land for housing
development; 2-3 years.
Continue to support and
City staff,
Housing
Commission,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
736
302
3. Support legislation that
removes CEQA requirements
for affordable housing.
4. Identify and explore
allocating city-owned sites
that may be well suited for
housing for which there are
no other development plans.
5. Continue to support tenant
based rental assistance
programs that facilitates
additional affordable housing
for homeless and low-income
individuals.
explore expanding city
supported tenant based
rental assistance
programs; 1-5 years.
Goal 2
Preserve the existing stock
of affordable rental housing
and rent stabilized housing
through the following
strategies:
Contributing
Factors
Metrics, Milestones,
and Timeframe for
Achievement
Responsible
Program
Participant(s)
1. Strengthen and expand
education and outreach of
tenants and owners of
affordable rental housing at
risk of conversion to market
rents.
2. Extend affordability
restrictions through loan
extensions, workouts and buy-
downs of affordability
3. Preserve at-risk housing
through the issuance of Tax
Exempt Bond financing.
4. Explore the development of
a rental rehabilitation loan
program.
Displacement of
residents due to
economic pressures;
Lack of access to
opportunity due to
high housing costs;
Location and type of
affordable housing;
Availability of
affordable, accessible
units in a range of
unit sizes
Documentation of
outreach services,
education efforts,
termination notices
received and enforced,
1-5 years; offer
incentives to city
restricted properties
expiring in the next 5
years; Assist in the
preservation of at-risk
units through the
issuance of Tax-Exempt
Bond Financing, 1-5
years; Introduce the
creation of a rental
rehabilitation program
and target at-risk
housing projects; 1-3
years.
City staff,
Housing
Commission,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
737
303
Goal 3
Expand the access to fair
housing services and other
housing services through the
following strategies:
Contributing
Factors
Metrics, Milestones,
and Timeframe for
Achievement
Responsible
Program
Participant(s)
1. Dedicate eligible
entitlement dollars (CDBG,
HOME, etc.) and explore
local, state and federal
resources to expand fair
housing services.
2. Continue to support fair
housing testing and
investigation to look for
evidence of differential
treatment and disparate
impact, including providing
services to low income
tenants reporting fair housing
violations.
3. Continue to support fair
housing presentations, mass
media communications, and
multi-lingual literature
distribution; conduct fair
housing presentations at
accessible locations and
conduct fair housing
presentations for housing
providers
4. Explore alternative formats
for fair housing education
workshops such as pre-taped
videos and/ or recordings.
Such formats could serve
persons with one or more than
one job, families with you
children and other who find it
difficult to attend meetings in
person.
Displacement of
Residents Due to
Economic Pressures,
Private
discrimination,
accessible housing in
a range of unit sizes;
Admissions and
occupancy policies
and procedures,
including preferences
in publicly supported
housing
Continue to utilize
entitlement dollars to
support fair housing
services; Continue to
include testing services
as part of the required
scope of work for city
support fair housing
providers; Years 1-5;
Require city supported
fair housing providers to
provide its services on
multiple platforms and
in diverse locations.
City staff, Fair
Housing
Agencies,
Housing
Commission,
City Council
738
304
Goal 4
Continue efforts to build
complete communities
through the following
strategies;
Contributing
Factors
Metrics, Milestones,
and Timeframe for
Achievement
Responsible
Program
Participant(s)
1. Maximize and secure
funding from various state
and federal sources, including
the State of California’s Cap
and Trade Program
(Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Fund), to improve housing
opportunities, increase
economic investments and
address environmental factors
in disadvantaged
communities.
2. The City will continue to
work with local transit
agencies and other
appropriate agencies to
facilitate safe and efficient
routes of transportation,
including public transit,
walking and biking.
3. Explore development of a
policy to encourage
developers to provide
residents with incentives to
use non-auto means of
transportation, including
locating new developments
near public transportation and
providing benefits such as bus
passes.
4. Prioritize workforce
development resources in
racially or ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty
to improve economic
mobility.
Access to publicly
supported housing for
persons with
disabilities;
Availability of
affordable, accessible
units in a range of
unit sizes; Lack of
affordable, integrated
housing for
individuals who need
supportive services;
Location of
accessible housing
Actively submit and
compete for Affordable
Housing and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC)
program; Years 1-5;
Convene appropriate
parties from the city and
transportation agencies
to coordinate and
expand transportation
efforts; Years 1-5;
Introduce a policy that
provides developers
incentives that support
non-auto means of
transportation; Years 1-
3; Coordinate with the
City’s Workforce Center
to target workforce
development resources;
Years 1-5.
City staff,
Transportation
Agencies, City
Council
739
305
City of Buena Park
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of
information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing
Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of
multi-lingual fair housing literature.
City of Orange
1. Continue to follow current State Density Bonus law and further its implementation through a
Density Bonus ordinance update.
2. Prepare a Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance to provide opportunities for
development rights transfers to accommodate higher density housing in transit and
employment-rich areas of the city.
3. Prepare and adopt a North Tustin Street Specific Plan with an objective of providing
opportunities for affordable housing.
4. Amend the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to be consistent with State Junior
Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) laws.
5. Prepare and adopt a small lot subdivision ordinance to streamline entitlement processing of
housing development projects.
6. Continue providing CDBG funds to the Fair Housing Foundation to provide fair housing
activities to the community.
City of Costa Mesa
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
740
306
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of
information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing
Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of
multi-lingual fair housing literature.
City of Fountain Valley
1. Explore an inclusionary zoning requirement for all new housing developments that requires at
least 10-15 percent of for-sale units be affordable to households with incomes 80 percent or
below and rental units be affordable to households with incomes 60 percent or below.
2. Consider adopting an expedited permitting and review process for new developments with an
affordable housing set-aside.
City of Fullerton
1. Create a Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HOIZ).
2. Draft and Approve an Affordable Housing and Religious Institutions Amendment to the
Municipal Code.
3. Work with the State to streamline or remove CEQA Requirements for Affordable Housing.
4. Require Affordable Housing in Surplus Property Sales.
City of Garden Grove
1. Update Density Bonus Ordinance – Garden Grove will update the 2011 Density Bonus
Ordinance to comply with current State law. The update will streamline the approval process,
increase feasibility, and facilitate future housing development at all affordability levels.
2. Create Objective Residential Development Standards to allow for streamlined housing
development in all residential zones.
741
307
3. Create Objective Development Standards for Supportive Housing. These standards would be
for new construction of Supportive Housing.
4. Evaluate the creation of Objective Development Standards for Hotel/Motel/Office Conversion
to Supportive Housing.
5. Review and amend Garden Grove’s current Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance to
comply with State requirements and further increase housing supply.
6. Continue to invest in landlord and tenant counseling and mediation services, unlawful detainer
assistance, housing discrimination services, homebuyer education and outreach, and local
eviction prevention strategies.
City of Huntington Beach
1. Modify the existing Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to increase the supply of affordable
housing opportunities available to lower income persons and households.
a. Study the current methodology of setting the maximum sales price and down payment
requirements of an affordable home for ownership.
b. Study requirements for the provision of inclusionary units through on-site units, dedication
of land, in-lieu fees, and off-site development.
c. Study the in-lieu fee structure.
d. Explore the provision of incentives for developments that exceed inclusionary requirements
and/or provide extremely low-income units on site. Incentives can be through the provision
of fee waivers and deferrals, financial assistance, regulatory relief, and flexible
development standards.
2. Update the density bonus ordinance to be consistent with state law,
3. Expand the TBRA program to help tenants impacted by Covid-19. Currently, an eviction
moratorium is in place to prevent evictions due to lack of non-payment of rent due to Covid-
19. This moratorium ends on May 31, 2020. The moratorium does not end the obligation to
pay the rent eventually. On June 1, 2020, there most likely will be an increased need from
persons to receive rental assistance for the rents due prior to May 31 and going forward. The
City would work with its current service providers to help tenants impacted by Covid-19.
City of Irvine
1. Ensure compliance with their HCD-certified Housing Element.
2. Update Density Bonus Ordinance – Irvine will update the Density Bonus Ordinance to comply
with current State law.
3. Review and amend Irvine’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, as necessary, to increase its
effectiveness.
742
308
4. Review and amend Irvine’s current Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance to comply with
State requirements and further increase housing supply.
5. Create Objective Development Standards for Supportive Housing. These standards would be
for new construction of Supportive Housing.
6. Working with the City’s fair housing services provider, continue to invest in local eviction
prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and families in Irvine.
7. Working with the City’s fair housing services provider, continue to invest in landlord and
tenant counseling and mediation services, unlawful detainer assistance, housing
discrimination services, and homebuyer education and outreach.
City of La Habra
1. Explore the creation of an inclusionary housing ordinance to increase the number of
affordable housing units.
2. Advocate for increasing the minimum percentage of affordable units at Park La Habra Mobile
Home and View Park Mobile Home Estates from 20 percent to 50 percent.
City of Laguna Niguel
1. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information
regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher
program and regional housing issues.
2. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
b. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
3. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of
multi-lingual fair housing literature.
c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord
issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate
actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities.
d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially
discriminatory housing advertisements.
743
309
e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider.
4. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
5. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law.
6. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority, provide community
education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities.
7. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and
families (homelessness prevention services).
City of Lake Forest
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of
information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing
Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of
multi-lingual fair housing literature.
c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord
issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate
actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities.
d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially
discriminatory housing advertisements.
e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider.
f. Regularly consult with the City's fair housing contractor on potential strategies f or
affirmatively furthering fair housing on an on-going basis.
3. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority:
a. Provide community education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities.
b. Explore bus route options to ensure neighborhoods with concentration of low-income or
protected class populations have access to transportation services.
744
310
4. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and
families (homelessness prevention services).
5. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
6. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law.
City of Mission Viejo
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of
information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing
Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of
multi-lingual fair housing literature.
c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord
issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate
actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities.
d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially
discriminatory housing advertisements.
e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider.
3. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority:
a. Provide community education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities.
b. Explore bus route options to ensure neighborhoods with concentration of low-income or
protected class populations have access to transportation services.
4. Monitor FBI data to determine if any hate crimes are housing related and if there are actions
that may be taken by the City’s fair housing service provider to address potential
discrimination linked to the bias motivations of hate crimes.
5. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and
families (homelessness prevention services).
745
311
6. Seek funding through State programs (SB2/PLHA) to expand affordable housing and or
homelessness prevention services.
7. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
8. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law.
City of Orange
1. Continue to follow current State Density Bonus law and further its implementation through a
Density Bonus ordinance update.
2. Prepare a Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance to provide opportunities for
development rights transfers to accommodate higher density housing in transit and
employment-rich areas of the city.
3. Prepare and adopt a North Tustin Street Specific Plan with an objective of providing
opportunities for affordable housing.
4. Amend the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to be consistent with State Junior
Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) laws.
5. Facilitate the development of housing along the North Tustin corridor by the way of a specific
plan or rezoning measures.
6. Continue providing CDBG funds to the Fair Housing Foundation to provide fair housing
activities to the community.
City of Rancho Santa Margarita
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of
information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing
Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
746
312
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of
multi-lingual fair housing literature.
c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-landlord
issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take appropriate
actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities.
d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially
discriminatory housing advertisements.
e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider.
3. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority:
a. Provide community education regarding transport services for persons with disabilities.
b. Explore bus route options to ensure neighborhoods with concentration of low-income or
protected class populations have access to transportation services.
4. Monitor FBI data to determine if any hate crimes are housing related and if there are actions
that may be taken by the City’s fair housing service provider to address potential
discrimination linked to the bias motivations of hate crimes.
5. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and
families (homelessness prevention services).
6. Seek funding through State programs (SB2/PLHA) to expand affordable housing and or
homelessness prevention services.
7. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
8. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law.
City of San Clemente
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of
information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing
Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by
providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct landlord
education campaign to educate property owners about State law prohibiting
discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner
associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.
747
313
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include
workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution
of multi-lingual fair housing literature.
c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-
landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and take
appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities.
d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially
discriminatory housing advertisements.
e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider.
3. Support local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless individuals and
families (homelessness prevention services).
4. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
5. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law.
6. Offer a variety of housing opportunities to enhance mobility among residents of all races and
ethnicities by facilitating affordable housing throughout the community through 1) flexible
development standards; 2) density bonuses; and 3) other zoning tools.
7. Review the type and effectiveness of current affordable housing development incentives, and
amend/augment as may be necessary to increase the production of affordable housing units.
City of San Juan Capistrano
1. Develop Strategies to Address Lack of Affordability and Insufficient Income
a. Work with developers, and non-profit organizations to expand the affordable housing stock
within San Juan Capistrano.
b. Increase production of new affordable units and assistance towards the purchase and
renovation of housing in existing neighborhoods.
c. Seek housing program resources through the County of Orange Urban County CDBG
Program, and others which may become available.
5. Increase Public Awareness of Fair Housing
a. Increase fair housing education and outreach efforts.
b. Investigate options for enforcement including local enforcement conducted by neighboring
jurisdictions.
6. Develop Strategies to Address Poverty and Low-Incomes Among Minority Populations
a. Expand job opportunities through encouragement of corporations relocating to the city,
local corporations seeking to expand, assistance with small business loans, and other
activities.
748
314
b. Support agencies that provide workforce development programs and continuing education
courses to increase educational levels and job skills of residents.
7. Develop Strategies to Address Limited Resources to Assist Lower-Income, Elderly, and
Indigent Homeowners Maintain their Homes and Stability in Neighborhoods
a. Consider implementing a volunteer program for providing housing assistance to elderly
and indigent property owners, including assistance in complying with municipal housing
codes.
b. Encourage involvement from volunteers, community organizations, religious
organizations, and businesses as a means of supplementing available financial resources
for housing repair and neighborhood cleanup.
City of Santa Ana
1. Review and amend Santa Ana’s inclusionary housing ordinance to increase its effectiveness.
2. Evaluate the creation of a motel conversion ordinance to increase the supply of permanent
supportive housing similar to the City of Anaheim and Los Angeles.
3. Review Santa Ana’s density bonus ordinance and explore adding a density bonus for transit-
oriented development (TOD) similar to the City of Los Angeles.
4. Explore establishing a dedicated source of local funding for a Right to Counsel program for
residents of Santa Ana to ensure that they have access to legal representation during eviction
proceedings similar to the City of New York.
5. Continue to invest in local eviction prevention strategies to reduce the number of homeless
individuals and families in Santa Ana.
City of Tustin
1. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange
of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the
Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies
by providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
c. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct
landlord education campaign to educate property owners about State law
prohibiting discrimination based on household income.
2. Through the City's fair housing contractor:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and
homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is
unlawful.
749
315
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property
owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may
include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and
distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature.
c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referrals services to address tenant-
landlord issues, and investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination and
take appropriate actions to conciliate cases or refer to appropriate authorities.
d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify
potentially discriminatory housing advertisements.
e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider.
3. Prepare a new Housing Element that is compliant with all current State laws and is certified
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
4. Utilize funding through State programs (SB2) to support affordable housing and/or
homeless prevention services.
5. Update zoning ordinance to comply with current State law.
750
316
VII. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS APPENDIX
Access for Students with Disabilities to Proficient Schools
Access for students with disabilities to proficient schools may be a significant contributing factor
to fair housing issues. There are more than 600 public schools in Orange County, part of 27 school
districts. There is a history of barriers to education for persons with disabilities in Orange County.25
These included issues with school districts in Garden Grove, Los Alamitos, and Orange, as well
as the Capistrano Unified School District which crosses city boundaries. However, this Analysis
did not reveal more recent systemic policies or practices driving disparities for stud ents with
disabilities. At the same time, school discipline data for Orange County reveals a 4.5% suspension
rate for students with disabilities as compared to a 1.9% suspension rate for students who do not
have disabilities. Both rates are lower than statewide but still show that students with disabilities
face barriers in accessing education that others do not encounter. This data calls for affirmative
strategies to reduce school discipline disparities and avoid unnecessary suspensions of students
with disabilities.
Access to Transportation for Persons with Disabilities
Access to transportation for persons with disabilities may be a significant contributing factor to
fair housing issues in Orange County. The main barrier to transportation for persons with
disabilities in Orange County is the lack of public transportation infrastructure generally, including
the lack of east-west rail service and rail service in coastal communities and long wait times for
buses in the southern portion of the county. Because many persons with disabilities are dependent
on public transportation, these problems hit persons with disabilities especially hard. This Analysis
did not reveal any systemic problems with the accessibility of major providers’ services, such as
Metrolink or the Orange County Transportation Authority. Each agency’s vehicles generally
appear to meet accessibility requirements, and the Orange County Transportation Authority
provides required paratransit service through OC Flex.
Access to Financial Services
Access to financial services may be a contributing factor to fair housing issues for Hispanic
residents of Orange County. Although this Analysis did not undertake a comprehensive analysis
of bank branch locations in Orange County, a limited review of the banks ranked as the three best
in Orange County by the Orange County Register revealed disparities in locations served.26 The
highest ranked bank, California Bank & Trust, has nine locations in Orange County, none of which
are located in the cities of Anaheim and Santa Ana,27 the two largest cities in the county and areas
with concentrations of Hispanic population. Although larger banks like Chase and Bank of
America have branches in Anaheim and Santa Ana, there are still disproportionately few branches
in those locations than in smaller, less heavily Hispanic cities like Irvine and Huntington Beach.
For example, there are 16 Chase branches in Irvine and seven in Huntington Beach as opposed to
five in Anaheim and one in Santa Ana. Bank of America’s distribution of service is somewhat
more balanced (though not when accounting for population) with six branches in Santa Ana, eight
25 Rex Dalton, OC Families Face Fierce Fight for Special Ed Services, VOICE OF OC (Sep. 25, 2012),
https://voiceofoc.org/2012/09/oc-families-face-fierce-fight-for-special-ed-services/.
26 Kenya Barrett, Best of Orange County 2019: Best Bank, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER (Sep. 19, 2019),
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/09/19/best-of-orange-county-2019-best-bank/.
27 https://www.calbanktrust.com/locations/
751
317
in Anaheim, eight in Irvine, and six in Huntington Beach. Lack of access to conventional financial
services like those offered by banks can prevent residents of underserved neighborhoods from
building credit that will help them attain homeownership and can leave residents with few options
but to patronize predatory financial services providers like payday lenders. A 2016 report from the
California Department of Business Oversight noted that, while 38.7% of California’s population
was Hispanic, the average percentage of Hispanic residents in zip codes with six or more storefront
payday lenders was 53%.28 Payday loans often lead to a cycle of debt that impedes individuals’
access to opportunity and economic mobility more generally. In Orange County, that phenomenon
appears to be especially likely to harm Hispanic residents, particularly in Santa Ana.
Access to Publicly Supported Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Access to publicly supported housing for persons with disabilities may be a significant contributing
factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Although persons with disabilities are generally
able to access Housing Choice Vouchers at rates that are commensurate with their share of the
income-eligible population, access to Project-Based Section 8 is more limited in many cities. For
Project-Based Section 8, cities with disproportionately low concentrations of residents with
disabilities include Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, La Habra, and Westminster.
Admissions and Occupancy Policies and Procedures, Including Preferences in Publicly
Supported Housing
Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported
housing may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. In
particular, housing authorities, including the Orange County Housing Authority, provide live-work
preferences to applicants for Housing Choice Vouchers. Given that Los Angeles County is
significantly more heavily Black than Orange County, live-work preferences in Orange County
may have the effect of disproportionately excluding Black families that might want to move to
Orange County. Housing authorities also have some criminal background screening policies that
might be overly restrictive. For example, the Orange County Housing Authority and the Anaheim
Housing Authority consider violent criminal activity that occurred as long as five years ago, even
if that activity consisted of minor misdemeanor conduct. The Garden Grove Housing Authority
also denies assistance based on arrest records alone in certain cases, a policy that contradicts
applicable HUD guidance.
Availability of Affordable Units in a Range of Sizes
The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes may be a significant contributing factor to
fair housing issues in Orange County. Overcrowding, as defined by HUD, in Orange County is
very high, at 9.51% overall, expanding to 15.97% for renters. Broken down by race, White, Black,
and Asian American residents live in overcrowded conditions at a rate of 6 or 7%, while Hispanic
residents are overcrowded at a rate of 26% countywide. For Publicly Supported Housing, a
supermajority (74.67%) of Project-Based Section 8 units are 0-1-bedroom units, as are Other
Multifamily units (84.54%, the other 15% having 2 bedrooms). A plurality of Housing Choice
Vouchers are also limited to 0-1 bedroom units (43.97%). 5,561 households or 26.20% of Housing
Choice Voucher occupants are also households with children, the highest of any category of
28 The Demographics of California Payday Lending: A Zip Code Analysis of Storefront Locations , 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.
752
318
publicly supported housing (followed by Project-Based Section 8, with 9.62%). Overall, most
housing units in the county contain 2 (28%), 3 (30%), or 4 (21%) bedrooms, indicating that on
paper, accessing housing units with enough bedrooms to house families or live-in aides using a
voucher is likely. However, these numbers do not speak to affordability and/or whether these units
are within the payment standards for vouchers. Source of income discrimination was recently
outlawed statewide, so even more units within the payment standards should be available to
voucher users in the future.
Availability, Type, Frequency, and Reliability of Public Transportation
The availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation may be contributing
factors to fair housing issues in Orange County. Public transportation in Orange County primarily
consists of bus service operated by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and
Metrolink light rail service. Additionally, more geographically limited service is available through
Anaheim Resort Transportation’s bus system and the OC Streetcar, connecting Garden Grove and
Santa Ana. Paratransit service is available through OC Flex. This public transportation has two
important shortcomings that have ramifications for fair housing issues. First, Metrolink does not
provide service to coastal communities in the central and northern portions of Orange County.
These communities, such as Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Laguna Beach are
disproportionately White in comparison to the county as a whole. The relative lack of public
transportation in these areas may deter members of protected classes who do not have cars and are
reliant on public transportation from choosing to live there, thus reinforcing patterns of
segregation. Second, although the OCTA offers bus service throughout the county, none of its
high-frequency lines, which run every 15 minutes during weekday rush hour, serve the southern
half of the county. As with the lack of light rail service in coastal communities, poorer quality bus
service in the disproportionately White southern half of the county may deter households from
making residential choices that would further integration. The low frequency and sparse bus lines
in southern Orange County also burden low-income households that disproportionately consist of
protected class members and make their lives more difficult.
Community Opposition
Community Opposition may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange
County. The County is now only plurality White,29 but recent political and demographic change
have not slowed opposition to affordable housing in Orange County, as residents have mobilized
to delay and prevent affordable housing efforts. Some Orange County cities have voted to oppose
or are preparing to oppose statewide plans to add 22,000 affordable housing units in the County.30
For the most part, residents, community planners, and elected officers opposed to the plan have
cited procedural concerns such as insufficient concern for local participation.31 Opposition to
multifamily housing and housing for the homeless and affordable housing generally betrays a
wider opposition to such initiatives based on “NIMBY” (“Not In My Backyard”) sentiments.
In Fullerton, for example, residents recently mobilized to stop the creation of an affordable housing
complex, citing concerns that the complex would reduce property values, create danger to children,
29 QuickFacts: Orange County, California, UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU,
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/orangecountycalifornia (last visited Jan. 16, 2020).
30 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/.
31 Id. Complaints included that the state plan’s “methodology was unfair” and not done in “good faith.”
753
319
and “attract people from other cities” that would become the responsibility of Fullerton residents.32
Additionally, in early 2019, opposition to state plans to increase affordable housing forced
California to sue the City of Huntington Beach to force compliance.33 Finally, State and regional
landlord associations have organized to oppose rent control and anti-eviction legislation.34
Overall, despite demographic and political changes, community opposition to fair housing in
Orange County remains robust.
Deteriorated and Abandoned Properties
Deteriorated and abandoned properties are not a significant contributing factor to fair housing
issues in Orange County. Although there was a surge in deteriorated and abandoned properties in
the wake of the foreclosure crisis, particularly in heavily Hispanic areas and with significant
harmful consequences for communities,35 that issue has gradually abated over the ensuring years.
The table below reflects the proportion of vacant housing units in each city in Orange County that
is categorized as “Other Vacant” in the American Community Survey. These are the vacant units
that are most likely to be abandoned rather than capturing va cation rentals and units that are
currently on the rental or sales market.
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%
32 Jill Replogle, ‘Not In My Backyard’: What the Shouting Down of One Homeless Housing Complex Means For Us
All, LAIST (Oct. 15, 2018), https://projects.scpr.org/interactives/fullerton-nimby/.
33 Don Thompson, California Sues Wealthy Coastal City Over Low-Income Housing, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Jan. 25,
2019), https://apnews.com/f5c6edc6bd31442082f5b4964a0bc51d .
34 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/.
35 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/.
754
320
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
755
321
is very low there in relation to the county as a whole. This is consistent with a picture of housing
market that is very tight for low-income residents even in the lowest income parts of the area.
Displacement and Lack of Housing Support for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence,
Sexual Assault, and Stalking
Displacement and lack of housing support for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, and stalking are not significant contributing factors to fair housing issues in Orange
County. California state law protects victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human
trafficking, or abused elder or dependent adult who terminates their lease early.36 The tenant must
provide written notice to the landlord, along with a copy of a temporary restraining order,
emergency protective order, or protective order that protects the household member from further
domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or abuse of an elder or dependent
adult. Alternatively, proof may be shown by submitting a copy of a written report by a peace
officer stating that the victim has filed an official report, or documentation from a qualified third
party acting in their professional capacity to indicate the resident is seeking assistance for physical
or mental injuries or abuse stemming from the abuse at issue. Notice to terminate the tenancy must
be given within 180 days of the issuance date of the qualifying order or within 180 days of the date
that any qualifying written report is made. This Analysis did not reveal specific evidence of
noncompliance with these requirements in Orange County or of other barriers faced by domestic
violence survivors.
Displacement of Residents Due to Economic Pressures
Displacement of residents due to economic pressures may be a significant contributing factor to
fair housing issues in Orange County and, in particular, in parts of Orange County that have
historically had concentrations of low-income Hispanic and Vietnamese residents. The map below
from the Urban Displacement Project at the University of California Berkeley shows census tracts
that experienced gentrification both between 1990 and 2000 and between 2000 and 2015 (in red),
census tracts that experienced gentrification between 2000 and 2015 (in light blue), census tracts
that experienced gentrification between 1990 and 2000 (in dark blue), and disadvantaged
communities that have not gentrified (in tan). Although there are no census tracts in Orange County
coded as having experienced gentrification in both time periods, there are several census tracts that
have undergone gentrification at some point since 1990 including in Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Dana
Point, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Orange, San
Clemente, and Villa Park. Though the Urban Displacement Project does not map the risk of future
gentrification in displacement in Southern California as it does in the Bay Area, the areas most
vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in Orange County – going forward – are
disadvantaged areas located near areas that have already gentrified and disadvantaged areas
located near major transit assets as well as anchor institutions like universities and hospitals.
Because the southern and coastal portions of Orange County have relatively few disadvantaged
areas, displacement risk is therefore concentrated in inland portions of central and northern Orange
County such as Anaheim, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Irvine, Orange, Santa Ana, and Westminster.
These areas also tend to have higher Hispanic and Asian population concentrations than the county
as a whole, illustrating the fair housing implications of displacement.
36 ttps://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1946.7
756
322
Impediments to Mobility
Impediments to mobility may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange
County. Specifically, Housing Choice Voucher payment standards that make it difficult to secure
housing in many, disproportionately White parts of the county contribute to segregation and
disparities in access to opportunity. Some housing authorities within the county have gone to tiered
rent systems that provide greater nuance than region-wide payment standards, but their payment
standards still are not as generous as Small Area Fair Market Rents would be. For example, the
Anaheim Housing Authority has two tiers, one for zip code 92808 and one for all other zip codes.
In zip code 92808, the payment standard for a two-bedroom unit is $2,438 while, in all other zip
codes, it is $2,106. Yet the hypothetical Small Area Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom unit in
zip code 92808, which is located in the Anaheim Hills, would be $2,790. Additionally, zip codes
92806 and 92807, which also cover the eastern half of the city but do not benefit from the higher
payment standard, would have Small Area Fair Market Rents of $2,380 and $2,660 respectively,
far higher than $2,106. A similar phenomenon pervades the Orange County Housing Authority’s
administration of the voucher program. That agency has three tiers based on city rather than zip
code, but the highest tier - $2,280 for two-bedroom units in selected cities – falls far short of Small
Area Fair Market Rents and leaves some cities targeted for that payment standard out of reach. For
example, in zip code 92660, located in Newport Beach, the Small Area Fair Market Rent for two-
bedroom units would be $3,120. A Zillow search for that zip code revealed advertised two-
bedroom units in only two complexes available for under $2,280 but many more available between
$2,280 and $3,120.
Inaccessible Government Facilities or Services
Inaccessible government facilities or services are not a significant contributing factor to fair
housing issues in Orange County. This Analysis did not reveal examples of government facilities
or services in Orange County that are inaccessible.
Inaccessible Public or Private Infrastructure
Inaccessible public or private infrastructure is not a significant contributing factor to fair housing
issues in Orange County. This Analysis did not reveal examples of public or private infrastructure
in Orange County that is infrastructure.
757
323
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
intensive models of community-based services like Assertive Community Treatment,37 are
available. Nonetheless, many people have trouble accessing needed services, and service providers
are not always able to reach vulnerable populations through street outreach. Additionally, across
types of disabilities, undocumented adults face barriers due to federal restrictions of Medicaid
assistance for undocumented people. The California Legislature has approved state funding for
Medi-Cal services for undocumented people until they reach the age of 26, a critical investment
that exceeds that of any other state, but there remains a funding gap for services for most
undocumented adults.
Lack of Affordable, Integrated Housing for Individuals Who Need Supportive Services
37 Assertive community treatment (ACT) is a form of community-based mental health care that provides
community-based, multi-disciplinary mental health treatment for individuals with severe and persistent mental
illness.
758
324
Lack of affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive services may be a
significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. This is a significant
contributing factor for two reasons. First, the shortage of permanent supportive housing throughout
Orange County in comparison to the total need is characteristic of the broader shortage of
affordable housing generally. Second, although there are some programs that specifically focus on
providing permanent supportive housing to individuals with disabilities including developments
built with Mental Health Services Act funds and Mainstream Housing Choice Vouchers, there has
not been a concerted effort to raise local bond funds for affordable housing and then to prioritize
permanent supportive housing with a portion of bond proceeds like there has been in some other
California jurisdictions, including Los Angeles County and Santa Clara County.
Lack of Assistance for Transitioning from Institutional Settings to Integrated Housing
Lack of assistance for transitioning from institutional settings to integrated housing is not a
significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. The Dayle McIntosh Center
provides robust services to individuals transitioning from institutional settings to integrated
housing, and there is no indication that they are unable to meet the total need for such services.
Lack of Community Revitalization Strategies
Lack of community revitalization strategies is not a significant contributing factor to fair housing
issues in Orange County. In communities with significant revitalization needs, such as in
disproportionately low-income and heavily Hispanic and Vietnamese neighborhoods in Anaheim,
Fullerton, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Westminster, there is no shortage of private investment
interest that would enhance or has enhanced community amenities. The more pressing problem is
the risk of displacement that would prevent long-time residents enjoying new amenities in recently
revitalized communities.
Lack of Local or Regional Cooperation
Lack of local or regional cooperation may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues
in Orange County. Although the infrastructure for collaboration across jurisdictions exists, as
demonstrated by this county-wide Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, there remains
a problem with local governments not taking the steps to achieve regionally determined goals like
progress toward meeting each jurisdictions Regional Housing Needs Allocation for very low -
income and low-income households. This gap has resulted in litigation between the City of
Huntington Beach and the State of California.38
Lack of Local Private Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement
Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement may be a significant contributing
factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Although Orange County is served by two, high-
quality private, non-profit fair housing organizations, they are underfunded and understaffed in
comparison to the total need for their services. Victims of discrimination would be more able to
exercise their rights, thus deterring future discrimination, if the capacity of existing organizations
grew to meet the scale of the problem.
38 Priscella Vega et al., State Sues Huntington Beach over Blocked Homebuilding, L.A. TIMES (Jan. 25, 2019),
https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-hb-housing-lawsuit-20190125-story.html.
759
325
Lack of Local Public Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement
Lack of local public fair housing outreach and enforcement may be a significant contributing factor
to fair housing issues in Orange County. There are no local public entities that conduct fair housing
outreach and enforcement, with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and
HUD constituting the only public enforcement bodies that operate in Orange County. Advocates
across Orange County and the state of California have reported issues with the timeline of the
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s investigations and the standards that it
applies in making probable cause determinations. A local public enforcement agency, if created,
would have the potential to be more responsive to victims of discrimination in Orange County than
either the state or HUD.
Lack of Meaningful Language Access for Individuals with Limited English Proficiency
Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency may be a
significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Private landlords generally
are not required to provide leases or other key documents or communications in the primary
languages of individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP). This can create confusion about
individuals’ rights. Housing authorities frequently have staff who are fluent in Spanish and/or
Vietnamese, but LEP speakers of other languages may have limited options, with housing
authorities relying on paid translation or interpretation services to communicate.
Lack of Private Investment in Specific Neighborhoods
Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods is not a significant contributing factor to fair
housing issues in Orange County. There are neighborhoods, particularly disproportionately low -
income, predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods, that have historically been subject to
disinvestment by the private sector. Santa Ana had long been emblematic of that pattern, but it has
begun to see a return of private capital, and accompanying gentrification risk, in recent years.39
Lack of Public Investment in Specific Neighborhoods
Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods is not a significant contributing factor to fair
housing issues in Orange County. Although there is a history of disparities in public infrastructure
in Orange County between areas that are predominantly White and more heavily Hispanic
communities, this Analysis did not reveal evidence of the current extent of this potential problem
nor if the interrelationship of that issue to patterns of segregation and displacement. This Analysis
addresses the public resources available to schools in the contributing factor relating to the location
of proficient schools and school assignment policies.
Lack of Resources for Fair Housing Agencies and Organizations
Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations may be a significant contributing
factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Two robust fair housing organizations operate in
Orange County, provide services to residents, and engage in enforcement, outreach, and education.
However, the size of the federal Fair Housing Initiatives Program, the primary funding program
for fair housing organizations, has failed to keep up with inflation, making Congress’s
appropriations worth less over time. In order to meet the needs of residents of a large and diverse
county, local fair housing agencies and organizations require greater levels of resourcing.
39 Erualdo R. 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.
760
326
Lack of State or Local Fair Housing Laws
Lack of state or local fair housing laws is not a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues
in Orange County. Although no jurisdictions in Orange County had prohibited source of income
discrimination against Housing Choice Voucher holders prior to the California Legislature passing
SB 222 and SB 329 banning the practice statewide, that step by the State means that there are not
significant gaps in non-discrimination protections for residents of Orange County.
Land Use and Zoning Laws
Land use and zoning laws may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange
County. With some exceptions, communities in Orange County that have relatively high
concentrations of White residents and relatively low concentrations of Hispanic residents tend to
have zoning that allows for limited opportunities to develop multifamily housing. In the absence
of multifamily zoning, it is generally infeasible to develop affordable housing for which occupancy
is likely to disproportionately consist of protected class members. The zoning map of Laguna
Beach, shown below, illustrates the high proportion of land that is reserved for low-density
residential development.
761
327
762
328
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.
763
329
764
330
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 $721,400,40 the lack of a significant disparity in loan origination
for home purchase loans is noteworthy.
More disparities emerge when looking at the other types of loans. Across refinancing and home
improvement loan applications, Hispanics are less likely to have a loan originate, and roughly 10%
more likely to have a home improvement loan application denied and 4% more likely to have a
refinancing loan denied. All ethnic groups are more likely than White residents to have their loan
40 https://www.zillow.com/orange-county-ca/home-values/
765
331
applications denied. Black residents are roughly 6% more likely to have refinancing loan
application denied. More drastic disparities appear for home improvement loans. Black residents
are nearly twice as likely to have a home improvement loan denied than White residents, Asian
residents are 5% more likely
In addition, the HMDA data indicates the rates at which certain races receive high-priced loans. In
Orange County, White and Asian borrowers are least likely to be given a high cost loan.
Meanwhile, Black residents are nearly twice as likely to receive subprime loans, and Hispanics are
nearly 2.5 times more likely. Lack of access to loans, or loans that are not high-priced, for Black
and Hispanic borrowers can often price these households out of owner-occupied single-family
homes, and increases the cost burden over time as rent continues to increase across the county.
Percentage of Originated Loans That Were High-Cost by Race or Ethnicity in Orange
County, 2014-2017 Home 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
766
332
to this trend. Market-rate multifamily housing is also more likely to be accessible, though to a
lesser standard than publicly supported housing, due to the design and construction standards of
the Fair Housing Act. Multifamily housing tends to be concentrated in communities of color, but
there are some predominantly White communities that have significant amounts of market-rate
multifamily housing that may be accessible and affordable to middle -income and high-income
persons with disabilities. These areas include Aliso Viejo, Laguna Woods (which primarily
consists of a large retirement community), Newport Beach, and Seal Beach. Overall, permitting
more multifamily housing and assisting more publicly supported housing in predominantly White
communities with proficient schools would help ensure that persons with disabilities who need
accessibility features in their homes have a full range of neighborhood choices available to them.
Location of Employers
The location of employers is not a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange
County. There does not appear to be any clear relationship between patterns of occupancy by race
or ethnicity and where major job centers are in Orange County. In fact, there are areas of Hispanic
population concentration, particularly in Anaheim and Santa Ana, that are located near major
employment centers. Additionally, heavily Hispanic communities in Orange County have greater
access to job centers in Los Angeles County than do predominantly White communities due to the
routing of Metrolink through the central portion of the county rather than along the coast or through
the hills.
Location of Environmental Health Hazards
The location of environmental health hazards may be a significant contributing factor to fair
housing issues in Orange County. Data indicates communities with a high concentration of
Hispanics experience higher levels of environmental harms; exposure primarily stems from vehicle
emissions due to the proximity of major freeways and the settling of smog in the area between the
coast and the hills rather than the location of major industrial facilities. As a county that developed
as a predominantly suburban area, there is no long history of heavy industrial activity in the area.
Of the county’s four Superfund sites, one – Orange County North Basin on the border of Fullerton
and Anaheim – is located in a heavily Hispanic area. In light of these circumstances, efforts to
reduce vehicle emissions and efforts to increase access to coastal and hillside communities for
Hispanic residents would be most likely to reduce environmental health disparities.
Location of Proficient Schools and School Assignment Policies
The location of proficient schools and school assignment policies may be significant contributing
factors to fair housing issues in Orange County. The schools with the highest proficiency in Orange
County are generally located in coastal areas and hillside areas rather than in the center of the
county, though Irvine is an exception. This distribution of proficient schools maps on to patterns
of residential racial and ethnic segregation, with disproportionately White population in areas with
high performing schools and relatively low Hispanic population in those areas. Public education
in Orange County is highly fragmented with 27 school districts serving the county’s students.
District boundaries frequently map onto municipal boundaries, which in turn correlate to patterns
of segregation. Inter-district transfers are only available for extremely limited circumstances. This
Analysis did not reveal school assignment policies that contribute to segregation within individual
school districts.
767
333
Loss of Affordable Housing
The loss of affordable housing may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in
Orange County. When subsidy contracts expire, the housing providers that often have the least
economic incentive to renew their affordability restrictions are those that are located in higher
opportunity areas or in areas that are gentrifying or at risk of gentrification. In Orange County,
according to the National Affordable Housing Preservation Database, there are 69 subsidized
properties with affordability restrictions that are scheduled to expire between now and the end of
2024. The loss of the developments among these that are most likely to be converted to market-
rate occupancy could contribute to segregation and fuel displacement.
Occupancy Codes and Restrictions
Occupancy codes and restrictions may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in
Orange County. Specifically, there is a substantial recent history of municipal ordinances targeting
group homes, in general, and community residences for people in recovery from alcohol or
substance abuse disorders, in particular. In 2015, the City of Newport Beach entered into a $5.25
million settlement of a challenge to its ordinance, but that settlement did not including injunctive
relief calling for a repeal of that ordinance.41 Group home operators have also challenged the City
of Costa Mesa’s ordinance, though a jury found in the City’s favor.42 Following the jury’s verdict
in that case, there were reports that Orange County was considering similar restrictions for its
unincorporated areas.43 Although municipalities have an interest in protecting the health and safety
of group home residents, these types of restrictions may be burdensome for ethical, high-quality
group home operators. Occupancy codes and restrictions are not as high priority of a barrier as the
factors that hinder the development of permanent supportive housing, as group homes are
generally less integrated than independent living settings.
Private Discrimination
Private discrimination may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange
County. Although complaint data from local fair housing organizations was available, stakeholders
reported the persistent nature of housing discrimination, as revealed through individual complaints
and through fair housing testing.
Quality of Affordable Housing Information Programs
The quality of affordable housing information programs may be a significant contributing factor
to fair housing issues in Orange County. None of the housing authorities serving Housing Choice
Voucher holders in Orange County operate mobility counseling programs. Mobility counseling
programs that help inform voucher holders of opportunities to use their assistance in higher
opportunity areas, assist with applying for units in higher opportunity areas, and provide support
in adjusting to life in different neighborhoods have demonstrated effectiveness in helping voucher
41 Hannah Fry, Newport Will Pay Group Homes $5.25 Million Settlement, L.A. TIMES (July 16, 2015),
https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-0716-newport-group-home-settlement-20150716-
story.html.
42 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/.
43 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/.
768
334
holders make moves that foster integration.44 The lack of mobility counseling is not the only barrier
to voucher holders accessing higher opportunity areas, but, as the discussion of impediments to
mobility reveals, there may be some rental units available within housing authority payment
standards in higher opportunity areas, but the availability would be greater if housing authorities
implemented Small Area Fair Market Rents.
Regulatory Barriers to Providing Housing and Supportive Services for Persons with Disabilities
Regulatory barriers to providing housing and supportive services for persons with disabilities are
not a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues for persons with disabilities in Orange
County. The amount of affordable housing available (and its cost), the extent of outreach and
capacity among service providers, and the scope of service provision may be the major causes of
segregation for persons with disabilities. To the extent that barriers are regulatory in nature, they
typically overlap with the zoning and land use barriers to the construction of affordable housing.
This Analysis discusses those in detail in the analysis of the land use and zoning laws contributing
factor. This Analysis also discusses restrictions on group homes and community residences in
connection with the occupancy codes and restrictions contributing factor.
Siting Selection Policies, Practices, and Decisions for Publicly Supported Housing, Including
Discretionary Aspects of Qualified Allocation Plans and Other Programs
Siting selection policies, practices, and decisions for public supported housing, including
discretionary aspects of Qualified Allocation Plans and other programs may be a signif icant
contributing factor to fair housing issues. The main policy-driven factor related to the siting of
publicly supported housing is the heavy focus of affordable housing development efforts
throughout the state on transit-oriented development. Access to transportation is very uneven
throughout the county, and disproportionately White areas, which tend to have more proficient
schools and better environmental health, tend to have limited access to transportation. When real
affordability is built into transit-oriented development, these investments may have a positive
effect on stable integration in areas undergoing gentrification by arresting the process of
displacement. Additionally, transit expansion to higher opportunity areas may also help ensure that
prioritizing transit-oriented development contributes to integration.
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) incentivizes
family-occupancy Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) development in what it terms “High
Resource” or “Highest Resource” areas. As the map below illustrates, these areas are generally
high opportunity areas that are disproportionately white. LIHTC development in these areas would
contribute to greater residential racial integration. Developers have reported that the incentives to
build affordable housing in these areas may not be sufficient to overcome differences in land costs
between higher opportunity areas and historically disinvested areas. Nonetheless, in light of the
incentives for LIHTC development in High Resource and Highest Resource areas, the QAP does
not currently contribute to segregation. Other policy interventions, such as the donation of public
land and land held by charitable organizations, are necessary to ensure the efficacy of existing
incentives. As an additional note, the QAP includes a set-aside pool for Orange County of 7.3%,
which is slightly less than its share in the population of the state (8.1%).
44 Mary K. Cunningham et al., Moving to Better Neighborhoods with Mobility Counseling, URBAN INSTITUTE (Mar.
2005), https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/51506/311146-Moving-to-Better-Neighborhoods-with-
Mobility-Counseling.PDF.
769
335
Source of Income Discrimination
Source of income discrimination may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in
Orange County. In October of 2019, Governor Newsom signed into law SB 329, which prohibits
discrimination in housing based on use of a Housing Choice Voucher or other tenant-based rental
assistance. Previously, no protections for voucher holders had existed in Orange County. News
reports have indicated a high degree of difficulty in accessing housing that would accept a subsidy
in Orange County.45 Specifically, if a voucher holder does not access housing within a four month
window, they lose their voucher to the next person on the waiting list. Within the Orange County
Housing Authority as well as the Garden Grove Housing Authority, the rate of voucher loss was
22% in 2016. In Anaheim, the rate of voucher loss was 33%, and in Santa Ana it was a whopping
64%. Additionally, the vacancy rate in Orange County is only about 4%, with rent rising at a rate
of about 3% a year; even without source of income discrimination, it is nevertheless a difficult
market in which to use a voucher. As the source of income discrimination law has just been passed,
it is difficult to say whether (now) illegal discrimination will continue in Orange County. A
comprehensive landlord education campaign could help avert this, as well as comprehensive
voucher counseling to help voucher holders navigate this difficult market.
State of Local Laws, Policies, or Practices That Discourage Individuals with Disabilities from
Living in Apartments, Family Homes, Supportive Housing, and Other Integrated Settings
State or local laws, policies, or practices that discourage individuals with disabilities from living
in apartments, family homes, supportive housing, and other integrated settings are not a significant
contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. A severe shortage of available,
integrated affordable housing is the primary driver of the segregation of persons with disabilities,
rather than laws, policies, or practices that discourage persons with disabilities from l iving in
integrated housing. This Analysis discusses restrictions on group homes and community
residences in connection with the occupancy codes and restrictions contributing factor.
45 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/.
770
336
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.
771
337
VIII. PUBLICLY SUPPORTED HOUSING APPENDIX
Table 1: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics and Surrounding Census Tract
Demographics, Orange County
Progra
m Type
Project
Name
Low Income
Units vs.
Units in
Project
Property
White
(%)
Proper
ty
Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispan
ic (%)
Propert
y
Asian
(%)
Househol
ds with
children
in the
develop
ment OR
Develop
ment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispani
c (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Census
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 626.05 84.2% 1.8% 8.7% 4.8% 10.6%
Other
Multifa
mily
Stanton
Accessib
le 9 N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a 878.01 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 878.05 16.1% 4.0% 55.7% 22.9% 16.2%
LIHTC
Birch
Hills
Apartme
nts 114 115 22.82% 5.63% 62.82% 13.80%
Large
Family 218.14 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 218.15 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 104 105 64.41% 3.39% 16.95% 17.80% Senior 15.06 48.3% 0.0% 23.6% 25.5% 12.2%
772
338
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%
LIHTC
Tara
Village
Apartme
nts 168 170 12.85% 4.80% 8.05% 73.53%
Large
Family
1101.04 36.7% 2.0% 20.0% 38.8% 8.5%
LIHTC
Glenney
re
Apartme
nts 26 27 84.62% 3.85% 11.54% 7.69% SRO 626.05 84.2% 1.8% 8.7% 4.9% 10.6%
LIHTC
Jackson
Aisle
Apartme
nts 29 30 76.67% 10.0% 16.67% 6.67%
Special
Needs 997.02 21.2% 0.9% 23.8% 51.1% 21.2%
LIHTC
Park
Stanton
Seniors
Apts 335 335 31.19% 5.31% 9.29% 13.50% Senior 881.01 27.8% 5.7% 43.1% 20.7% 10.9%
LIHTC
Plaza
Court 102 103 4.64% 0.55% 67.49% 1.09%
Large
Family 879.01 16.3% 1.5% 41.4% 39.6% 21.7%
LIHTC
Continen
tal
Gardens
Apartme
nts 297 297 0.00% 0.00% 2.37% 32.69%
Non
Targeted 878.03 7.9% 0.8% 65.3% 23.0% 33.3%
LIHTC
Oakcrest
Heights
(Savi
Ranch
II) 53 54
Large
Family 219.24 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 219.24 45.2% 4.3% 22.4% 23.1% 5.8%
LIHTC
Parkwoo
d
Apartme
nts 100 101 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Senior 218.09 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 218.02 60.8% 0.3% 28.0% 8.1% 9.5%
LIHTC
Vintage
at
Stoneha
ven
Apartme
nts 124 125 57.24% 1.97% 9.21% 7.89% Seniors 218.25 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 218.02 60.8% 0.3% 28.0% 8.1% 9.5%
LIHTC
Sendero
Bluffs 106 107 58.91% 1.55% 14.73% 6.20% Seniors 320.56 61.8% 1.4% 17.8% 12.6% 4.2%
LIHTC
Esencia
Norte
Apartme
nts 111 112 50.82% 6.01% 53.28% 4.10%
Large
Family 320.56 61.8% 1.4% 17.8% 12.6% 4.2%
773
339
Table 2: Aliso Viejo
Progra
m Type
Project
Name
Low Income
Units vs.
Units in
Project
Property
White
(%)
Prope
rty
Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispani
c (%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househo
lds with
children
in the
develop
ment OR
Develop
ment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispa
nic
(%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Cens
us
Tract
Pover
ty
Rate
LIHTC
Woodpa
rk
Apartme
nts
128 128 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
(%)
Propert
y Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispani
c (%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househo
lds with
children
in the
develop
ment OR
Develop
ment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispan
ic (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Census
Tract
Povert
y Rate
Project-
Based
Section
8
Village
Center
Apts 100 11% N/a 8% 81% N/a 0873.00 16.2% 0.8% 69.1% 11.7% 19.7%
Project-
Based
Section
8
Westche
ster
Housing 64 16% 25% 48% 11% 49% 0869.01 17.3% 6.1% 50.4% 24.6% 26.4%
Project-
Based
Section
8
Anaheim
Memoria
l Manor 75 19% 1% 5% 73% N/a 0873.00 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
Apartme
nts 229 232 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
Apartme
nts 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
Apartme
nts 177 180 32.88% 7.66% 23.87% 22.97% Senior 871.05 25.8% 0.5% 40.8% 24.7% 21.7%
LIHTC
Broadwa
y 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
Calendul
a 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
Californi
a Villas 33 34 31.11% 2.22% 26.67% 35.56% Senior 870.02 24.9% 3.0% 48.9% 21.5% 13.5%
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%
774
340
LIHTC
Cerritos
Avenue
Apartme
nts 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
Cornerst
one 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
Apartme
nts 24 25 54.84% 12.90% 19.35% 6.45%
Special
Needs 872 22.6% 4.4% 61.7% 9.6% 15.9%
LIHTC
Elm
Street
Common
s 51 52 68.69% 4.55% 77.78% 2.02%
Large
Family 873 16.2% 0.8% 69.1% 11.8% 19.7%
LIHTC
Greenlea
f
Apartme
nts 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
Perimete
r Re 111 118 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
Neighbo
rhood
Revitaliz
ation
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
Apartme
nts
Phase I 192 200 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
Neighbo
rhood
Revitaliz
ation
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
Neighbo
rhood
Revitaliz
ation
PhaseII 99 100 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
Magnoli
a Acres 40 40 90.00% 0.00% 10.00% 10.00% Senior 870.01 17.8% 9.5% 51.9% 18.7% 18.8%
LIHTC
Monarch
Pointe
Apartme
nt
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 57 58 22.82% 7.38% 33.56% 14.09%
Non-
Targeted 1102.02 28.5% 3.8% 37.6% 26.0% 24.2%
775
341
Apartme
nts
LIHTC
Park
Vista
Apartme
nts 390 392 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
Apartme
nts 174 174 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 110 111 31.58% 6.58% 37.28% 14.91%
Non-
Targeted 878.06 18.7% 2.0% 56.6% 17.5% 17.2%
LIHTC
Renaissa
ance
Park
Apartme
nts aka
Montere
y Apts. 124 126 8.27% 8.27% 24.41% 3.94%
Non-
Targeted 869.01 17.3% 6.1% 50.4% 24.6% 26.4%
LIHTC
Rockwo
od
Apartme
nts 51.43% 9.80% 54.29% 4.49%
LIHTC
Solara
Court 131 132 14.86% 0.57% 11.43% 76.00% Senior 1102.01 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
Stonegat
e 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
Crossing
s at
Cherry
Orchard 44 44 4.46% 0.00% 8.28% 1.27%
Large
Family 1102.01 26.7% 4.1% 27.3% 38.3% 17.3%
LIHTC
The
Vineyard
Townho
mes 50.00% 14.29% 85.71% 0.00% 873.00 16.2% 0.8% 69.1% 11.7% 19.7%
LIHTC
Tyrol
Plaza
Senior
Apartme
nts 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 134 135 26.44% 0.57% 18.97% 37.36% Senior 1102.01 26.7% 4.1% 27.3% 38.3% 17.3%
Table 4: Buena Park
Progra
m Type
Project
Name
Low Income
Units vs.
Units in
Project
Property
White
(%)
Propert
y Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispani
c (%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househo
lds with
children
in the
develop
ment OR
Develop
ment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispani
c (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Census
Tract
Povert
y 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
Casa
Santa
Maria 100 6% N/a 3% 91% N/a 1105.00 15.2% 5.9% 54.9% 20.7% 25.5%
776
342
Section
8
LIHTC
City
Yard
Workfor
ce
Housing 8.05% 15.44% 24.16% 35.57%
LIHTC
Dorado
Senior
Apartme
nts 32.65% 2.04% 15.31% 53.06% 868.03 25.2% 1.3% 44.9% 26.0% 17.6%
LIHTC
Emerald
Gardens
Apartme
nts 18.21% 10.49% 42.28% 7.10% 1102.01 26.7% 4.1% 27.3% 38.3% 17.3%
LIHTC
Harmony
Park
Apartme
nts 12.00% 4.00% 6.67% 61.33% 1105.00 15.2% 5.9% 54.9% 20.7% 25.5%
LIHTC
Park
Landing
Apartme
nts 42.33% 18.60% 40.93% 22.33% 868.01 29.3% 3.7% 40.7% 25.0% 5.3%
LIHTC
Walden
Glen
Apartme
nts 185 186 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
Property
White
(%)
Prope
rty
Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispani
c (%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househo
lds with
children
in the
develop
ment OR
Develop
ment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispan
ic (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Census
Tract
Poverty
Rate
Project
-Based
Section
8
Casa
Bella 74 68% 1% 17% 14% N/a 0637.02 35.1% 0.7% 56.5% 4.7% 17%
Project
-Based
Section
8
St. Johns
Manor 36 77% N/a 9% 14% N/a 0632.02 35.1% 0.7% 56.5% 4.7% 17%
LIHTC
Tower
on 19th 266 269 52.73% 2.12% 10.30% 17.58% Seniors 637.01 17.4% 0.8% 78.4% 2.5% 31.7%
Table 6: Fountain Valley
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
(%)
Househo
lds with
children
in the
develop
ment OR
Develop
ment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispani
c (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Census
Tract
Povert
y Rate
Project-
Based
Section
8
Our
Lady of
Guadalu
pe 71 15% N/a 1% 84% N/a 0992.33 51.4% 0% 10.7% 37.1% 4.4%
LIHTC
Fountain
Valley
Senior 154 156 49.00% 0.50% 12.00% 46.00% Senior 992.50 39.5% 1.2% 28.5% 28.6% 16.6%
777
343
The
Jasmine
Table 7: Fullerton
Progra
m Type
Project
Name
Low Income
Units vs.
Units in
Project
Property
White
(%)
Propert
y Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispan
ic (%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househo
lds with
children
in the
develop
ment OR
Develop
ment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispani
c (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
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
Multifa
mily
Casa
Maria
Del Rio 24 73% N/a 23% 4% N/a 0115.02 30% 1.8% 46.1% 19% 16.7%
Other
Multifa
mily
Harbor
View
Terrace 24 71% 13% 8% 8% 4% 0017.06 50.1% 0.2% 10.1% 34.8% 8.9%
LIHTC
Courtyar
d
Apartme
nts 108 108 64.43% 3.08% 60.78% 26.89%
Large
Family 112 50.6% 1.4% 34.4% 9.8% 15.8%
LIHTC
East
Fullerton
Villas 26 27 10.64% 2.13% 82.98% 6.38%
Large
Family 115.02 30% 1.8% 46.1% 19% 16.7%
LIHTC
Fullerton
City
Lights
Resident
ial Hotel 134 137 63.19% 9.03% 13.89% 4.17% SRO 113 58.7% 4.3% 19.3% 11.1% 12.0%
LIHTC
Fullerton
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
Fullerton
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 117.11 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 203 204 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 223 224 0.28% 0.00% 20.51% 0.14%
Non-
Targeted 116.01 9.4% 5.3% 75.1% 9.5% 30.1%
LIHTC
Ventana
Senior
Apartme
nts 18.25% 4.76% 4.76% 29.37% Senior
778
344
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 (%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househo
lds with
children
in the
develop
ment OR
Develop
ment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispani
c (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Census
Tract
Poverty
Rate
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+
Rosecres
t
Apartme
nts 40 41 53.78% 0.00% 89.92% 0.84%
Large
Family 885.01 14.6% 0.8% 54.4% 28.8% 16.6%
LIHTC
Garden
Grove
Senior
Apartme
nts 84 85 13.79% 0.86% 6.90% 74.14% Senior 885.02 12.0% 0.7% 47.0% 36.8% 21.1%
LIHTC
Grove
Park
Apartme
nts 103 104 3.30% 6.60% 33.02% 55.66% At-Risk 891.04 2.2% 0.2% 79.8% 17.5% 22.7%
LIHTC
Malabar
Apartme
nts 125 125 12.90% 2.30% 26.04% 3.00%
Large
Family 882.03 25.3% 0.6% 30.4% 37.2% 18.6%
LIHTC
Stuart
Drive
Apts.
Rose
Garden
Apts. 239 239 2.16% 0.00% 16.19% 39.41%
Non-
Targeted 885.01 14.6% 0.8% 54.4% 28.8% 16.6%
LIHTC
Sungrov
e Sr.
Apts 80 82 33.00% 4.00% 13.00% 42.00% Senior 885.02 12.0% 0.7% 47.0% 36.8% 21.1%
Table 9: Huntington Beach
Progra
m Type
Project
Name
Low Income
Units vs.
Units in
Project
Property
White
(%)
Propert
y Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispani
c (%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househ
olds
with
childre
n in the
develo
pment
OR
Develo
pment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispani
c (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Census
Tract
Povert
y 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 106 107 39.05% 5.71% 18.10% 3.81% SRO 992.35 66.7% 2.2% 20.5% 8.5% 12.4%
779
345
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 162 164 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
Targete
d 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
Apartme
nts 47 48 88.96% 0.00% 48.05% 0.65%
Large
Family 993.05 57.1% 0.7% 30.1% 5.4% 7.3%
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 102 104 69.01% 2.92% 19.88% 8.77%
Non
Targete
d 994.13 64.3% 0.2% 17.5% 16.5% 12.9%
Table 10: Irvine
Progra
m Type
Project
Name
Low Income
Units vs.
Units in
Project
Property
White
(%)
Prope
rty
Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispani
c (%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househo
lds with
children
in the
develop
ment OR
Develop
ment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispani
c (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Census
Tract
Poverty
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
Harvard
Manor 100 60% 2% 9% 29% 17% 0626.27 33.4% 1.9% 13.1% 47.9% 38.3%
780
346
Section
8
Project
-Based
Section
8
Sutton
Irvine
Residenc
es 9 100% N/a 0% N/a N/a 525.26 38.8% 0.9% 16.4% 37.5% 5.8%
Other
Multifa
mily
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) 102 104 21.52% 7.62% 21.19% 36.42%
Large
Family 525.18 61.0% 1.8% 6.6% 26.8% 11.3%
LIHTC
Anton
Portola
Apartme
nts 253 256 9.04% 1.69% 3.95% 3.58%
Non-
Targeted 524.04 30.2% 2.9% 29.7% 37.3% 0.0%
LIHTC
Cadence
Family
Irvine
Housing
(aka
Luminar
a) 81 82 36.06% 3.35% 14.50% 7.43%
Large
Family 524.04 30.2% 2.9% 29.7% 37.3% 0.0%
LIHTC
D1
Senior
Irvine
Housing
(aka
Luxaira) 156 156 18.66% 0.48% 4.31% 15.31% Seniors 524.04 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 755.15 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 524.26
45.10
%
0.50
% 9.50% 39.70% 6.1%
LIHTC
Doria
Apartme
nts
Homes
Phase II 74 74 21.84% 1.72% 9.77% 15.52%
Large
Family 755.05 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 755.15 27.4% 1.1% 36.0% 31.7% 19.4%
LIHTC
Irvine
Inn 192 192 19.05% 2.65% 2.65% 4.76% SRO 755.15 27.4% 1.1% 36.0% 31.7% 19.4%
LIHTC
Laguna
Canyon
Apartme
nts 120 120 47.57% 0.00% 30.10% 4.85%
Large
Family 525.18 61.0% 1.8% 6.6% 26.8% 11.3%
LIHTC
Montecit
o Vista
Apartme
nt
Homes 161 162 9.24% 8.84% 14.86% 17.27%
Large
Family 525.25 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 524.04 30.2% 2.9% 29.7% 37.3% 0.0%
LIHTC
Pavilion
Park 219 221 19.54% 0.99% 1.99% 15.56% Seniors 524.26 45.1% 0.5% 9.5% 39.7% 6.1%
781
347
Senior I
Housing
Partners
LP
(aka
Solaira)
LIHTC
San
Paulo
Apartme
nts 153 382 37.31% 2.09% 11.94% 5.67%
Non
Targeted 525.21 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 525.15 36.9% 0.3% 9.0% 46.7% 12.7%
LIHTC
The
Arbor at
Woodbu
ry 90 90 2.12% 6.36% 8.05% 24.15%
Large
Family 524.18 32.6% 3.0% 6.5% 53.8% 14.0%
LIHTC
The Inn
At
Woodbri
dge 120 120 64.05% 1.31% 7.84% 15.03% Senior 525.21 38.3% 3.6% 20.1% 33.8% 15.6%
LIHTC
Windro
w
Apartme
nts 96 96 21.80% 4.51% 18.80% 16.54%
Large
Family 524.17 37.0% 1.2% 7.5% 49.9% 9.8%
LIHTC
Woodbu
ry Walk 150 150 49.01% 0.00% 12.58% 17.88%
Large
Family 524.18 32.6% 3.0% 6.5% 53.8% 14.0%
Table 11: La Habra
Progra
m Type
Project
Name
Low Income
Units vs.
Units in
Project
Property
White (%)
Prope
rty
Black
(%)
Prope
rty
Hispa
nic
(%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househol
ds with
children
in the
developm
ent OR
Developm
ent Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispan
ic (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Census
Tract
Poverty
Rate
Project-
Based
Section
8
Las
Lomas
Garden
s 93 44% 1% 44% 11% 47% 0013.03 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 0012.02 12.7% 0.2% 85.1% 1.8% 15.1%
Table 12: La Palma
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
(%)
Househo
lds with
children
in the
develop
ment OR
Develop
ment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispani
c (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Censu
s
Tract
Povert
y Rate
LIHTC
Camden
Place
Apartme
nts 35 35 9.30% 9.30% 9.30% 65.12% Senior 1101.16 24.5% 5.6% 17.6% 47.0% 8.4%
LIHTC
Casa La
Palma
Apartme
nts 269 269 15.93% 3.53% 17.29% 48.46%
Non
Targeted 1101.16 24.5% 5.6% 17.6% 47.0% 8.4%
Table 13: Lake Forest
782
348
Progra
m Type
Project
Name
Low Income
Units vs.
Units in
Project
Property
White
(%)
Proper
ty
Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispani
c (%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househ
olds
with
childre
n in the
develop
ment
OR
Develo
pment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispani
c (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Censu
s Tract
Povert
y Rate
LIHTC
Baker
Ranch
Affordab
le (aka
Arroyo
at Baker
Ranch) 187 189 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
Property
White
(%)
Propert
y Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispani
c (%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househ
olds
with
childre
n in the
develop
ment
OR
Develo
pment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispani
c (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Census
Tract
Poverty
Rate
Project
-Based
Section
8
Village
La Paz 100
84% 2% 7% 7% 11% 0423.34 55.5% 2% 20.2%
13.7
% 7%
Project
-Based
Section
8
Alicia
Park
Apartme
nts 56
75% 4% 13% 8% 17% 0423.26 62% 4.7% 19.1% 8% 8.6%
Table 15: Mission Viejo
Progra
m Type
Project
Name
Low Income
Units vs.
Units in
Project
Property
White
(%)
Propert
y
Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispani
c (%)
Property
Asian
(%)
Househ
olds
with
childre
n in the
develo
pment
OR
Develo
pment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispan
ic (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Census
Tract
Poverty
Rate
LIHTC
Arroyo
Vista
Apartme
nts 155 155 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 141 143 6.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Non
Targete
d 320.13 74.5% 4.3% 10.0% 3.3% 4.8%
783
349
Table 16: Newport Beach
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
(%)
Househo
lds with
children
in the
develop
ment OR
Develop
ment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispani
c (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Census
Tract
Poverty
Rate
Project
-Based
Section
8
Seaview
Lutheran
Plaza 100 86% N/a 4% 10% N/a 0626.44 84.4% 0% 6% 8.9% 9.2%
LIHTC
Bayview
Landing 119 120 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
Veterans
Housing 12 12 0.00% 15.38% 7.69% 0.00%
Non-
Targeted 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
Property
White
(%)
Propert
y Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispani
c (%)
Prope
rty
Asian
(%)
Househo
lds with
children
in the
develop
ment OR
Develop
ment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispani
c (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Census
Tract
Povert
y Rate
Project-
Based
Section
8
Triangl
e
Terrace 75 57% 3% 24% 15% N/a 0759.02 56.3% 1% 37.3% 3.7% 18.3%
Project-
Based
Section
8
Casa
Ramon 75 19% N/a 77% 3% 37% 0759.01 51.9% 1.4% 41.9% 2.8% 24.1%
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
Friendl
y
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
Apartm
ents 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
Chestnu
t Place
(Fairwa
y
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
Apartm
ents 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
Commu
nity
Garden
Towers 332 333 2.44% 0.00% 0.44% 4.44% Senior 761.02 28.7% 7.0% 47.1% 16.1% 19.4%
784
350
LIHTC
Harmon
y Creek
Apartm
ents 83 83 39.13% 1.09% 13.04% 9.78% Senior 758.06 46.6% 0.4% 47.6% 3.8% 15.7%
LIHTC
Orange
vale
Apartm
ents 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
Stonega
te
Senior
Apartm
ents 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
Apartm
ents aka
Villa
Santiag
o 260 260 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
Progra
m Type
Project
Name
Low Income
Units vs.
Units in
Project
Property
White
(%)
Prope
rty
Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispani
c (%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househo
lds with
children
in the
develop
ment OR
Develop
ment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispa
nic
(%)
Tract
Asia
n
(%)
Census
Tract
Poverty
Rate
Project
-Based
Section
8
Casa De
Seniors 72 78% N/a 15% 7% N/a 0421.13 82.8% 0.4% 15.2% 1% 9.4%
LIHTC
Cottons
Point
Senior
Apartme
nts 75.82% 0.00% 7.69% 7.69%
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
Jambore
e
Apartme
nts
Phase I 123 124 48.60% 1.40% 64.02% 1.87%
Large
Family 320.23 75.5% 0.7% 11.4% 6.3% 2.2%
LIHTC
Talega
Jambore
e Apt
Ph. II
Mendoci
no 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
(formerl
y known
as 71 72 76.74% 0.00% 16.28% 10.47% Seniors 421.13 82.8% 0.4% 15.2% 1% 9.4%
785
351
Wycliffe
Casa de
S
LIHTC
Vintage
Shores 120 122 91.24% 1.46% 8.76% 2.19% Senior 422.06 79.5% 2.8% 14.3% 1.9% 4.2%
Table 19: San Juan Capistrano
Progra
m Type
Project
Name
Low Income
Units vs.
Units in
Project
Property
White
(%)
Property
Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispani
c (%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househo
lds with
children
in the
develop
ment OR
Develop
ment
Type
Census
Tract
Numbe
r
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispani
c (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Censu
s
Tract
Pover
ty
Rate
LIHTC
Seasons
Senior
Apartme
nts at
San Juan
Capistra
no 112 112 78.99% 1.45% 10.87% 2.17% Senior 423.12 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 423.12 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 423.12 25.2% 0.0% 68.0% 3.0% 19.4%
Table 20: Santa Ana
Progra
m Type
Project
Name
Low Income
Units vs.
Units in
Project
Property
White
(%)
Propert
y Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispani
c (%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househ
olds
with
childre
n in the
develop
ment
OR
Develo
pment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispani
c (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Censu
s Tract
Povert
y Rate
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% 749.02 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
Sullivan
Manor 54 33% N/a 52% 15% 49% 0748.02 1.6% 0.5% 88.1% 9.3% 25.5%
786
352
Section
8
LIHTC
Andaluci
a
Apartme
nts (aka
815 N.
Harbor) 56 70 70.00% 2.35% 85.00% 2.65%
Large
Family 891.05 1.7% 0.0% 89.1% 9.2% 27.0%
LIHTC
City
Gardens
Apartme
nts 274 274 7.24% 0.30% 84.77% 1.36%
Non
Targete
d 753.01 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 744.05 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 749.01 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 750.02 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 740.03 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 748.06 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 748.02 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 750.03 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 750.02 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 744.05 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 744.05 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 891.07 8.9% 0.0% 55.4% 35.2% 8.3%
LIHTC
Wakeha
m Grant
Apartme
nts 126 127 8.83% 1.42% 84.33% 5.98%
Non
Targete
d 745.01 1.0% 0.9% 91.2% 6.6% 39.8%
LIHTC
Wilshire
&
Minnie
Apartme
nts 143 144 97.57% 0.00% 97.76% 1.12%
Large
Family 744.03 3.6% 0.0% 93.9% 2.5% 28.8%
787
353
Table 21: Tustin
Progra
m Type
Project
Name
Low Income
Units vs.
Units in
Project
Property
White
(%)
Propert
y Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispani
c (%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househ
olds
with
children
in the
develop
ment
OR
Develo
pment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispan
ic (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Censu
s
Tract
Pover
ty
Rate
Project-
Based
Section 8
Tustin
Garde
ns 100 29% N/a 12% 59% N/a 755.05 41.5% 2.8% 38.8% 9.2% 8.3%
LIHTC
Anton
Legac
y
Apart
ments 161 225 37.90% 7.83% 33.10% 16.90%
Non-
Targete
d 755.15 27.4% 1.1% 36.0% 31.7% 19.4%
LIHTC
Coven
try
Court 97 240 40.47% 5.06% 8.56% 26.85% Senior 755.07 31.1% 3.8% 45.0% 16.7% 13.2%
LIHTC
Hampt
on
Squar
e
Apart
ments 212 350 12.16% 1.54% 78.08% 1.03%
Non-
Targete
d 744.07 10.8% 1.3% 84.1% 2.0% 22.9%
LIHTC
Herita
ge
Place
At
Tustin 53 54 38.81% 2.99% 13.43% 25.37% Senior 755.15 27.4% 1.1% 36.0% 31.7% 19.4%
LIHTC
Westc
hester
Park 149 150 13.12% 3.38% 75.35% 7.16%
Non
Targete
d 755.13 14.4% 3.6% 57.9% 20.5% 9.8%
Table 22: Westminster
Progra
m Type
Project
Name
Low Income
Units vs.
Units in
Project
Property
White
(%)
Propert
y Black
(%)
Propert
y
Hispani
c (%)
Propert
y Asian
(%)
Househ
olds
with
childre
n in the
develo
pment
OR
Develo
pment
Type
Census
Tract
Number
Tract
White
%
Tract
Black
(%)
Tract
Hispan
ic (%)
Tract
Asian
(%)
Censu
s
Tract
Pover
ty
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 998.02 14.5% 1.0% 32.1% 49.7% 30.3%
LIHTC
Coventr
y
Heights 75 76 9.90% 0.00% 3.96% 67.33% Senior 998.02 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 998.01 14.5% 0.6% 40.4% 44.2% 26.7%
788
354
LIHTC
The
Rose
Gardens 132 133
9.15% 0.61% 3.05% 84.76%
Large
Family 998.03 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 998.02 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 998.03 17.5% 0.0% 24.4% 54.3% 23.0%
789
355
IX. GLOSSARY
Accessibility: whether a physical structure, object, or technology is able to be used by people with
disabilities such as mobility issues, hearing impairment, or vision impairment. Accessibility
features include wheelchair ramps, audible crosswalk signals, and TTY numbers. See: TTY
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH): a requirement under the Fair Housing Act that
local governments take steps to further fair housing, especially in places that have been historically
segregated. See: Segregation
American Community Survey (ACS): a survey conducted by the US Census Bureau that
regularly gathers information about demographics, education, income, language proficiency,
disability, employment, and housing. Unlike the Census, ACS surveys are conducted both yearly
and across multiple years. The surveys study samples of the population, rather than counting every
person in the U.S. like the Census.
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA): federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination
against people with disabilities.
Annual Action Plan: an annual plan used by local jurisdictions that receive money from HUD to
plan how they will spend the funds to address fair housing and community development. The
Annual Action Plan carries out the larger Consolidated Plan. See also: Consolidated Plan
CDBG: Community Development Block Grant. Money that local governments receive from HUD
to spend of housing and community improvement
Census Tract: small subdivisions of cities, towns, and rural areas that the Census uses to group
residents together and accurately evaluate the demographics of a community. Several census tracts,
put together, make up a town, city, or rural area.
Consent Decree: a settlement agreement that resolves a dispute between two parties without
admitting guilt or liability. The court maintains supervision over the implementation of the consent
decree, including any payments or actions taken as required by the consent decree.
Consolidated Plan (Con Plan): a plan that helps local governments evaluate their affordable
housing and community development needs and market conditions. Local governments must use
their Consolidated Plan to identify how they will spend money from HUD to address fair housing
and community development. Any local government that receives money from HUD in the form
of CDBG, HOME, ESG, or HOPWA grants must have a Consolidated Plan. Consolidated Plans
are carried out through annual Action Plans. See: Action Plan, CDBG, HOME, ESG, HOPWA.
Consortium: in this analysis, the terms “the Consortium” and “the Taunton Consortium” are used
interchangeably. The Consortium refers to the cities of Taunton and Attleboro, and the towns of
Berkley, Carver, Dighton, Freetown, Lakeville, Mansfield, Middleboro, North Attleboro, Norton,
Plainville, Raynham, and Seekonk.
790
356
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
number of units allowed at a building site in exchange for either affordable housing funds or
making a certain percentage of the units affordable.
Disparate Impact: practices in housing that negatively affect one group of people with a protected
characteristic (such as race, sex, or disability, etc.) more than other people without that
characteristic, even though the rules applied by landlords do not single out that group.
Dissimilarity Index: measures the percentage of a certain group’s population that would have to
move to a different census tract in order to be evenly distributed with a city or metropolitan area
in relation to another group. The higher the Dissimilarity Index, the higher the level of segregation.
For example, if a city’s Black/White Dissimilarity Index was 65, then 65% of Black residents
would need to move to another neighborhood in order for Blacks and Whites to be evenly
distributed across all neighborhoods in the city.
ESG: Emergency Solutions Grant. Funding provided by HUD to 1) engage homeless individuals
and families living on the street, 2) improve the number and quality of emergency shelters for
homeless individuals and families, 3) help operate these shelters, 4) provide essential services to
shelter residents, 5) rapidly re-house homeless individuals and families, and 6) prevent
families/individuals from becoming homeless
Entitlement Jurisdiction: a local government that receives funds from HUD to be spent on
housing and community development. See also: HUD Grantee
Environmental Health Index: a HUD calculation based on potential exposure to harmful toxins
at a neighborhood level. This includes air quality carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological
hazards. The higher the number, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health.
791
357
Environmental Justice: the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, especially
minorities, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. In the past, environmental hazards have been concentrated near
segregated neighborhoods, making minorities more likely to experience negative health effects.
Recognizing this history and working to make changes in future environmental planning are
important pieces of environmental justice.
Exclusionary Zoning: the use of zoning ordinances to prevent certain land uses, especially the
building of large and affordable apartment buildings for low-income people. A city with
exclusionary zoning might only allow single-family homes to be built in the city, excluding people
who cannot afford to buy a house.
Exposure Index: a measurement of how much the typical person of a specific race is exposed to
people of other races. A higher number means that the average person of that race lives in a census
tract with a higher percentage of people from another group.
Fair Housing Act: a federal civil rights law that prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of
race, class, sex, religion, national origin, or familial status. See also: Housing Discrimination.
Federal Uniform Accessibility Standards (UFAS): a guide to uniform standards for design,
construction, and alternation of buildings so that physically handicapped people will be able to
access and use such buildings.
Gentrification: the process of renovating or improving a house or neighborhood to make it more
attractive to middle-class residents. Gentrification often causes the cost of living in the
neighborhood to rise, pushing out lower-income residents and attracting middle-class residents.
Often, these effects which are driven by housing costs have a corresponding change in the racial
demographics of an area.
High Opportunity Areas/Low Opportunity Areas: High Opportunity Areas are communities
with low poverty, high access to jobs, and low concentrations of existing affordable housing.
Often, local governments try to build new affordable housing options in High Opportunity Areas
so that the residents will have access to better resources, and in an effort to desegregate a
community, as minorities are often concentrated in low opportunity areas and in existing
affordable housing sites.
HOME: HOME Investment Partnership. HOME provides grants to States and localities that
communities use (often in partnership with nonprofits) to fund activities such as building, buying,
and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or ownership, or providing direct rental assistance
to low-income people.
Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)/Section 8 Voucher: a HUD voucher issued to a low-income
household that promises to pay a certain amount of the household’s rent. Prices are set based on
the rent in the metropolitan area, and voucher households must pay any difference between the
rent and the voucher amount. Voucher holders are often the subject of source of income
discrimination. See also: Source of Income Discrimination.
792
358
Housing Discrimination: the refusal to rent to or inform a potential tenant about the availability
of housing. Housing discrimination also applies to buying a home or getting a loan to buy a home.
The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to discriminate against a potential tenant/buyer/lendee based
on that person’s race, class, sex, religion, national origin, or familial status.
HUD Grantee: a jurisdiction (city, country, consortium, state, etc.) that receives money from
HUD. See also: Entitlement Jurisdiction
Inclusionary Zoning: a zoning ordinance that requires that a certain percentage of any newly built
housing must be affordable to people with low and moderate incomes.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): a federal civil rights law that ensures
students with a disability are provided with Free Appropriate Public Education that is tailored to
their individual needs.
Integration: the process of reversing trends of racial or other segregation in housing patterns.
Often, segregation patterns continue even though enforced segregation is now illegal, and
integration may require affirmative steps to encourage people to move out of their historic
neighborhoods and mix with other groups in the community.
Isolation Index: a measurement of how much the typical person of a specific race is only exposed
to people of the same race. For example, an 80% isolation index value for White people would
mean that the population of people the typical White person is exposed to is 80% White.
Jobs Proximity Index: a HUD calculation based on distances to all job locations, distance from
any single job location, size of employment at that location, and labor supply to that location. The
higher the number, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a
neighborhood.
Labor Market Engagement Index: a HUD calculation based on level of employment, labor force
participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the number, the higher the
labor force participation and human capital in the neighborhood.
Limited English Proficiency (LEP): residents who do not speak English as a first language, and
who speak English less than “very well”
Local Data: any data used in this analysis that is not provided by HUD through the Data and
Mapping Tool (AFFHT), or through the Census or American Community Survey
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC): provides tax incentives to encourage individual and
corporate investors to invest in the development, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable rental
housing.
Low Poverty Index: a HUD calculation using both family poverty rates and public assistance
receipt in the form of cash-welfare (such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)).
793
359
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 Mappin g 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.
794
360
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, protections for victims who are
795
361
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.
796
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1730 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Public Hearing to consider acceptance of Economic Development Subsidy Study for Pinnacle
Petroleum Sales Tax Agreement
Statement of Issue:
Government Code Section 53083 mandates certain requirements of local agencies prior to approving,
and during the term of, economic development subsidies. One requirement is that not less than five
years after the approval of an economic development subsidy, a report (the “Report”) containing
specific information shall be made available to the public via the City’s website and a public hearing.
The City approved a sales tax sharing agreement,Covenant Agreement by and between the City of
Huntington Beach and Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc., (the “Agreement”) in April 2014. The Report
containing the information required pursuant to Section 53083 of the Government Code is attached
for review (Attachment #1).
Financial Impact:
A fiscal impact was associated with the original action to approve the Agreement; however, there is
no fiscal impact to receive and file this document.
Recommended Action:
A) Open the public hearing and receive written and oral testimony; and,
B) Receive and file the “Five Year Report Pursuant to California Government Code Section 53083 on
an Operating Covenant Agreement By and Between the City of Huntington Beach and Pinnacle
Peetroleum, Inc.,” in compliance with Government Code Section 53083.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not receive and file the Report.
Analysis:
The City has used sales tax sharing agreements as an economic development incentive to help
attract new businesses and retain existing businesses. Pinnacle Petroleum is a provider of gas and
oil products for government and corporate fleets since 1995. Pinnacle Petroleum left Huntington
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™797
File #:20-1730 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Beach for a neighboring jurisdiction, but in 2007, the City was able to woo Pinnacle Petroleum back
to the City with the assistance of a sales tax sharing agreement (70% of sales tax revenue to the City
and 30% to Pinnacle). In 2014, the agreement was revised (35% of sales tax revenue to the City and
65% to Pinnacle) to ensure that Pinnacle would not relocate to another city with more competitive
incentives.
On January 1, 2014, the State approved Assembly Bill 562 (AB 562), a law that requires local
agencies to disclose certain information, make it available to the public, and conduct a public hearing
prior to approving an economic development subsidy.
This bill was codified as section 53083 of the Government Code and requires the following
information, as applicable:
1) The name and address of all corporations or any other business entities, except for sole
proprietorships, that are the beneficiary of the economic development subsidy.
2) The start and end dates and schedule for the economic development subsidy.
3) A description of the economic development subsidy, including the estimated total amount of
the expenditure of public funds by, or revenue lost to, the local agency as a result of the
economic development subsidy.
4) A statement of the public purposes for the economic development subsidy.
5) Projected tax revenue to the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy.
6) Estimated number of jobs created by the economic development subsidy, broken down by full-
time, part-time, and temporary employees.
An additional requirement of the law is that a local agency that approves an economic development
subsidy prepare a report, make it available to the public via the City’s website and at a public hearing,
within five years of the approval of the economic development subsidy. The report is required to
include items one through three listed above, as well as the net tax revenue accrued or accruing to
the local agency and the net number of jobs created.
When the City amended the Agreement with Pinnacle in 2014, AB 562 was in effect and the City was
required to hold a public hearing and disclose the information identified above, prior to approving the
amendment. The complete staff report, including the attached Covenant Agreement by and between
the City of Huntington Beach and Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc., is included (Attachment #2).
The Report required pursuant to Government Code Section 53083(d) is attached (Attachment #1),
and key points are as follows:
·Agreement term through April 20, 2024, with two five-year options (that must be mutually
agreed to);
·The City has retained $1,594,952 of the total sales tax revenues;
·The City has provided Pinnacle with $2,962,054 in rebates from the sales tax revenues;
·The City is estimated to retain approximately $1,761,600 in revenues through the remaining
five years; and
·The City has retained between 19 and 22 full-time and part-time jobs.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™798
File #:20-1730 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Environmental Status:
The recommended action to receive and file the document 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.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Strengthen long-term financial and economic sustainability
Attachment(s):
1. Five-Year Report - Operating Covenant Agreement by and Between the City of Huntington
Beach and Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc.
2. Original Staff Report, including attachments and the Operating Covenant Agreement Between
the City of Huntington Beach and Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™799
1
2006001.HB.JAR
14066.012.061/06-8-2020
FIVE YEAR REPORT PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53083
ON AN
OPERATING COVENANT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AND
PINNACLE PETROLEUM, INC.
The following Five Year Report has been prepared pursuant to California Government Code
Section 53083. Section 53083 requires that for economic development subsidy agreements
approved on or after January 1, 2014, the city must hold a public hearing within five years to
provide an update on the project. As required this report reiterates details of the Operating
Covenant Agreement (Agreement) and provides information on subsidy payments to date.
This update report considers only the Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to
effectuate economic development in the City of Huntington Beach (City).
The following Summary Report is based upon the information contained within the Agreement,
and is organized into the following six sections:
I. Identity of the Developer: This section provides the name and address of the
Developer.
II. Salient Points of the Agreement: This section summarizes the major responsibilities
imposed on Pinnacle and the City by the Agreement.
III. Economic Incentives Provided and Cost of the Agreement: This section details the
economic incentives provided, and the costs incurred by the City to implement the
Agreement.
IV. Consideration Received and Comparison with the Economic Incentives Provided:
This section describes the financial compensation to be received by the City.
V. Creation of Economic Opportunity and Public Purpose: This section explains how
the Agreement will assist in creating economic opportunity in the City.
VI. Job Creation/Retention: This section describes the number of full-time, part-time and
temporary jobs created or retained under the Agreement.
This report and the Agreement are to be made available for public inspection prior to the public
hearing on the status of the Agreement.
800
2
2006001.HB.JAR
14066.012.061/06-8-2020
I. IDENTITY OF DEVELOPER
Information on the Developer is provided below:
Pinnacle
Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc.
7911 Professional Circle
Huntington Beach, California 92648
II. SALIENT POINTS OF THE AGREEMENT
A. Pinnacle Responsibilities
The Agreement required Pinnacle to accept the following:
1. Pinnacle agreed to enter into the Development and Operating Covenant with the City.
2. Pinnacle agreed to maintain its headquarters in the City for the next 10 years, with
options to extend the time by up to ten years.
B. City Responsibilities
The Agreement imposed the following responsibilities on the City:
1. The City purchased the Operating Covenants over the initial ten-year period and for the
two optional five year periods for an amount equal to 65% of the sales tax revenues
generated provided that sales tax revenues exceed $25,000 per quarter ($100,000 per
year).
C. Schedule
The Agreement has a ten year term. It became effective on April 21, 2014 and expires on April
20, 2024. The Agreement provides for two five year options, which, if both are exercised, would
extend the Agreement until April 20, 2034.
III. ECONOMIC INCENTIVES PROVIDED AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT
The City entered into the Agreement to retain Pinnacle in the City. Pinnacle had received
numerous offers to relocate its headquarters to other locations near the City. The City’s
incentive program caused Pinnacle to choose to remain in the City. Economic incentives are
provided to high sales tax producers to incentivize the business to remain in the City.
Under the Agreement the City rebates 65% of the sales tax revenues generated by Pinnacle in
any given fiscal year. Through the first five years of the Agreement, the City has incurred
$2,919,843.87 in costs, as shown below.
801
3
2006001.HB.JAR
14066.012.061/06-8-2020
Fiscal Year Rebate
2014 – 2015 $715,218.31
2015 – 2016 $452,131.40
2016 – 2017 $434,519.21
2017 – 2018 $663,682.23
2018 – 2019 $654,292.72
Total $2,919,843.87
The costs to be incurred by the City through the remaining five years of the Agreement are
estimated to be approximately $3,271,500 assuming that the annual rebate remains at
$654,292.72 for the next five years. The amount could be higher or lower depending upon
whether the cost of fuels and quantities sold increase or decrease over the next five years.
IV. CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND COMPARISON WITH THE ECONOMIC
INCENTIVES PROVIDED
The Agreement has retained substantial sales tax revenues for the City. Thus far, Pinnacle has
generated $4,557,009.26 in sales tax revenues through the end of fiscal year 2018 – 2019.
Absent the Agreement Pinnacle would have relocated to another City and those sales tax
revenues would have been captured elsewhere. As shown below, the City has retained
$1,637,165.39 of the total sales tax revenues.
Fiscal Year Retained Tax
2014 – 2015 $366,464.69
2015 – 2016 $260,593.07
2016 – 2017 $300,428.81
2017 – 2018 $357,367.36
2018 – 2019 $352,311.46
Total $1,637,165.39
The revenues to be retained by the City through the remaining five years of the Agreement are
estimated to be approximately $1,761,600, assuming that the sales remain constant and the
City receives $352,311.46 per year for the next five years. The amount could be higher or lower
depending upon whether cost of fuels and quantities sold increase or decrease over the next
five years.
802
4
2006001.HB.JAR
14066.012.061/06-8-2020
V. CREATION OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND PUBLIC PURPOSE
As noted when the Agreement was approved, Pinnacle was being wooed by other cities to
relocate their operation and sales tax payments to their city. Pinnacle decided to stay in
Huntington Beach in large part due to the City entering into the Agreement. As a result, the City
has retained between 19 and 22 full-time and part-time jobs over the last five years and expects
to do so over the next five years of the Agreement.
The Agreement includes two five-year options. If Pinnacle and the City exercise the options,
then the City could expect to retain approximately $3.5 million during the option periods if sales
volumes remain at their existing levels. Pinnacle would expect to receive rebates totaling
approximately $6.5 million over the two option periods, again assuming sales remain at their
current levels.
The City’s 2019-2020 revised budget estimates local sales tax revenues at approximately $36.4
million. The retained sales tax revenues of approximately $352,000 represent nearly 1.0% of
the City’s projected sales tax revenues.
VI. JOB CREATION/RETENTION
Pinnacle averaged between 20 and 25 employees over the first five years of the Agreement.
These jobs would have been lost to the community if Pinnacle had relocated to another city.
These jobs have been retained in the City at an average annual cost of $28,625.89 per job
through the first five years as shown below.
Fiscal Year Full-time
Employees
Part-time
Employees
Total
Employment
Rebate
Payment
Rebate per
Employee
2014 – 2015 12 8 20 $715,215,31 $35,760.66
2015 – 2016 12 8 20 $452,131.40 $22,606.57
2016 – 2017 14 8 22 $434,519.21 $19,750.87
2017 – 2018 13 6 19 $663,682.23 $34,930.64
2018 – 2019 14 7 21 $654,292.72 $31,156.80
Total 65 37 102 $2,919,840.87 $28,625.89
803
dW1t r /1 r''
T?, C,
Dept. ID ED 14- 12 Page 1 of 3
Meeting Date:4/21/2014
r
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR. CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 4/21/2014
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Ken Domer, Assistant City Manager
Kellee Fritzal, Deputy Director, Business Development
SUBJECT: Approval of an Operating Covenant Agreement Between the City of Huntington
Beach and Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc., at 7911 Professional Circle, Huntington
Beach and Request to increase the Business Development budget by $330,000
Statement of Issue:
The City Council is asked to approve an Agreement with Pinnacle Petroleum, a California
Corporation (Pinnacle), for sales tax sharing. The City and Pinnacle currently have a sales tax
sharing agreement approved in July 2007 that provides a 70/30 split (70% to City, 30% to
Pinnacle). The new sales tax sharing agreement will be 35% to City and 65% to Pinnacle. Due to
competition among cities in attracting petroleum broker industry firms, a new Agreement is
recommended to retain this business. With the new sales tax sharing agreement, Pinnacle has
stated that their revenue will increase, as they will be able to be more competitive in the petroleum
market place.
Financial Impact:
Currently, Pinnacle Petroleum brings in approximately $700,000 in revenue to the City, after the
current sales tax sharing agreement is applied (70/30 split). With the proposed sales tax sharing
agreement, the City will receive approximately $350,000 a year (35% City/65% Pinnacle). This is a
revenue loss mitigation agreement. In order to provide for this greater sales tax sharing increase to
Pinnacle, a budget increase, based upon current sales tax figures, will be required in the Business
Development Sales Tax Sharing account (10080101.79350) of $330,000. The City will retain an
estimated $356,000 as a portion of the General Fund revenues. Pinnacle anticipates increases in
revenue as a result of this agreement, therefore, the City will benefit from the increased revenue.
Recommended Action:
A) Approve the Operating Covenant Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and
Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc., and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign; and
B) Approve an increase of$330,000 to Business Development account 10080101.79350.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the Operating Covenant Agreement and direct staff as necessary.
Analysis:
The City has utilized the concept of sales tax sharing agreements in the past and the City Council
previously approved four sales tax sharing agreements. One of which, Pinnacle Petroleum,
Item 9. - I HB -226-
804
Dept. ID ED 14-12 Page 2 of 3
Meeting Date:4/21/2014
recently approached the City regarding a new sales tax sharing agreement. Pinnacle Petroleum is
a provider of gas and oil products for government and corporate fleets. This industry has seen a
consolidation of firms and has become more competitive for fuel contracts. Information shared by
Pinnacle confirms the increase in competitiveness within the industry and the potential for
increased sales to Pinnacle with the proposed agreement.
Pinnacle established their business in Huntington Beach in 1995, and moved to Seal Beach in
1998. At that time, Seal Beach offered a sales tax sharing agreement to Pinnacle with more
incentives. However, due to the ownership being local Huntington Beach residents, Pinnacle
relocated back to the City in 2007, when the City matched the sales tax sharing agreement. The
sales tax sharing agreement was 70% to the City and 30% to Pinnacle. Pinnacle purchased a
building located on Professional Circle and, over the last six years, has seen the business grow.
However, over the last six months, Pinnacle has outgrown the building in which they are located
and explored various opportunities to relocate the business. As part of the relocation, in addition to
a general push by other cities to seek such sales tax generating businesses, Pinnacle was
approached by and has approached other cities regarding a new sales tax sharing agreement
formula. Based upon review of other city's sales tax sharing agreements, the current City
agreement is not competitive. The cities of Long Beach, Seal Beach, Buena Park, Garden Grove,
Orange, and La Palma are offering better incentives to attract Pinnacle and other petroleum
providers. City staff confirmed the other cities' interest and willingness to provide the sales tax
sharing agreement to attract Pinnacle.
In general, the sharing of sales tax revenue is considered an economic development tool for cities
and counties in. order to either attract or retain businesses. The encouragement of Pinnacle by
other cities is not unexpected given the minimal impact of the business to a city (minimal office
space requirement, non-industrial setting and remote dispatching of fleet vehicles) and the potential
for high sales tax increase to a new city even at a 35% share to the local government. However, in
the case of Huntington Beach (or any city potentially losing such a business) the impact can be
immense to General Fund revenues. As such, the new agreement is considered a revenue loss
mitigation agreement as it minimizes the potential loss of all sales tax generated by Pinnacle to the
City. The agreement and concept was discussed with the City's Economic Development
Committee and the consensus was to advance it to the City Council with the recommendation for
approval.
New with this agreement is the requirement for a Public Hearing and Economic Development
Impact Report. The loss of redevelopment left cities with a loss of local resources to encourage
economic development. The State made the decision to terminate redevelopment and removed the
single largest economic tool available to local agencies. Based upon the decision to terminate
redevelopment Statewide, the Governor and Legislature recognized the necessity of cities, counties
and State to encourage employment and retain jobs and companies. Consequently, the State
approved Assembly Bill 562 (AB 562), which went into effect on January 1, 2014, as an economic
tool to provide a process to allow all local agencies and cities to create and retain jobs as well as
industries in the local communities and State through sales tax sharing or other financial
assistance.
The attached report provides the information required by AB 562 and the fiscal analysis necessary
to determine the projected revenue generated by Pinnacle to the City for business retention through
an Operating Covenant Agreement. The retention of sales tax revenue to the City, of which a
portion of the revenue collected will be shared with Pinnacle, will help to mitigate significant fiscal
impacts to City revenues and city services. The term of the agreement is ten years, with a five-year
option for renewal. This agreement also provides for liquidated damages should Pinnacle decide
to leave within the ten-year timeframe.
HB -227-Item 9. - 2805
Dept. ID ED 14- 12 Page 3 of 3
Meeting Date:4/21/2014
Environmental Status:
Not applicable
Strategic Plan Goal:
Improve long-term financial sustainability
Attachment(s):
1. Operating Covenant Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and Pinnacle
Petroleum, Inc.
2. AB 562 Economic Development Impact Report
Item 9. - 3 HB -228-
806
OPERATING COVENANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AND PINNACLE PETROLEUM, INC.
THIS OPERATING COVENANT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") dated as of
2014 ("Effective Date") is entered into by and between the CITY OF
HUNT GTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California ("City"), and
PINNACLE PETROLEUM, INC., a California corporation ("Business Owner"). City and
Business Owner enter into this Agreement with reference to the following recited facts (together
the "Recitals"):
RECITALS
A. Business Owner is in the business of selling refined petroleum products. Business
Owner currently owns, and has as its current point of sale for purposes of the Uniform Local
Sales and Use Tax Law, property located at 7911 Professional Circle, Huntington Beach,
California 92648 ("Site"). During the Operating Period hereunder (including any extended
Operating Period), Business Owner may buy alternate property within the City of Huntington
Beach to be its point of sale for purposes of the Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law for
Business Owner's business of selling refined petroleum products. In such event, the "Site"
hereunder shall mean and refer to such alternate property upon the satisfaction of both of the
following conditions precedent: (1) commencement of fee title ownership of such alternate
property within the City of Huntington Beach by Business Owner; and (2) commencement of the
designation of the property as the point of sale for purposes of the Uniform Local Sales and Use
Tax Law for Business Owner's business of selling refined petroleum products.
B. City and Business Owner are parties to that certain Sales Tax Agreement between
the City of Huntington Beach and Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc. dated as of July 16, 2007 ("Existing
Agreement") whereby Business Owner has agreed to use the Site as its primary business location
during the operating period described in the Existing Agreement. City recognizes that retention
of Business Owner in Huntington Beach will continue to contribute to the economic vitality of
the City, continue to provide additional jobs in the City, continue to expand the City's tax base
and otherwise improve economic and physical conditions in the City.
C. In order to induce the Business Owner to retain its business in Huntington Beach,
the City is willing to provide financial assistance to the Business Owner as described in this
Agreement subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
D. By its approval of this Agreement, the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach finds and determines that this Agreement serves as a valid public purpose through
continuing to expand economic opportunities for businesses in the City, continuing to expand the
City's employment base, and continuing to generate hereinafter defined Sales Tax that City can
utilize to fund general governmental services such as police, fire, street maintenance, and parks
and recreation programs. City and Business Owner have agreed that the respective
considerations are a fair exchange.
v2 3-24-14
1 807
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing Recitals and in consideration of the
mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth, Business Owner and City agree as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS
The capitalized terms and words used in this Agreement shall have the following
meanings unless expressly provided to the contrary.
1. 1 "Base Amount" means the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) in
Sales Tax Increment received by the City for any quarter.
1.2 "Fiscal Year" means the City's fiscal year of October 1 through September 30.
1.3 "Laws" means all statutes, laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, writs,judgments,
injunctions, decrees or awards of the United States or any state, county, municipality or other
governmental agency.
1.4 "Liquidated Damages" means an amount equal to twenty five thousand dollars
25,000) per quarter after the date of the Business Owner Default relating to Section 3.1, 3.2
and/or 3.3 hereunder through the then remainder of the Operating Period (including any extended
Operating Period) (notwithstanding any termination of this Agreement as may be permitted
under this Agreement).
1.5 "Operating Period" means the period beginning with the Effective Date and
expiring ten (10) years later. Upon mutual written agreement of the Parties at least 180 days
prior to the end of the then current Operating Period (or such later date as may be mutually
agreeable to the Parties), this Agreement may be extended for up to two additional five (5) year
operating periods upon the same terms and conditions herein for a cumulative total of a twenty
20) year Operating Period. Upon any such extension, "Operating Period" as used herein shall
mean and include such extended operating period.
1.6 "Party" means any party to this Agreement. The "Parties" shall be both parties to
this Agreement.
1.7 "Penalty Assessments" means penalties, assessments, collection costs and other
costs, fees or charges resulting from late or delinquent payment of Sales Tax and which are
levied, assessed, or otherwise collected from the business on the Site owning or obligated to pay
Sales Tax.
1.8 "Person" means any person or entity, whether an individual, trustee, corporation,
partnership, trust, unincorporated organization, governmental agency or otherwise.
1.9 "Sales Tax Increment" means that portion of taxes derived and received from the
California State Board of Equalization pursuant to the application of the Uniform Local Sales
and Use Tax Law by the City of Huntington Beach attributable to Business Owner's business
conducted on the Site. Sales Tax Increment shall not include (a) Penalty Assessments; (b) any
Sales Taxes levied by, collected for or allocated to the State of California, the County of Orange,
v2 3-24-14
2
808
a district or any other entity, notwithstanding that such funds received by City are derived or
measured by such other entity based upon Sales Taxes; (c) any administrative fee charged by the
California State Board of Equalization; or (d) any Sales Tax attributable to any transaction not
consummated within the Operating Period (including any extended Operating Period). The Sales
Tax Increment shall not exceed one percent (1%) upon taxable sales and uses on the Site.
1.10 "Sales Tax" means the tax derived from the Business Owner's business conducted
on the Site and a portion of which is allocated to and received by the City of Huntington Beach
pursuant to the Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law.
1.11 "Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law" means and refers to: (a) California
Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7200 et seq., as may be amended from time to time, and any
successor law thereto; and (b) regulations of the California State Board of Equalization and other
binding rulings and interpretations relating to subsection(a) of this Section.
2.THE PARTIES
2.1 Business Owner. Business Owner is Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc., a California
corporation. Wherever the term "Business Owner" is used in this Agreement, the term shall be
deemed to refer to Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc.
Business Owner may not assign the rights and/or obligations of this Agreement to
any other Person without the prior written consent of the City, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld. Prior to any assignment by Business Owner, Business Owner shall
present such information to the City as may reasonably be requested by the City Manager or
designee in connection with such assignment. Upon receipt of the requested information, City
shall have ten (10) days to respond and approve or disapprove the proposed assignment. In the
event market conditions materially change and this Agreement places Business Owner in a non-
competitive position, the City agrees to meet and confer to discuss mutually acceptable
modifications to this Agreement By executing this Agreement, Business Owner
warrants and represents to City that it has the full power and authority to enter into this
Agreement and that all authorizations and approvals required to make this Agreement binding
upon Business Owner have been duly obtained.
2.2 The City. The City is a municipal corporation, duly organized and
existing pursuant to its Charter.
3.OBLIGATIONS OF BUSINESS OWNER
3.1 Operating Covenant. Business Owner covenants and agrees that, during the
Operating Period (including any extended Operating Period), Business Owner shall retain and
operate on the Site Business Owner's business of selling refined petroleum products and use the
Site as Business Owner's primary business location for selling such refined petroleum products,
consistent with all applicable provisions of any Laws. Business Owner shall operate its business
in a commercially reasonable and prudent manner, with the objective of generating the greatest
feasible amount of Sales Tax Increment. Business Owner's obligations pursuant to the
v2 3-24-14
3 809
immediately preceding sentence include, without limitation, the obligation to obtain or cause to
be obtained all federal, state and local licenses and permits required for the operation of its
business.
3.2 Covenant to Designate City as Point of Sale. Business Owner covenants and
agrees that, during the Operating Period (including any extended Operating Period), Business
Owner shall, consistent with the requirements of law, designate the Site as the point of sale in all
sales of its refined petroleum products and identify the City as such in all reports to the
California State Board of Equalization in accordance with the Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax
Law. Business Owner shall be solely responsible for ensuring that all taxable sales transactions
for business activities are consummated at the Site, consistent with all applicable statutory and
California State Board of Equalization regulatory requirements applicable to the business
activities and the designation of the City as the "point of sale" for all taxable sales occurring as a
result of the business activities on or off the Site.
In the event market conditions materially change and this Agreement places Business
Owner in a non-competitive position, the City agrees to meet and confer to discuss mutually
acceptable modifications to this Agreement.
3. 3 Covenant Against Solicitation and Acceptance of Economic Incentives During the
Term of the OperatingP . Business Owner covenants and agrees that, during the Operating
Period (including any extended Operating Period), Business Owner shall not directly or
indirectly solicit or accept any "Financial Assistance" from any other public or private Person, if
such Financial Assistance is given for the purpose of causing or would result in Business
Owner's breach of any of the covenants or terms and conditions of this Agreement. For
purposes of this Section, the term "Financial Assistance" means any direct or indirect payment,
subsidy, rebate, or other similar or dissimilar monetary or non-monetary benefit, including,
without limitation, payment of land subsidies, relocation expenses, public financings, property or
sales tax relief, rebates, and/or exemptions or credits.
3.4 Indemnification. From the Effective Date of this Agreement through the
termination date of this Agreement, Business Owner shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless
City and its officers, employees and agents, from and against all liabilities, obligations, claims,
damages, penalties, causes of action, judgments, costs and expenses (including, without
limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses) (collectively "Claims") imposed upon or
incurred by or asserted against City arising out of any act or omission of Business Owner and/or
its business(es); provided, however, that the aforesaid obligations of Business Owner shall not
apply to the extent any Claim results from the active negligence or intentional misconduct of
City or any of City's officers, employees, agents, or contractors. In the event that any action, suit
or proceeding is brought against City by reason of any such occurrence, Business Owner, upon
City's request, will, at Business Owner's expense, defend such action, suit or proceeding at
Business Owner's sole cost.
v2 3-24-14
4
810
3.5 Insurance.
3.5.1 Workers' Compensation Insurance.
Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1861, Business Owner acknowledges
awareness of section 3700 et seq. of said Code, which requires every employer to be insured
against liability for workers' compensation. Business Owner covenants that it will comply with
such provisions from the Effective Date of this Agreement through the termination date of this
Agreement.
Business Owner shall maintain workers' compensation insurance in an amount of not less
than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) bodily injury by accident, each occurrence, One
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) bodily injury by disease, each employee, Two Hundred
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) bodily injury by disease, policy limit.
Business Owner shall require all subcontractors to provide such workers' compensation
insurance for all of the subcontractors' employees. Business Owner shall furnish to City a
certificate of waiver of subrogation under the terms of the workers' compensation insurance and
Business Owner shall similarly require all subcontractors to waive subrogation.
3.5.2 Insurance.
In addition to the workers' compensation insurance and Business Owner's covenant to
indemnify City, Business Owner shall obtain and furnish to City, a policy of general public
liability insurance, including motor vehicle coverage, covering the Site and Business Owner's
business operations thereon. Said policy shall indemnify Business Owner, its officers, agents
and employees, while acting within the scope of their duties, against any and all claims of arising
out of or in connection with the Site or Business Owner's business operations thereon, and shall
provide coverage in not less than the following amount: combined single limit bodily injury and
property damage, including products/completed operations liability and blanket contractual
liability, of$1,000, 000 per occurrence. If coverage is provided under a form which includes a
designated general aggregate limit, the aggregate limit must be no less than $1,000,000. Said
policy shall name City, its officers, and employees as Additional Insureds, and shall specifically
provide that any other insurance coverage which may be applicable to the Site or Business
Owner's business operations thereon shall be deemed excess coverage and that Business
Owner's insurance shall be primary.
Under no circumstances shall said above-mentioned insurance contain a self-insured
retention, or any other similar form of limitation on the required coverage.
3.5.3 Certificates of Insurance; Additional Insured Endorsements.
Prior to commencement of the Operating Period hereunder, Business Owner shall furnish
to City certificates of insurance subject to approval of the City Attorney evidencing the foregoing
insurance coverages as required by this Agreement; said certificates shall:
v2 3-24-14
5
811
a.provide the name and policy number of each carrier and policy;
b.shall state that the policy is currently in force;
C.shall promise to provide that such policies will not be canceled or
modified without thirty (30) days' prior written notice of City; and
d.shall state as follows: "The above-detailed coverage is not subject to any
self-insured retention, or any other form of similar-type limitation."
Business Owner shall maintain the foregoing insurance coverages in force from the
Effective Date of this Agreement through the termination date of this Agreement.
The requirement for carrying the foregoing insurance coverages shall not derogate from
the provisions for indemnification of City by Business Owner under this Agreement. City or its
representative shall at all times have the right to demand the original or a copy of all said policies
of insurance. Business Owners shall pay, in a prompt and timely manner, the premiums on all
insurance hereinabove required.
A separate copy of the additional insured endorsement to each of Business Owner's
insurance policies, naming the City, its officers and employees as Additional Insureds shall be
provided to the City Attorney for approval prior to any payment hereunder.
3.5.4 Non-Assi ngability. Business Owner shall not sell, assign, transfer,
convey or encumber this Agreement, or any part hereof, or any right or duty created herein,
without the prior written consent of City and the surety, which consent shall not be unreasonably
withheld by the City. Prior to any assignment by Business Owner, Business Owner shall present
such information to the City as may reasonably be requested by the City Manager or designee in
connection with such assignment. Upon receipt of the requested information, City shall have ten
10) days to respond and approve or disapprove the proposed assignment In the event market
conditions materially change and this Agreement places Business Owner in a non-competitive
position, the City agrees to meet and confer to discuss mutually acceptable modifications to this
Agreement
3.6 Anti-discrimination. Business Owner shall not discriminate against any employee
or applicant for employment because of age, sex, marital status, race, handicap, color, religion,
reed, ancestry, or national origin.
3.7 Business Owner's Representations and Warranties. Business Owner makes the
following representations and warranties as of the date of this Agreement and agrees that such
representations and warranties shall survive and continue thereafter but shall not be remade after
the date of this Agreement.
3.7.1 No Litigation. There is no litigation, action, suit, or other proceeding
pending or threatened against the Business Owner or the Site that may adversely affect the
validity or enforceability of this Agreement or sale of the refined petroleum product at the Site.
To the best of Business Owner's knowledge, Business Owner is not in violation of any statute,
v2 3-24-14
6
812
law, regulation or ordinance, or of any order of any court or governmental entity the effect of
which would prohibit the Business Owner from performing its obligations hereunder.
3.7.2 Authority. Business Owner has complied with all governmental
requirements concerning its organization, existence and transactions of refined petroleum
products. Business Owner has the right and power to own and operate its business as
contemplated in this Agreement.
3.7.3 No Breach. To Business Owner's knowledge, none of the undertakings
contained in this Agreement violate any applicable governmental requirements, or conflicts with,
or constitutes a breach or default under, any agreement by which the Business Owner is bound or
regulated.
3.7.4 Warranty Against Payment of Consideration for Agreement. Business
Owner warrants that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third person, any
money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement, other than normal costs of
conducting business and costs of professional services such as accountants and attorneys.
3. 8 Release of City Officials. No member, official, agent, employee, or
attorney of the City shall be personally liable to Business Owner, or any successor in
interest of the Business Owner, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any
amount which may become due to the Business Owner or its successors, or on any obligations
under the terms of this Agreement. The Business Owner hereby waives and releases any claim it
may have personally against the members, officials, agents, employees, consultants, or attorneys
of the City with respect to any default or breach by the City or for any amount that may become
due to the Business Owner or its successors, or on any obligations under the terms of this
Agreement.
3.9 Reports. Within ten (10) days of filing each report with the California State Board
of Equalization, Business Owner shall provide to the City true and correct copies of all reports
filed by Business Owner with the California State Board of Equalization in order to allow the
City to preliminarily determine the amount of Sales Tax paid by Business Owner on account of
sales from the Site; provided, however, that the City shall not be deemed to have received any
Sales Tax until the City actual receipt thereof.
3.10 Participation in Fuel Procurement Activities. Business Owner retains all right to
participate in the City's petroleum product and fuel procurement activities.
4. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
4.1 Financial Assistance Pam. As consideration for Business Owner's
performance of its obligations set forth in this Agreement and subject to the terms and conditions
of this Agreement, within thirty (30) days after the City confirms its receipt of Sales Tax paid by
Business Owner attributable to sales from the Site for each quarter during the Operating Period
including any extended Operating Period), the City shall pay to Business Owner on a quarterly
basis in arrears financial assistance in an amount equal to one of the following:
v2 3-24-14
7 :
813
a.If the Sales Tax Increment generated by the Business Owner and actually received
by the City for any given quarter is the Base Amount or lower, the amount of thirty percent
30%) of Sales Tax Increment generated by the Business Owner and actually received by the
City for such quarter; or
b. If the Sales Tax Increment generated by the Business Owner and actually received
by the City for any given quarter is higher than the Base Amount, the amount of sixty-five
percent (65%) of Sales Tax Increment generated by the Business Owner and actually received by
the City for such quarter.
At the end of the Operating Period (including any extended Operating Period) or earlier
termination of this Agreement as expressly permitted herein, the City's obligations under this
Section 4.1 shall automatically terminate without cost, expense, or liability to City. Financial
assistance payments shall be payable from any source of funds legally available to City. In this
regard, it is understood and agreed that the Sales Tax Increment from the Site is being used
merely as a measure of the amount of financial assistance payments that are periodically owing
by City to Business Owner, and that City does not pledge any portion of the Sales Tax Increment
from the Site.
4.2 City's Obligation to Provide Conditional Assistance. The City's obligations to
provide Business Owner with financial assistance pursuant to Section 4.1 are contingent on a
quarter to quarter basis in each Fiscal Year and, for each quarter within the Operating Period
including any extended Operating Period), the City's obligations to make any payments to
Business Owner under this Agreement are expressly contingent upon Business Owner, for the
entirety of such quarter, completely fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement and producing
Sales Tax Increment each quarter. In the event Business Owner does not produce Sales Tax
Increment in any quarter, then the tax rebate obligations herein shall be zero dollars ($0). If for
any reason Business Owner fails to authorize the release or use of all or any part of sales tax
information regarding its business in a manner satisfactory to the California State Board of
Equalization or provide any information reasonably required by the City to perform the City's
obligations under this Agreement, or if all or any part of the sales tax information of Business
Owner is unavailable to the City or the City is not legally authorized to use such information for
the purposes of performing its obligations under this Agreement, the financial assistance
payment shall be based solely upon the information so received, if any.
4.3 Annual Adjustment. Promptly after each Fiscal Year of the City which
includes a portion of the Operating Period (including any extended Operating Period), the City
shall determine with respect to that Fiscal Year the aggregate amount of Sales Tax Increment
received by the City and the aggregate amount of financial assistance payments made to
Business Owner pursuant to Section 4.1. If for any reason (including, but not limited to,
reporting errors or other adjustments) the aggregate amount of payments by the City with respect
to that Fiscal Year is less than the aggregate amount payable with respect to that Fiscal Year, the
City shall pay to Business Owner an adjustment payment equal to the amount of deficiency; if
for any reason (including, but not limited to, reporting errors or other adjustments) the aggregate
v2 3-24-14
8
814
amount of payments by the City with respect to that Fiscal Year is more than the aggregate
amount payable with respect to that Fiscal Year, then the amount of the excess shall be applied
against the next payments due under Section 4.1, except that if any unapplied excess remains
after the Operating Period (including any extended Operating Period), Business Owner shall pay
the amount of the unapplied excess to the City immediately upon written demand therefor.
4.4 California State Board of Equalization Determination of Improperly Allocated
Local Sales Tax Increment. If, at any time during or after the Operating Period (including any
extended Operating Period), the California State Board of Equalization determines that all or any
portion of the Sales Tax Increment received by the City was improperly allocated and/or paid to
the City, and if the California State Board of Equalization requires repayment of, offsets against
future sales tax payments, or otherwise recaptures from the City any of the improperly allocated
and/or paid Sales Tax Increment, then Business Owner shall, within ten (10) calendar days after
written demand from the City, repay all financial assistance payments (or applicable portions
thereof) theretofore paid to Business Owner which are attributable to such repaid, offset or
recaptured Sales Tax Increment. If Business Owner fails to make such repayment within ten (10)
calendar days after the City's written demand, then Business Owner shall be in breach of this
Agreement and such obligation shall accrue interest from the date of the City's original written
demand at the then-maximum legal rate imposed by the California Code of Civil Procedure on
prejudgment monetary obligations, compounded monthly, until paid. Additionally, the City may
deduct any amount required to be repaid by Business Owner under Section 4.1 from any future
financial assistance payments otherwise payable to Business Owner under this Agreement. This
Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
4.5 Legal Challenge. Should any third party successfully challenge the validity of this
Agreement through a taxpayer suit or otherwise, either Party may terminate this Agreement upon
thirty (30) days written notice.
4.6 Contingent Liability and Limitations. The financial assistance payment
obligations of the City of Huntington Beach shall be subject to the provisions of City Charter
Section 605, regarding annual budget appropriations, and shall not be payable for a period in
excess of the Operating Period (including any extended Operating Period).
5. DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES
5.1 Business Owner Default. City shall provide Business Owner with written notice
of Business Owner's failure ("Business Owner Default") to strictly abide by any material
provision of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the obligations in Section 3 of this
Agreement. Business Owner shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of such notice either to
cure such Business Owner Default, or, if such Business Owner Default cannot be reasonably
cured during such fifteen (15) day period, promptly (in any event, within 5 days after receipt of
such notice) commences cure, and thereafter diligently (in any event within a reasonable time
after receipt of such notice) prosecutes such cure to completion.
5.2 City Default. Business Owner shall provide City with written notice of City's
failure ("City Default") to strictly abide by any material provision of this Agreement. City shall
v2 3-24-14
9
815
have fifteen (15) days from the date of such notice either to cure such Business Owner Default,
or, if such Business Owner Default cannot be reasonably cured during such fifteen (15) day
period, promptly (in any event, within 5 days after receipt of such notice) commences cure, and
thereafter diligently (in any event within a reasonable time after receipt of such notice)
prosecutes such cure to completion.
5.3 General Remedies for Default. Except as provided in Section 5.4, upon either a
City Default or a Business Owner Default uncured within the applicable cure period, Business
Owner or City (as applicable) shall have the right to seek all available legal and equitable
remedies, including, without implied limitation, general and consequential damages, unless
otherwise expressly provided to the contrary herein. Unless prohibited by law or otherwise
provided by a specific term of this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the City and the
Business Owner under this Agreement are nonexclusive and all remedies hereunder may be
exercised individually or cumulatively, and the City may simultaneously pursue inconsistent
and/or alternative remedies. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary in this
Agreement, in the event of a City Default, Business Owner shall only be permitted to pursue
collection of the financial assistance payments on an quarter-to-quarter basis as such payments
may become due hereunder. Business Owner hereby expressly waives any right Business Owner
may have to seek, demand or collect, on an accelerated basis, any financial assistance payments
that may be due after the date of any City Default.
5.4 Liquidated Damages.
5.4.1 Business Owner Default With Respect to Obligations Under Sections 3.1, 3.2
and/or 3. 3. The Parties acknowledge that the consideration to the City for its entry into this
Agreement and the performance of its obligations hereunder include the City's receipt of Sales
Tax Increment and other direct and indirect financial and non-financial benefits arising from the
operation of the Business Owner's business at the Site. Business Owner agrees that the City will
suffer damages if Business Owner commits any Business Owner Default with respect to any of
its obligations arising under Sections 3.1, 3.2, and/or 3.3 that is uncured within the applicable
cure period. The Parties agree that the exact determination of such damages would be
impracticable and extremely difficult to quantify. Accordingly, the Parties have determined that
Liquidated Damages represents a reasonable estimate of the damages which would be suffered
by the City if Business Owner commits any Business Owner Default with respect to any of its
obligations set forth in Sections 3.1, 3.2, and/or 3. 3 that is uncured within the applicable cure
period. Accordingly, as its sole and exclusive remedies for a Business Owner Default with
respect to any of its covenants and obligations set forth in Sections 3.1, 3.2, and/or 3. 3 that is
uncured within the applicable cure period, the City shall be entitled to: (1) terminate this
Agreement and the entirety of its obligations hereunder, including any accrued and unpaid
financial assistance payments, and (2) receive from Business Owner the applicable amount of
Liquidated Damages.
5.4.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REASONABLENESS OF LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES. UPON A BUSINESS OWNER DEFAULT WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF ITS
OBLIGATIONS SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 3.1, 3.2, AND/OR 3.3, FOLLOWING NOTICE
AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.1, THE CITY AND
v2 3-24-14
10 816
BUSINESS OWNER ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT AND IMPRACTICAL TO ASCERTAIN THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES THAT
WOULD BE SUFFERED BY THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO SUCH DEFAULT. HAVING
MADE REASONABLE, DILIGENT BUT UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO ASCERTAIN
THE ACTUAL DAMAGES THE CITY WOULD SUFFER AS FAIR COMPENSATION FOR
THE LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE CITY IN THE EVENT OF SUCH A BREACH, THE
PARTIES AGREE THAT THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AMOUNT REPRESENTS A
REASONABLE ESTIMATION OF THOSE DAMAGES UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
EXISTING AT THE TIME THIS AGREEMENT WAS MADE AND NOT A FORFEITURE
OR PENALTY. THEREFORE, UPON A BUSINESS OWNER DEFAULT WITH RESPECT
TO ANY OF ITS OBLIGATIONS SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 3.1, 3.2, AND/OR 3. 3, AS ITS
SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES FOR SUCH DEFAULT, THE CITY SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO (1) RECEIPT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, WHICH BUSINESS
OWNER SHALL PAY WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FOLLOWING WRITTEN DEMAND
FROM THE CITY, AND (2) TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT AND THE ENTIRETY OF
ITS OBLIGATIONS HEREUNDER, INCLUDING ANY ACCRUED BUT YET UNPAID
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS.
Initials of Authorized Initials o Au on
City Representative Business er Representative
5.4.3. Exceptions. Damages defined in this section 5.4 shall not be applicable to or
payable by Business Owner in any amount in the event Business Owner ceases operations of
company, sells business or relocates business to location outside the State of CA..
6. EXISTING AGREEMENT
Except as set forth in the following sentence, this Agreement is intended to replace and
supersede in its entirety the Existing Agreement and, upon the Effective Date, the Existing
Agreement shall be terminated in its entirety, and City and Business Owner shall have no further
rights or obligations under the Existing Agreement except as may be expressly provided therein.
Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence or anything else contained in this Agreement to the
contrary, City shall continue to be obligated under the Existing Agreement to pay Business
Owner any financial assistance payments due and payable under the Existing Agreement as of
the Effective Date of this Agreement and Section 4.3 of the Existing Agreement relating to the
annual adjustment shall continue to be in full force and effect until the completion of the annual
adjustment for the current Fiscal Year. It is the Parties intent that financial assistance payments
under the Existing Agreement shall dovetail into financial assistance payments under this
Agreement.
v2 3-24-14
11 817
7.GENERAL PROVISIONS
7.1 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and each Party's
obligations hereunder.
7.2 Venue. In the event of any litigation hereunder, all such actions shall be instituted
in the Superior Court of Orange, State of California, or in an appropriate municipal court in the
County of Orange, State of California or an appropriate Federal District Court in the Southern
District of California.
7.3 Applicable Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern the
interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement.
7.4 Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more
counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the
same instrument.
7.5 Copies. Any executed copy of this Agreement shall be deemed an original for all
purposes.
7.6 Severability. If any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall for any
reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or
unenforceability, unless it affects the substantial rights of a party or defeats the purpose of this
Agreement, shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, but this Agreement shall be
construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision has not been contained herein.
7.7 Interpretation. The language in all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be
construed as a whole according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any Party.
When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine, the
feminine, a partnership or corporation of joint venture or other entity, and the singular includes
the plural.
The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement is the product of mutual arms-length
negotiations and that each Party has been, or has had the opportunity to have been, represented
by legal counsel in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement. Accordingly, the rule of
judicial construction which provides that ambiguities in a document are to be construed against
the drafter of that document shall have no application to the interpretation or enforcement of this
Agreement. In any action or proceeding to interpret and/or enforce this Agreement, the trier of
fact may refer to extrinsic evidence not in conflict with any specific provision of this Agreement
to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Parties hereto.
7.8 No Partnership or Joint Venture. The Parties hereto agree that nothing contained
in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed as creating a partnership, joint venture, or
association between City and Business Owner; or cause City or Business Owner to be
responsible in any way for the debts or obligations of the other, and no other provision contained
in this Agreement nor any acts the parties hereto shall be deemed to create any relationship
v2 3-24-14
12 818
between City and Business Owner other than that of contracting parties. Further, nothing herein
shall give or is intended to give any rights of any kind to any person not an express party hereto.
7.9 Inte ration. This Agreement is the entire Agreement between and final expression
of the Parties, and there are no agreements or representations between the Parties except as
expressed herein and the Existing Agreement as set forth in Section 6, above. All prior
negotiations and agreements between City and Business Owner with respect to the subject matter
hereof are superseded by this Agreement except as set forth in the Existing Agreement as set
forth in Section 6, above. Except as otherwise provided herein, no subsequent change or addition
to this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by the Parties hereto.
7.10 Nonwaiver. None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived
by any Party except when such waiver is given in writing. The failure of any Party to insist in
any one or more instances upon strict performance of any of its rights hereunder shall not be
construed as a waiver of any such provisions or the relinquishment of any such rights for the
future, but the same shall continue and remain in full force and effect.
7.11 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the Parties and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives,
permitted successors and assigns.
7.12 State of California Legislation Impact on Financial Assistance Payments.
Business Owner acknowledges that the California legislature has in the past adopted certain
legislation which diverted to the State of California a portion of the Sales Tax Increment which
was otherwise payable to the City. Business Owner acknowledges that it is possible that the
legislature may enact similar legislation in the future which would cause a corresponding
reduction of and/or delay in the payment of the Sales Tax Increment and that such reduction will
cause Business Owner a corresponding reduction and/or delay in the payment of the financial
assistance payments due to Business Owner during such time as such legislation is in effect.
Furthermore, Business Owner acknowledges that it is possible that the legislation described
above, or some variant thereof, may be enacted and effective during one or more subsequent
times during the Operating Period (including any extended Operating Period) and may materially
and negatively impact the amount of Sales Tax Increment and, accordingly, financial assistance
payments. The City does not make any representation, warranty or commitment concerning the
future actions of the California legislature with respect to the allocation of Sales Tax Increment
to the City. Business Owner agrees that it is undertaking its obligations under this Agreement
after having considered, and is expressly assuming the risk of, the possibility of the enactment of
such legislation.
The foregoing paragraph notwithstanding, City acknowledges that the California
legislature may provide for the payment to City of other revenues for the purpose of offsetting
any losses in Sales Tax Increment resulting from the enactment of legislation of the type
described in the immediately preceding paragraph. City agrees that, should the California
legislature provide for such offsetting revenues, then for purposes of this Agreement and the
computation of any financial assistance payments which may become due to Business Owner
hereunder, City will consider, on a quarter- quarter basis, any such offsetting revenues which are
v2 3-24-14
13
819
i) indexed to Sales Tax and offset the loss of Sales Tax Increment to the City on a dollar for
dollar basis, (ii) actually received by the City, and (iii) not subject to any restrictions on use
beyond those which are otherwise generally applicable to sales tax revenues received by
California municipalities, to be Sales Tax Increment within the meaning of this Agreement.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, to the extent the City's receipt of Sales Tax
Increment is impaired or restricted in any way or otherwise eliminated for any reason, the City
shall not be obligated to make any financial assistance payments during the period within which
the City's receipt of Sales Tax Increment is so restricted, impaired or eliminated.
7.13 Attorneys' Fees. In the event suit is brought by either Party to enforce the terms
and provisions of this Agreement or to secure the performance hereof, each Party shall bear its
own attorneys' fees.
7.14 Notices. All notices or other communications required or permitted between the
City and Business Owner under this Agreement shall be in writing,, and may be (i) personally
delivered, (ii) sent by United States registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, (iii) sent by telecopier, or (iv) sent by nationally recognized overnight courier service
e.g., Federal Express), addressed to the Party at the address provided below. Any notice so
given by registered or certified United States mail shall be deemed to have been given on the
second business day after the same is deposited in the United States mail. Any notice not so
given by registered or certified mail, such as notices delivered by telecopier or courier service
e.g., Federal Express), shall be deemed given upon receipt of the same by the party to whom the
notice is given. Any notice shall be addressed as set forth below:
If to City: If to Business Owner:
City of Huntington Beach Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc.
Attn: City Manager Attn: Liz McKinley, President
2000 Main Street 7911 Professional Circle, Huntington
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Beach, California 92648
With a copy to:
City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Either City of Business Owner may change its respective address by giving written notice
to the others in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
remainder of page left intentionally blank)
signatures on following pages)
v2 3-24-14
14 820
04/14/2014 1 :49PM FAX 17148417766 PINNACLE PETROLEUM IR0001/0001
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
on the dates hereinafter respectively set forth.
BUSINESS OWNER: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
PINNACLE PETROLEUM, INC. A municipal corporation of the State of
California
I matthew M: Harper, Mayor
1. L
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ITS: (CIRCLE ONE)Chair.. zs' !!,enftice President
AND
f4p 7jC y Attorney
BY:
INITIATEll AND APPROVED:
ITS: (CIRCLE ONE)Secretary/Chief Financial
OEZ:ica/ASSt.Secretary-Treusum lon A(
s.is t City .anager
i Cler
v2 3-24-14
15
821
4
04/16/2014CERTIFICATEOFLIABILITYINSURANCE
DATE(M
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS
CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR
PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED,the policy(les)must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED,subject to the terms
and conditions of the policy,certain policies may require an endorsement.A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder
In lieu of such endorsements.
PRODUCER CONTACT
FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
NAME: CLIENT CONTACT CENTER
IFAXHOMEOFFICE: P.O.BOX 328 A CONENo,Ext:888-333-4949 C No);507-446-4664
OWATONNA, MN 55060 ADDRESS:CLIENTCONTACTCENTER FEDINS.COM
INSURER(S)AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC#
INSURER A:FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 13935
INSURED 310-059-1 INSURER B:
PINNACLE PETROLEUM INC INSURERC:
7911 PROFESSIONAL CIRCLE
HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-1901
INSURER D:
INSURER E:
INSURER F:
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:47 REVISION NUMBER:1
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD
INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS
AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
INSR
TYPE OF INSURANCE
DL SUBR
POLICY NUMBER
POLICY EFF POLICY EXP
LIMITSSWVDID/YYYY f DIY
GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE 1,000,000
RENTD
X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PREMISES
O
a ocwErrence
100,000
CLAIMS-MADE X OCCUR
MED EXP(Any one person) EXCLUDED
A Y N 9068974 06/14/2013 06/14/2014 PERSONAL&ADV INJURY 1,000,000
GENERAL AGGREGATE 2,000,000
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS-COMPIOP AGO 2,000,000
X POLICY JECo- F LOC
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
Ea acciden
1,000, 000
ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY(Per person)
ALL OWNED SCHEDULED
A AUTOS AUTOS N N 9068974 06/14/2013 06/14/2014 BODILY INJURY(Per accidenQ
X HIRED AUTOS X NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE
AUTOS Per acciden
X UMBRELLA LIAB X OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE 4,000, 000
A ri EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE N N 9068829 06/14/2013 06/14/2014 AGGREGATE 4,000,000
DED I I RETENTION
WORKERS COMPENSATION WC STATU- OTH-
AND EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY Y f N
TORY LIMITS ER
ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNERIEXECUTIVE E.L.EACH ACCIDENT
OFFICERIMEMBER EXCLUDED? N f A {
Mandatory in NH)E.L.DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE
11 yes,describe under G'
r
E.L DISEASE-POLICY LIMITDESCRIPTIONOFOPERATIONSbelowAa
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS f LOCATIONS I VEHICLES(Attach ACORD 101,Additional Remarks Schedule,i1 more space is required)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, ARE LISTED AS ADDITIONAL INSURED FOR GENERAL LIABILITY.
COVERAGE IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY SELF - INSURED RETENTION, OR ANY OTHER FORM OF SIMILAR - TYPE LIMITATION.
CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION
310-059-1 47 1
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE
2000 MAIN ST THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN
HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-2702 ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
O 1988-2010 ACORD CORPORATION.All rights reserved.
ACORD 25(2010105) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
822
CERTHOLDER COPY
SG
TE
COMPrNSATION P.O. BOX 8192, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
FUND
CERTIFICATE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE
ISSUE DATE: 04-15-2014 GROUP:
POLICY NUMBER: 1490815-2013
CERTIFICATE ID: 189
CERTIFICATE EXPIRES: 10- 01-2014
10- 01-2013/10-01-2014
THIS CERTIFICATE SUPERSEDES AND CORRECTS
CERTIFICATE # 188 DATED 04-15-2014
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SG
2000 MAIN ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2702
This is to certify that we have issued a valid Workers' Compensation insurance policy in a form approved by the
California Insurance Commissioner to the employer named below for the policy period indicated.
This policy is not subject to cancellation by the Fund except upon 10 days advance written notice to the employer.
We will also give you 10 days advance notice should this policy be cancelled prior to its normal expiration.
This certificate of insurance is not an insurance policy and does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded
by the policy listed herein. Notwithstanding any requirement, term or condition of any contract or other document
with respect to which this certificate of insurance may be issued or to which it may pertain, the insurance
afforded by the policy described herein is subject to all the terms, exclusions, and conditions, of such policy.
Authorized Representative President and CEO
EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY LIMIT INCLUDING DEFENSE COSTS: $1,000,000 PER OCCURRENCE.
ENDORSEMENT #1600 - LIZ MCKINLEY P, S, T - EXCLUDED.
ENDORSEMENT #2570 ENTITLED WAIVER OF SUBROGATION EFFECTIVE 2014- 04-15 IS
ATTACHED TO AND FORMS A PART OF THIS POLICY. THIRD PARTY NAME:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
EMPLOYER
PINNACLE PETROLEUM INC SG
7911 PROFESSIONAL CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
TMJ,CS]
REV.1-2012) PRINTED : 04-15-2014 823
POLICYHOLDER COPY
SG
STATE
C:fDMRF:N5AT10NP.O. BOX 8192, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
INSURANCr
FUND
CERTIFICATE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE
ISSUE DATE: 04-15-2014 GROUP:
POLICY NUMBER: 1490815-2013
CERTIFICATE ID: 169
CERTIFICATE EXPIRES: 10-01-2014
10-01-2013/10-01-2014
THIS CERTIFICATE SUPERSEDES AND CORRECTS
CERTIFICATE # 168 DATED 04-15-2014
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SG
2000 MAIN ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2702
This is to certify that we have issued a valid Workers' Compensation insurance policy in a form approved by the
California Insurance Commissioner to the employer named below for the policy period indicated.
This policy is not subject to cancellation by the Fund except upon 10 days advance written notice to the employer.
We will also give you 10 days advance notice should this policy be cancelled prior to its normal expiration.
This certificate of insurance is not an insurance policy and does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded
by the policy listed herein. Notwithstanding any requirement, term or condition of any contract or other document
with respect to which this certificate of insurance may be issued or to which it may pertain, the insurance
afforded by the policy described herein is subject to all the terms, exclusions, and conditions, of such policy.
Authorized Representative President and CEO
EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY LIMIT INCLUDING DEFENSE COSTS: $1,000,000 PER OCCURRENCE.
ENDORSEMENT #1600 - LIZ MCKINLEY P, S, T - EXCLUDED.
ENDORSEMENT #2570 ENTITLED WAIVER OF SUBROGATION EFFECTIVE 2014-04-15 IS
ATTACHED TO AND FORMS A PART OF THIS POLICY. THIRD PARTY NAME:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
EMPLOYER
PINNACLE PETROLEUM INC SG
7911 PROFESSIONAL CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
TMJ,CS]
REV.t-2012) PRINTED : 04-15-2014 824
WAIVER OF SUBROGATION NOTICE
Enclosed is your copy of a certificate of insurance on which the certificate holder
required a waiver of subrogation:
1. Please be advised that a waiver of subrogation requires that a 3% surcharge
will be applied by State Fund ONLY to the premium assessed on the payroll
of your employees earned while engaged in work for that certificate holder
who requested the waiver. (Note: if you have no employee payroll on that job,
then there is no charge.)
2. To apply the 3% surcharge, you must also agree to maintain accurately
segregated payroll records for employees engaged in work on job/s for the
certificate holder who has the waiver. The payroll records are subject to
verification by an auditor.
Example:
Payroll for job:5, 000 . 00
Sample Rate : 13 . 30%
Regular Premium equals : 665 . 00
Surcharge :3 . 00o
Additional waiver charge : $ 19 . 95
Total premium equals 684 . 95 (665 . 00 + 19 . 95)
825
ATTACHMENT #2
826
TIERRAWEST
A D V I S 0 R
a
3
J
r rr
PINNACLE PETROLEUM, INC.
AB 562 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
JOB RETENTION
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Item 9. - 23 HB -248-
827
T u,mU °" S°pry
t j ISO R S
April 14,2014
Ms. Kellee Fritzal
Deputy Director Business Development
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
RE: Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc.
AB 562 -Economic Development Strategy
Job Retention
Dear Ms. Fritzal:
The City of Huntington Beach (City) has commissioned Tierra West Advisors, Inc. (Tierra West) to
review, analyze and prepare a report pertaining to a Operating Covenant Agreement (Agreement),
between the City and Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc. (Pinnacle) based upon the economic development
strategy and to comply with the newly enacted public reporting requirements of Assembly Bill 562
AB 562).
The State Legislature and Governor Brown, due to the elimination of Redevelopment addressed
the loud outcry by cities, counties and communities for the need to legislatively assist local
agencies, as well as the State, to encourage employment, retain jobs and companies in local
communities. The loss of redevelopment has left the City of Huntington Beach with a loss of
local resources to encourage economic development. In response to this loss, the City of
Huntington Beach is developing an economic development strategy and is also considering an
economic development subsidy that will comply with the continued public reporting provisions
mandated by AB 562.
Pinnacle, located in Huntington Beach, is proposing to maintain its headquarters within the City
for the next 15 years. In order to remain competitive and promote expansion, Pinnacle and the
City are proposing to enter into the Agreement and revenue sharing arrangement as part of the
City's Economic Development Program. The Agreement is intended to provide Pinnacle and the
City the ability to address among others:
Decline in competitiveness due to industry consolidation
Update existing Tax Sharing Agreement terms
Extend Pinnacle's operations in the City
Retain City General Fund revenues to provide needed services for residents
Retain and capture future growth in Pinnacle product sales(leveraging on estimated
future revenue and industry price increases)
E.r Angeles WVmla00D33
T-Q312C,x44W
Ini 61 861f,
V,'4ieeeawest^at srx.tam
CrCCet.ESTATE h DEVELORAENT
51TiATEGISTS
HB -249- Item 9. - 24828
Increase the economic competitiveness of Huntington Beach
Increase the City's wealth and prosperity
Diversify the City's economic base and wage levels
Outreach and support to existing businesses
Maintain and enhancing a consistent, business-friendly environment
Expand public-private partnership opportunities
Tierra West recognizes that the provisions of the Operating Covenant Agreement and retention of
Pinnacle would not only assist Pinnacle but also provide a strong public purpose through the
City's continued expansion of economic development opportunities for businesses within the City
and continued growth of the City's General Fund revenue and tax base, as well as improve
economic and physical conditions and services in the City.
Sincerely,
TIERRA WEST ADVISORS,INC.
ihn N. Yoplai
V
Item 9. - 25 HB -250-829
City of Huntington Beach
Economic Development (AB562)
Operating Covenant Agreement
between
City of Huntington Beach
and
Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc.
The City of Huntington Beach (City) in order to maintain sustainable economic development,
community vitality and recovery from the annual loss of over$21 million previously received by
the City's Redevelopment Agency, is implementing economic development strategies that
include the application of Assembly Bill (AB) 562. The City and Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc.
Pinnacle) propose to enter into an Operating Covenant Agreement (Agreement). The
Agreement requires Pinnacle to remain in operation in the City and the City will continue to
provide revenue sharing with Pinnacle.
The loss of redevelopment has left the City of Huntington Beach as well as all cities Statewide
with a loss of local resources to encourage economic development and maintain local services.
The California Legislature and Governor Brown made the decision to terminate redevelopment
and removed the single largest economic tool available to local agencies. Based upon the
decision to terminate redevelopment Statewide, the Governor and Legislature recognized the
necessity of cities, counties and the State, to encourage employment and retain jobs and
companies by giving economic subsidies to businesses and the importance of providing public
input by requiring:
1. A public hearing prior to the granting of the subsidy
2. A report regarding the subsidy within the term
3. Where a subsidy has a term of more than 10 years, an additional public hearing at the
conclusion of the subsidy.
The State approved AB 562, which went into effect on January 1, 2014, codifying a continued
public reporting requirement for economic development subsidies.
This report includes the information required by AB 562 and the fiscal analysis necessary to
determine the projected revenue generated by Pinnacle to the City as part of the economic
development strategy for business retention through an Operating Covenant Agreement. The
City-provided information which was utilized to establish an estimated "Revenue Tax Base" of
sales tax collected by the City from Pinnacle. After the Revenue Tax Base was determined,
projections of additional revenue generation from sales tax collections directly attributable to the
business were developed. The projected revenue tax increases from Pinnacle represents new
resources as well as the retention of a portion of existing general fund revenues to the City of
which a percentage of the revenue collected will be shared with Pinnacle. This will avoid
significant fiscal Impacts to City revenues and community services.
10a
HB -251- A D V' I 5 0 Item 9. - 26830
The economic development strategies seek demonstration that the proposed business retention
will result in community-wide benefits, which is evidenced by the retention of revenues that will
be used to provide municipal services. The City Council may choose to approve the Agreement
in order to retain and expand jobs, maintain a local business, assist Pinnacle to gain
competitiveness within the fuel provision industry and incentivize the business owner to
consider and complete upgrades and improvements. This report identifies the financial data
necessary to allow the City Council to determine the value of entering into the proposed
Agreement.
AB 562 Reporting Requirements
On and after January 1, 2014, each local agency shall, before approving any economic
development subsidy within its jurisdiction, provide all of the following information in written
form available to the public, and through its Internet Web site, if applicable:
1. The name and address of all corporations or any other business entities, except for sole
proprietorships,that are the beneficiary of the economic development subsidy, if applicable.
Pinnacle Petroleum,Inc.,7911 Professional Circle,Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Founded in 1995, Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc. (Pinnacle) is a national provider of
competitively priced energy products and services. Pinnacle services include the
distribution of refined petroleum products and lubricants, environmental services,
cardlock fueling, and remote tank monitoring with a fully integrated fuel management
system. Pinnacle is a 100% woman owned California Corporation. Certifications
include WBENC #240301 with WMBE Clearinghouse#95IS0030.
Refined Petroleum Industry
The refined petroleum products market in the US grew 22 percent between 2006-2012
despite a sharp decline in consumption and price during the economic downturn. The
local refined petroleum products industry followed similar trends, growing by an average
of 6 percent per year during the 2006-2012 review period. The US refined petroleum
products industry became more export oriented with the share of exports increasing from
6 percent in 2006 to 16 percent in 2012. Strong growth is forecast for the industry as
high prices and recovering volume demand will propel revenues.
2. The start and end dates and schedule, if applicable, for the economic development subsidy.
Operating Covenant Agreement, if approved is anticipated to commence on July 1, 2014
and continue for ten (10) years with one (1) five (5) year option term by mutual
agreement.
Sales Tax Generation
The Bradley Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax ("Bradley Burns") applies to the
sales of tangible personal property in which a percentage of California's sales and use tax
rate is distributed back to the jurisdiction where sales were generated to support local
general funds. For many jurisdictions, including the City, this amount is one percent
1%). Sales tax is payable to the City from the State Board of Equalization. The
calculations in this report indicate only the estimated amount of sales tax to be received
20- , R E 1
Item 9. - 27 HB -252- A D V- 1 0 R S831
by the City through the distribution formula used by the State Board of Equalization.
Pinnacle proposes to maintain and enhance existing business operations in the City. The
City and Pinnacle mutually agreed that a Sales Tax Base would be set at $25,000 per
quarter to offset and minimize any potential decline in current general fund revenue.
Therefore, the City would receive the first $25,000 each quarter and revenue sharing
would commence on any sales tax generated by Pinnacle above this amount.
Sales projections were developed based upon review of retail sales data between the
years of 2008 through 2013. According to the historical sales data, Pinnacle generated on
average approximately $243,000 in revenue per quarter or approximately $972,000
annually. 2012 and 2013 data indicated steady growth in revenue with an average of
254,000 in sales per quarter or$1.016 million per year.
The City and Pinnacle are presently under contract with a Sales Tax Agreement entered
in July 2007 and includes the following terms: The City provides Pinnacle with 30 % of
the sales tax revenue generated by Pinnacle and received by the City with the remaining
balance of 70% retained by the City. The duration of the current agreement is for 10
years commencing in July of 2007 and slated for termination in June 2017, unless the
parties enter into the new Agreement. To date, the City has received approximately $4.0
million in sales tax revenue as a result of Pinnacle's operation and revenue generated.
3. A description of the economic development subsidy, including the estimated total amount of
the expenditure of public funds by, or of revenue lost to, the local agency as a result of the
economic development subsidy.
Economic Development Strategy Implementation and Business Retention
In furtherance of the City's economic development strategies, a revenue sharing
Agreement in the form of the Operational Covenant Agreement is being proposed.
Pursuant to AB562 the revenue sharing Agreement is defined as an Economic
Development Subsidy that is an expenditure of public funds or loss of revenue to a local
agency in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or more, for the
purpose of stimulating economic development within the jurisdiction of a local agency,
including, but not limited to, bonds, grants, loans, loan guarantees, enterprise zone or
empowerment zone incentives, fee waivers, land price subsidies, matching funds, tax
abatements, tax exemptions, and tax credits. Economic Development Subsidy shall not
include expenditures of public funds by, or loss of revenue to, the local agency for the
purpose of providing housing affordable to persons and families of low or moderate
income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The City and
Pinnacle are currently in a revenue sharing agreement which the parties propose to amend
and extend. The current agreement began in July of 2007 and is set to expire with the
proposed new Agreement. To date, the City has received approximately $4.0 million in
sales tax revenue as a result of Pinnacle's operations.
The City is being reactive in retaining Pinnacle as one of the major contributors to the
City's general fund. The City economic development strategies recognize the vulnerable
economic recovery the Nation and City are experiencing. The potential relocation of
Pinnacle and total loss of revenue would be much more detrimental and undermine the
30Tii--, RRAWEST
NB -25 3-
A V ' s 0 Item 9. - 28832
City's delicate economic recovery and cause significant impact to services. The City is
making a significant commitment to maintain the economic momentum it has gained over
the past 12 months.
The City and Pinnacle propose to enter into a new Agreement that would extend the
commitment by Pinnacle to remain in the City for up to fifteen(15)additional years. The
Agreement provides for a sales tax sharing structure that would provide Pinnacle with up
to 65 percent of the sales tax revenue generated by Pinnacle and the City 35 percent. It is
estimated that the Agreement will provide Pinnacle with approximately $7.4 million and
the City $5 million over a ten (10) year period. Should the parties agree to extend the
Agreement for the five (5)year option term, Pinnacle will receive a cumulative amount in
revenue sharing of approximately $12.0 million and the City $8 million over fifteen (15)
years of the extended Operating Period.
4. A statement of the public purposes for the economic development subsidy.
Public Purpose
Review of the Agreement and proposed revenue sharing between Pinnacle and the City is
consistent with the City's economic goals and strategies and is in the best interest of the
general public.
Economic goals and strategies include the following:
Increase the economic competitiveness of Huntington Beach
Increase the City's wealth and prosperity
Maximize public revenues and economic development financing options
Diversify the City's economic base and wage levels
Outreach and support to existing businesses
Maintain and enhancing a consistent, business-friendly environment
Expand public-private partnership opportunities
Maintain current and provide future City public Services, capital projects and
maintenance
The loss of redevelopment has had significant fiscal impact on City revenues and
eliminated the primary local economic tool. Retaining Pinnacle's business operations in
the City would address the need and desire to maintain revenue streams such as property
and sales tax to the City. Additionally, Pinnacle's continued presence in the City would
assist in maintaining relative balance in the local economy through indirect retail sales
and employment from other local businesses that are supported by Pinnacle's location in
the City. Retention of Pinnacle will also result in maintaining occupied property square
footage thus minimizing the risk of blight and dilapidation.
4 OTIERRAWEST
Item 9. - 29 HB -254-
V ' S 0 R S833
The operating covenant and revenue sharing Agreement assists Pinnacle in the following
areas:
Decline in competitiveness due to industry consolidation
Update current Tax Sharing Agreement Terms to allow Pinnacle to remain
competitive
Early capture of future growth in product sales (leveraging on estimated future
revenue or industry price increases)
Pinnacle has identified multiple instances where larger competitors, created by significant
consolidation of operators in the industry,have prevailed over Pinnacle by providing prices at
significantly lower then Pinnacle's product costs. In recent months there have been a number
of smaller operations that have been purchased by larger companies. These acquisitions have
made it difficult for many of the remaining smaller operations to submit competitive price
quotes for new business contracts. Larger companies are positioned to offer lower bid prices,
thus creating a challenging environment for operations similar to Pinnacle to remain viable.
Pinnacle and the City concur that the current Tax Sharing Agreement between the City and
Pinnacle is not reflective of the current industry standards or requirements for
competiveness. Tierra West has reviewed comparable agreements between companies
and communities and noted substantial support for revenue sharing agreements of 65
percent. Pinnacle, as well as, overall industry forecasts project significant growth in sales
revenue over the next five(5) and ten (10)years. City staff and Pinnacle agree that early
capture or the ability of Pinnacle to accelerate increases in revenue through the proposed
Agreement will allow it to be more competitive with contract pricing and operations.
5. Projected tax revenue to the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy.
Based on the current City and Pinnacle Sales Tax Sharing Agreement, the City has
received approximately $4.0 million in sales tax revenue as a result of Pinnacle's
operations in Huntington Beach. Based upon the proposed Operating Covenant Agreement, it
is estimated that the City will receive an additional $5 million during the first ten (10)years
of the new Agreement. Should the parties agree to extend the Agreement for the
additional five (5) year term; the City will receive $8 million over fifteen (15) years of the
extended Operating Period.
6. Estimated number of jobs created by the economic development subsidy, broken down by
full-time, part-time, and temporary positions.
Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc. was founded in Huntington Beach in 1995 and moved to Seal
Beach in 1998 and remained there for 10 years. Seal Beach provided a revenue sharing
agreement to entice Pinnacle to move from Huntington Beach to Seal Beach. Pinnacle
and Huntington Beach entered into a Sales Tax Agreement in July 2007 and Pinnacle
agreed to relocate its headquarters back to Huntington Beach along with its 10 full time
employees. Pinnacle has increased its employee base in the City by 300% and now has
30 full time employees. Based upon projected Pinnacle sales growth, over the term of the
Agreement it is estimated that Pinnacle will increase employment in the City by
approximately 8% per year. Over the initial 10 year term Pinnacle is anticipated to
increase from 30 to 62 employees. Assuming Pinnacle and the City extend the Operating
5
HB -255- A D " l > 0 Item 9. - 30834
Covenant Agreement for the five (5) year option; Pinnacle's employee base could
potentially reach 91 at year 15.
Summary
Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc. (Pinnacle) and the City have agreed that Pinnacle remaining in
Huntington Beach is beneficial for both parties. The City has proposed that Pinnacle agree to an
Operating Covenant Agreement (Agreement) to remain in Huntington Beach for the next fifteen
15) years. Pinnacle and the City have mutually agreed to a revenue sharing structure in
exchange for the Operating Covenant that also provides Pinnacle a more competitive advantage
in an industry that is consolidating. The revenue sharing Agreement is the economic
development subsidy that is consistent with the City's economic development implementation
strategy and as prescribed in AB 562. Assistance is provided in the form of a revenue sharing
agreement between Pinnacle and the City. The Agreement provides for Pinnacle receiving 65%
of the sales tax revenue generated by Pinnacle's operation with the balance of 35% going to the
City. The proposed Agreement will be for ten (10) years and could be extended for an additional
five (5)year operating period upon the same terms and conditions for a total of a fifteen (15)year
Operating Covenant. The estimated amount of the total subsidy or expenditure of public funds
would be $7.4 million over a ten (10) year period. Should Pinnacle and the City extend the
Agreement for the five (5) year term, Pinnacle could receive a cumulative amount in revenue
sharing of approximately $12.0 million through year fifteen (15) of the extended Operating
Covenant period.
Based upon review of the Agreement, the structure is consistent with the City's economic goals
and implementation strategy is in the best interest of the general public. The Agreement and
projections indicate the City will receive approximately $5.0 million in sales tax revenue during
the first of ten (10) years of the Agreement; including the five (5) year extension under the
Agreement, the City will receive approximately $8 million in total through the extended
Operating Covenant period.
The Agreement serves a valid public purpose through the expansion of economic development
opportunities for businesses in the City, continuing to expand the City's employment base, and
continuing to generate sales tax revenue that the City utilizes to fund general governmental
services for businesses and residents.
Recommendation
Retention of Pinnacle in the City will continue to contribute to the economic vitality of the City,
continue to provide additional jobs within the City, continue to expand the City's tax base and
improve economic and physical conditions in the City. Loss or relocation of Pinnacle out of the
City will impact a vulnerable economic recovery and momentum that the City is achieving and
reduce City services. As such it is recommended that the Operating Covenant Agreement be
approved.
By its approval of the Agreement, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds and
determines that the Agreement serves as a valid public purpose through continuing to expand
economic opportunities for businesses in the City, continuing to expand the City's employment
base, and continuing to generate Sales Tax that the City will utilize to fund general governmental
services such as police, fire, street maintenance, and parks and recreation programs.
6 OTIERRAWEST
Item 9. - 31 HB -256-
835
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Pursuant to Section 53083(a)(6)(b) of the California Government Code (AB 562), the City of Huntington
Beach shall provide public notice and a hearing prior to granting of proposed economic development
subsidy.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing in the Council
Chambers of the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street on Monday April 21, 2014 at 6:00
p.m., unless otherwise changed by the City Manager, to consider the following item:
Applicant: Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc.: Liz McKinley, President
Project Location: 7911 Professional Circle, Huntington Beach, California 92648
Agreement:
The City of Huntington Beach desires to create and retain jobs and employment within the City. The City
has the ability to implement the provisions of AB 562, a Statewide economic development tool passed by
Governor Brown in late 2013 for the purpose of allowing local jurisdictions to induce economic
development for the creation and maintenance of jobs. The City of Huntington Beach and Pinnacle
Petroleum, Inc. are proposing to enter into an agreement that encourages Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc. to
retain its headquarters and business within Huntington Beach. The City is proposing to provide financial
assistance in the form of an economic development subsidy to Pinnacle Petroleum as described in the
Operating Covenant Agreement. Pursuant to Section 53083 of the California Government Code (AB 562)
the following information will be posted on the City's Web Site.
1) The name and address of all corporations, or any other business entities, except for sole
proprietorships, that are the beneficiary of the economic development subsidy, if applicable.
PINNACLE PETROLEUM, INC., a California corporation, 7911 Professional Circle, Huntington
Beach, CA 92648
2) The start and end dates and schedule, if applicable, for the economic development subsidy.
Commencing approximately July 1, 2014.
3)A description of the economic development subsidy, including the estimated total amount of
expenditure of public funds, or of revenue lost to, the local agency, as a result of the economic
development subsidy.
The proposed Operating Covenant Agreement provides for participation of revenues generated
from Pinnacle Petroleum's operations within the City with the City of Huntington Beach. The
Agreement provides that Pinnacle will retain 65% of revenues generated by Pinnacle to the City
over$25,000; payment will be made on a quarterly basis. It is estimated, based on current sales,
that Pinnacle will generate approximately $1.02 million per year to the City in revenue. Based
upon this estimate, Pinnacle is projected to receive approximately $660,000 per annum and the
City approximately $356,000 per annum.
4)A statement of the public purposes for the economic development subsidy.
To continue to expand and enhance economic opportunities for businesses in the City, continue
to expand the City's employment base, and continue to generate hereinafter defined Sales Tax
that the City can utilize to fund general governmental services such as police, fire, street
maintenance, and parks and recreation programs.
5) Projected tax revenue to the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy.
The City of Huntington Beach will receive approximately $356,000 per year in sales tax revenue.
6) Estimated number of jobs created by the economic development subsidy, broken down by full-time,
part-time and temporary positions.
The City and Pinnacle have estimated that the Agreement preserves 27 full time jobs in the City
and over the term of the Agreement, Pinnacle will generate an additional 20 to 25 full time jobs in
the City.
All interested persons are invited to attend this hearing and express opinions upon the items listed above.
The Operating Covenant Agreement is available for review at Huntington Beach City Hall from April 10,
2014 through April 21, 2014.
Any written materials to be submitted to the City Clerk at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the hearing
City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648.
Further information on these items may be obtained at the City of Huntington Beach, Attn: Kellee Fritzal,
Deputy Director Business Development, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or by telephone:
714) 374-1519.
PUBLISHED: Huntington Beach Independent April 17, 2014
POSTED AT CITY HALL AND ON CITY WEB SITE: April 7, 2014
836
CLASS IFIEDr-)' r!'(-, ,`(- ; r
ADVERprTISINGr,1-.!` ir .
Printed by:0596 Vacant Apr 7,2014,3:50 pm
0a Augeler,a1Mp_J3 Salesperson: IIOJy Angeles (lmeJy
Phone: Ad#35788191
cenmm wmemmom Account Inform tlon e rrn i Ad ....ionInformation
714)536 5511 Start date 04-10-14 Siz e. 2 x 102.430Phone#
Name: City of Huntington Beach w Stop date q 04-10-14 Billed`size' 10. 00 TCN Inch
Address: c/o Patricia Esparza Insertions 1 Keyword
f
2000 Main St Rate code &Legal Huntington Beach Ad type, Liner
Huntington Beac,CA 92648 ! j- Taken by 6716 Brittany Jackson
Acct#:, C000310791 Class:, 13000-Legal Notices Gross price:: -- —$160.00
Pubs:. TCN HBI Net price 160.00
Client:.
Placed by: Patty Esparza
Amt Due: 160.00:
i Fax#:. Note: Amount,:Due .is subject to
change. due.to-discounts, miscella-
neous fees;or other charges:
Ad Copy:
NOTICE Of PUBLIC HEARING
Pursuant to Section 53083(a)(6)(b) of the
California Government Code (AB 562), the City of
Huntington Beach shall provide public notice and
a hearing prior to granting of proposed economic
development subsidy.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of
Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing in the
Council Chambers of the Huntington Beach Civic
Center, 2000 Main Street on Monday April 21,
2014 at 6:00 p.m., unless otherwise changed by
the City Manager, to consider the following item:
Applicant:Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc.: Liz McKinley,
re` en
Project Location:7911 Professional Circle,
uAnfing-lon e6acF,-Talifornia 92648
Agreement:
Tfie—C of Huntington Beach desires to create
and retain jobs and employment within the City.
The City has the ability to implement the provisions
of AB 562,a Statewide economic development tool
passed by Governor Brown in late 2013 for the
purpose of allowing local jurisdictions to induce
economic development for the creation and
maintenance of jobs.The City of Huntington Beach
and Pinnacle Petroleum,Inc.are proposing to enter
into an agreement that encourages Pinnacle
Petroleum, Inc. to retain its headquarters and
business within Huntington Beach. The City is
proposing to provide financial assistance in the
form of an economic development subsidy to
Pinnacle Petroleum as described in the Operating
Covenant Agreement. Pursuant to Section 53083
of the California Government Code (AB 562) the
following information will be posted on the City®s
Web Site.
1) The name and address of all corporations, or
any other business entities, except for sole
proprietorships, that are the beneficiary of the
economic development subsidy,if applicable.
PINNACLE PETROLEUM, INC., a California
corporation, 7911 Professional Circle, Huntington
Beach,CA 92648
2) The start and end dates and schedule, if
applicable,for the economic development subsidy.
Commencing approximately July 1,2014.
3) A description of the economic development
subsidy, including the estimated total amount of
expenditure of public funds, or of revenue lost
to, the local agency, as a result of the economic
development subsidy.
The proposed Operating Covenant Agreement
provides for participation of revenues generated
from Pinnacle Petroleums operations within the
City with the City of Huntington Beach. The
Agreement provides that Pinnacle will retain 65%
of revenues generated by Pinnacle to the City over
25,000; payment will be made on a quarterly
basis. It is estimated,based on current sales,that
Pinnacle will generate approximately$1.02 million
ad proof pg.1 ---
837
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Pursuant to Section 53083(a)(6)(b) of the
California Government Code(AB 562),the City of
Huntington Beach shall provide public notice and
b tw f a hearing prior to granting of proposed.economic
PRfir+development subsidy.
ZOy NOTICE IS HEREBY,'GIVEN that the City of
P U B L ON Center,
Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing in the
Council Chambers of the Huntington Beach Civic.
Center, 2000 Main Street on Monday April 21,
2014 at 6:00 p.m., unless otherwise changed by
the City Manager,'to consider the following item:CIT11 Ap iiica nt:Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc.: Liz McKinley,
Pro ect Location:7911 Professional Circle, Hun-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
in' c aifornia92648 j
Agreement:Trhe_City of Huntington Beach desires to create l,
and retain jobs and,employment within the City.
SS. The City has the ability to implement the
COUNTY O F ORANGE )
Provisions 5 a Statewide economic
developmentt toolof passedd by Governor Brown in
late 2013 for the purpose of allowing local
jurisdictions to induce economic development for
the creation and maintenance of jobs.The City ofi
Huntington Beach and Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc.
am a citizen of the United States and a are proposing.to enter into an agreement thatiencouragesPinnaclePetroleum, Inc. to retain its,1
resident of the Count of Los An eles I I headquarters and business within Huntington
y g Beach.•The City is proposing to provide financial
am over the age of eighteen years and assistance in the form of economic develop-
ment subsidy to Pinnacle Petroleum as described
not a art to or interested in the notice in the Operating Covenant Agreement..PursuantpytoSection53083oftheCaliforniaGovernment
published. I am a principal clerk of the Code (AB
the
the following information will be
posted on the City s Web Site.
i
HUNTINGTON BEACH 1) The name and address of all corporations, or
any other business entities, except for soleINDEPENDENT, which was adjudged a proprietorships; that are the beneficiary of the
economic development subsidy,if applicable.
newspaper of general circulation on PINNACLE PETROLEUM,INC., a California corpo-
ration, 7911 Professional Circle, HuntingtonSeptember29, 1961, case A6214, and Beach,CA 92648
June 11 1963 case A24831 for the I2) The start and end dates and le, if
applicable, for the economic developmentment subsi-
d .
City of Huntington Beach, County of Commencingapproximately July 1,2014.
3) A description of the economic developmentOrange, and the State of California. subsidy, including the estimated total amount of
i expenditure of public funds,or of revenue lost to,Attached to this Affidavit is a true and the local agency, as a result of, the economic
development subsidy.
complete copy as was printed and The proposed Operating Covenant.Agreement
provides for participation of revenues generatedpublishedonthefollowingdates): from Pinnacle Petroleum s operations within t
City with the City of Huntington Beach. The
Agreement provides that Pinnacle will retain 65%
Thursday; April 10, 2014 of revenues generated by Pinnacle to the City
lover $25,000; payment will be made on a
quarterly basis. It is estimated, based on current
sales, that Pinnacle will generate approximately
1.02 million per year to the City in revenue.
certify (or declare) under penalty Based upon this estimate,Pinnacle'is projected to
of perjury that the foregoing is true
receive approximately $ 000 per annum and
the City approximately$35656,000 per annum.
4) A statement of the public purposes'for the
and correct. economic development subsidy.
To continue to expand and enhance economic
opportunities for businesses in the City, continue
to expand the City s employment base, a
continue to generate hereinafter defined Sales
Tax that the City can utilize to fund general.
governmental services such as police,fire, street
Executed on A ril 10th 2014 maintenance,and parks and recreation programs.p 5)Projected tax revenue to the local agency as a
result of the economic development subsidy.at Los Angeles, California The City of Huntington Beach will receive
approximately $356,000 per year in sales tax
revenue.
6) Estimated number of jobs created by the
economic development subsidy, broken down by
full-time,part-time and temporary positions. .
The City and Pinnacle have estimated that the
Agreement preserves 27 full time jobs in the City
and over the term of the Agreement,Pinnacle will
generate an additional 20 to 25 full time jobs in
the City.
S' nature All interested persons are invited to attend this
hearing and express opinions upon the items
listed above. The Operating Covenant Agreement
is available for review at Huntington Beach City
Hall from April 10,2014 through April 21,2014:
Any written materials to be submitted to the City
Clerk at least twenty-four (24)hours prior to the
hearing City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main
Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92648.
Further information on these items may ,be
obtained at the City of Huntington Beach, Attn:
Kellee Fritzal, Deputy Director Business Develop-
ment, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA
92648 or by telephone:(714)374-1519.
4/10
838
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648
714) 536-5227 www.huntingtonbeachca.gov
Office of the City Clerk
Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk
April 29, 2014
Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc.
ATTN: Liz McKinley, President
7911 Professional Circle
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Ms. McKinley:
Enclosed for your records is a copy of"Operating Covenant Agreement Between The City of
Huntington Beach and Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc.."
Sincerely,
Joan L. Flynn, CMC
City Clerk
JF:pe
Enclosure
Sister Cities: Anjo,Japan Waitakere,New Zealand
839
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1726 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Authorize and direct the City Manager to enter into the City’s standard Professional Services
Agreement with the following service providers for the Tenant Based Rental Assistance
(TBRA) Program: 1) Families Forward, 2) Interval House, and 3) Mercy House; and, approve
the Operating Guidelines
Statement of Issue:
The City provides a Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program funded by Federal HOME
Investment Partnership (HOME) funds. The contracts with the existing service providers expired on
June 30, 2020. The City Council is asked to authorize and direct the City Manager to execute the
City’s standard Professional Services Agreement with three service providers - Families Forward,
Interval House, and Mercy House - to continue the TBRA Program.
Financial Impact:
There are sufficient fund balances to cover the cost of the three agreements, including up to
$700,000 in the HOME Investment Partnership Funds (24080801.89250, 24080901.89250 and
24082700.89250), and up to $131,000 in HOME Administration Funds (24080901.69365).
Recommended Action:
A) Authorize and direct the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with
Families Forward in an amount not to exceed $313,000; and
B) Authorize and direct the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Interval
House in an amount not to exceed of $151,249; and
C) Authorize and direct the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Interval
House in an amount not to exceed of $309,079; and
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™840
File #:20-1726 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
D) Approve the Operating Guidelines (Attachment #1), which will be attached to the Professional
Services Agreement as an exhibit.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not authorize and direct the City Manager to execute the Professional Services Agreements , and
do not approve the Operating Guidelines.
Analysis:
Annually, the City is allocated HOME funds from the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). A Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program, where funds are allocated
to provide rental subsidy to individual households to afford housing costs such as rental assistance,
security and utility deposits, is an eligible expense under HOME guidelines.
The City has sponsored this program since 2015, helping hundreds of households avoid
homelessness and find housing stability. Most recently, in light of COVID-19, the need for rental
assistance has grown exponentially. In one month alone, more than 41 new households were
provided with TBRA assistance.
To continue this program, the City undertook a Request for Proposals (RFP) to seek service
providers to administer the program moving forward. In May 2020, an RFP was released. Eight (8)
service providers expressed interest and five (5) service providers submitted proposals in June 2020.
A panel of raters, consisting of a member of the Homeless Task Force, Planning Division and
Housing Division, reviewed the proposals and selected the top three candidates: Families Forward,
Interval House, and Mercy House, described in greater detail below.
Families Forward
Families Forward began its collaboration with the City in 2018. While the other two service providers
help individuals and families, Families Forward focuses on households with children. Since 2018,
Families Forward has assisted 23 households, consisting of 47 people. It is projected that Families
Forward will provide assistance to 20 homeless and/or nearly homeless families who plan to
transition into permanent housing under a Professional Services Agreement in an amount not to
exceed $313,000.
Interval House
The City implemented its first TBRA program in 2015 with Interval House. Under three contracts
since 2015, Interval House has successfully housed 75 households (155 people). Additionally, in the
month of April 2020, Interval House helped 37 new households, consisting of 86 people, which would
have been displaced due to the impacts of COVID-19 on the economy. The impacts of the pandemic
are still being felt in the community and it is anticipated that more households will need housing
assistance before year’s end. The proposed Professional Services Agreement with Interval House,
in an amount not to exceed $151,249,will potentially provide financial assistance to at least 17
eligible extremely low, very low, and low income families and households.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™841
File #:20-1726 MEETING DATE:7/6/2020
Mercy House
Mercy House has managed a TBRA contract with the City since 2016. Since that time, Mercy House
has helped 46 households, consisting of 151 people, find housing stability. The proposed
Professional Services Agreement with Mercy House, in an amount not to exceed $309,079,will
potentially provide assistance to at least 18 extremely low, very-low, and low income households.
All three service providers will work with the City’s Homeless Task Force and Police Department to
identify and target at-risk families and individuals with demonstrable ties to the City of Huntington
Beach. The goal is to meet their immediate needs and create pathways that will allow them to
quickly move into stable, self-sufficient, permanent housing.
Funding will be used to provide short to medium-term rental assistance to households who are
currently homeless,or those who have exhausted other options and would become homeless without
funding.
Environmental Status:
A level of Environmental Review was completed and the program is Categorically Excluded, Not
Subject to 58.5 per 24 CFR 58334(a) and 58.35(b) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development).
The proposed request consists of approval of agreements with service providers to provide financial
assistance to at-risk households. No physical changes to the environment would result from
approval and implementation of the agreements. As such, the request is covered by Section 15061
(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA applies only to projects which have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment,
the activity is not subject to CEQA.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain high quality City services
Attachment(s):
1. Operating Guidelines for the Tenant Rental Based Assistance (TBRA) Program
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 7/1/2020Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Oliver Chi, City Manager
Subject:
..title
Consideration of a Temporary Closure of the Second Block of Main Street to vehicular traffic
to allow restaurants to serve patrons in the public right of way.
..body
Discussion:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2020, Gov. Newsom ordered that indoor operations at restaurants cease in
response to the State’s current increase in coronavirus cases. While the City has developed a
Temporary Emergency Use Outdoor Commercial Permit program that can help alleviate pressures on
businesses looking to operate within this new State-ordered restaurant restriction, in the Downtown
area, given the physical environment, there are outdoor expansion limitations. To address this
concern, the City has been asked to consider a temporary closure of the 2nd block of Main Street
during the State’s current restaurant limitations to allow downtown restaurants the opportunity to
remain open and serve patrons outside. Under this temporary closure plan, if approved, the City
would work with businesses to develop procedures whereby business owners would be responsible
for setting-up, managing, and taking down their expansion equipment daily. The only role the City
would play in this set-up would be to facilitate the use of the City’s right-of-way to allow for outdoor
dining / seating.
Recommended Action:
..recommendation
Direct the City Manager to temporarily close the second block of Main Street in response to the
current State order prohibiting indoor restaurant service, and work with all related departments
including the City Attorney’s Office, Community Development, and the Police Department to develop
a permitting system to allow restaurants to serve patrons food in the public right-of-way.
..end